Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/15/04 PUBLIC HEARING June 15, 2004 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator COlUlty Attorney Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County COmITlissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of June 14 and June 21, 2004 (Subject to Review by theCOllrtty Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of Payroll for June 24, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Grant from the Colorado River Water Conservation District for $15,000 for the Neilson Pump LineDitch Intake Structure Project Phillip Bowman, Engineering D. Encroachment Easement Agreement between Eagle County and Edwards Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Ltd. Phillip Bowman, Engineering E. Resolution 2004-064 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Diane H. Mauriello, Co~ty Attorney, Walter Mathews, N, Deputy County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County 1\.t1;()llley, and))eb1?ieFaber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Att()rney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 7835493..6001 in the amount of $63,684.03 for the account of Jason Segal, David Broecker and Adriann Van't Hoff for Valley View Homes Subdivision drawn on Vectra Bank Colorado and expiring on June 30, 2004. COlUlty Attorney's Office Representative F. Annual Sanitarian's Contract between the State of Colorado, Department of Public Health & Environment, Consumer Protection Division and Eagle County, Environmental Health Department to Conduct Food Safety Program Ray Merry, Environmental Health G. Change Order #5 to the Contract for the Miller Ranch RoadlHighway 6 Improvements Justin Hildreth, Engineering H. Resolution 2004-065 Adopting a Second Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2004 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies Michael Roeper, Finance 1. Consolidated Cost Allocation Plan Michael Roeper, Finance J. Electrical Service Upgrade by Holy Cross for WECMRD Facilities at the Fairgrounds Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management 6/15/04 1 K. Resolution 2004-066 Approving Bair Ranch Closing Documents and Agreements and Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Bair Ranch Conservation Easement Purchase County Attorney's Office Representative L. Resolution 2004-067 Concerning an Appointment to the Minturn Cemetery District Board of Directors COlUlty Attorney's Office Representative M. Air Service Agreement between Eagle County and American Airlines County Attorney's Office Representative N. Agreement Regarding Provision of Architectural Services for Eagle County Regarding Freedom Park Memorial and Bandstand County Attorney's Office Representative O. Resolution 2004-068 concerning Town of Red Cliff Representation to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Harry Taylor, ECRTA Chai111lan Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes or amendments to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated that there are a few amendments. She understands that the board wants to pull item K for separate discussion, which is the resolution approving Bair Ranch closing documents. Also - item M the Air Service Agreement is not yet completed and needs to be re- scheduled. Item N is an agreement regarding provision of architectural services and should also be dealt with separately and with a separate motion. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda items A-O, deleting item Nand considering items M and K. -Commissioner Stone stated that the board would consider K and N separately and item M would he deleted. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. K. Resolution 2004-066 Approving Bair Ranch Closing Documents and Agreements and Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Bair Ranch . Conservation Easement. Purchase L. Commissioner Gallagher asked Diane Mauriello if the resolution included all of the conditions requested. Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney, info111led the board that the resolution did indeed include all of the conditions and that the county attorney's office had reviewed all documents. He listed all conditions and confirmed that these conditions had been met. Commissioner Menconi moved that the board approve Resolution 2004-066 approving the Bait Ranch closing documents and agreements and authorizing any of the Eagle County commissioners to execute all documents necessary to affectuate the closing of the Bair Ranch Conservation Easement purchase. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. N. Agreement Regarding Provision of Architectural Services for Eagle County Regarding Freedom Park Memorial and Bandstand County Attorney's Office Representative Bryan Treu highlighted several changes in the total cost of this agreement. He stated that the original agreement included a payment of up to $15,000. That excluded expenses which would range from $200 to $1000. The change in the new agreement puts in expenses up to $1000.00. He didn't 6/15/04 2 understand at the time that only $15,000 was budgeted. He suggested the board authorize any of the commissioners to sign the agreement upon proper budgeting approval. Connnissioner Gallagher moved to authorize the chairman to sign the agreement regarding provision of architectural services for Eagle County Freedom Park Memorial and Bandstand upon resolution of the not to exceed $1000.00 expense fund. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Plat and Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, County Planner, stated that there were no plats or resolutions to be signed. Planning Files 1041..0053, Heritage Park pun 1041 Chairman Stone stated that there are two companion files, one being the Heritage Park PUD 1041 and the other being PDP 26 and ZC 65 Heritage Park. Cliff Simonton, Pla11her, presented file number 1041-0053. Staff findings are as Follows and as shown on staff reports: This 1041 application is for the extension of existing water and sewer lines to serve a proposed development of twenty four (24) residential units on 11.4 acres located south of Allen Circle in the community of Edwards. The single-family lots would be arranged in a horseshoe shape on an elevated bench that extends north of Allen Circle, and would range in size from 9200 to 18,000 square feet. . While the property is surrounded by the Homestead Planned Unit Development, it is not a part of the PUD, and incorporation ofthe property is not contemplated at this time. The development would instead exist as a separate PUD with its own set of design guidelines, and its own homeowners association. Access would be via a new road utilizing an existing platted tract connecting the subject parcel to Allen Circle. The property is within the Edwards Metropolitan District service area, and domestic lines will be extended to serve the project. Reference the letter of March 16, 2004, from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (attached) construction plans for the sewer have been approved, and so long as the lines installed meet established standards, the District will operate and maintain the syst~lIl. As presently designed, the lines will gravity flow into existing sewer lines owned and operated by the District that are located to the south (in Allen Circle). Regarding sewer service, two of the lots, Lot 7 and Lot 8 have been located in such a way that grinder pumps will be required to transport waste water from a future home to the sewer line located in the street. The lots on either side, Lot 6 and Lot 9, would require grinder pumps for any wastewater generated below ground level (i.e., a basement). Operation and maintenance of these grinder pump systems, from the home to the street, would be the responsibility of the individual homeowners. Water service is also proposed to be obtained from the Edwards Metropolitan District. A letter from the District has been submitted that indicates the availability of water for the project. (March 5,2004). This 1041 proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies and homeowner's associations for review and comment. Eagle COlUlty Engineering Eagle County Attorney's Office Eagle County Environmental Health Eagle River Water and Sanitation Eagle County Planning Commission 6/15/04 3 Northwest Colorado Council of Gov. Homestead Homeowners Association Edwards Metropolitan District Colorado Health Department As of the writing of this report, the following agencies had responded (see attached copies): Eagle County Engineering: Memo of February 2, 2004 . The "Detention Analysis" and "Erosion and Water Quality Control" section ofthe Drainage Study do not include sufficient detail. . A maintenance plan for the proposed storm sewer system and the storm water detention pond is required. . Water line alignments should be revised to accommodate future maintenance without disturbing the curb and gutter. . Sanitary sewer alignments should be revised to accommodate future maintenance without disturbing the curb and gutter. . Sanitary sewer line depths should be increased to provide service to lots 19 and 20. . Responsibility for grinder pump operations and maintenance on select lots should be identified. . A note is needed indicating the need to clean the storm water detention pond during construction, and to return the pond to its original condition after construction has been completed. . Access to the stOrm water detention pond for the purpose of long term maintenance needs to be indicated on the plan. Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (and Edwards Metropolitan District) (Letter from James P. Collins, Counsel to UERWA and EMD, dated January 29, 2004) . Unless and llrttil the Water Service Agreement is executed by the Applicant, and full pa)'ment of the cash in lieu of water rights fee is paid, the District and the Authority will not issue an Availability of Water Service Letter. Second Letter dated March 5, 2004 . Conditions of the water service agreement have been met, and the Edwards Metropolitan District and the Upper Regional Water Authority will provide water service to the property. Eagle River Water and Sanitation Oetter of January 7,2004) . Upon compliance with the rules and regulations, and payment of appropriate tap fees, the District will provide domestic sewer service to the Heritage Park Development . The district has the capacity to treat the sewage at the Edwards Wastewater Treatment Plant Second letter dated March 16, 2004 . Construction Plan Approval (for the sewer) has been granted . It is assumed that plans submitted will reflect requirements stated in the District specifications Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCCOG (January, 2003) . In general the plan meets the policies and recommendations of the 208 Plan. . Disturbance of more than one acre will require the Applicant to obtain a CDPES discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Health. . A maintenance plan is required for the storm water system and the storm water detention basin. . Phasing should provide for construction of the storm water detention basin early in the program in order to provide protection from runoff once the site has been cleared. . The temporary stabilization of areas exposed during construction should be included in the final erosion control plan submitted to Eagle County. State of Colorado, Water Quality Control Division (January 29, 2004) 6/15/04 4 . The use of Edward's water and waste water systems is acceptable and preferred for subdivisions of this type. . If more than one acre is disturbed, the project will need a storm water construction permit issued by the State. . If construction dewatering is necessary that discharges to waters of the State, a construction dewatering permit will be required. Eagle County Planning Commission (Verbal response at work session of March 3, 2004) . Expressed a concern for the fact that the sewer system, as planned, dOes not meet design criteria of service district, that it would be privately owned and maintained, that the owners would need to pay an additional assessment for the maintenance, and that the owners might be subject to a significant assessment in the event that the system would fail. Stajj\vould note that in the time since the Planning Commission commented on the plan, the sewer system construction plans have been approved by ERWSD. The system is no longer proposed to be privately owned and maintained. . Were concerned with the potential impact to visual quality, the fact that the site is elevated, visible from the interstate corridor, and that development would be visible as a "ridgeline element" from adjacent lands east, north and west of the site. . Relative to land use patterns, noted a preference for lower density, a density closer to the over all density of the Homestead subdivision. . Did not see any benefit to the commlUlity at large. Stated that the project would benefit only the developer, and did not believe that benefits from the project outweighed the loss of the natural and recreational resources of the subject property. 3. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Eagle COlUlty Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application for the McCoy Springs 1041, the following analysis is provided. Note: The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. The Applicant's response to each criteria is summarized in standard text. Staffs comment and/or response is summarized in italicized text. The resultant recommendation is indicated in the findings box. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, perlllits and approvals are obtained. The final plat for this subdivision, which will create easements and right of ways for construction and maintenance of water and sewer lines, will be approved and filed prior to any site disturbance. The property is owned by the Applicant. Referral responses from Eagle County Engineering, 02/02/04, and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, 01/29/04, and NWCCOG, 01/29/04, indicate a needfor a CPDES (Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit, and the applicant has noted in submitted material that a permit will be obtained prior to site disturbance (see condition #1). 6/15/04 5 The Applicant has secured an Availability of Water Service letter from the Edwards Metropolitan District (March 5, 2004), and approval of construction drawings for the proposed sanita sewer rom the Ea Ie River Water and Sanitation District March 16, 2004 . [+] FINDING: (1) Riflhts.Permits and Approvals The Applicant HAS provided the necessary documentation to assure that all necessary property rights, permits and approvals will be in place prior to site disturbance. (2) The project will not impair property rights held by others. The applicant owns the property proposed for development. All utility extensions will take place in dedicated easements and right-of-ways. The development ofthe property follows the development pattern anticipated when neighboring properties were developed, and is consistent with applicable future land use maps. The proposed improvements will occur on property owned by Heritage Park Building and Development, Inc. within easements dedicated to local service providers for utilities and infrastructure. Water for the new development is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District, which has available potable water through ~isting rights and augmentation plans. Upon acceptance offacilities constructed by the applicant, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District will operate and maintain the domestic sewer system for the project. ERWSD District has existing treatment capacity at the Edwards Sewer Treatment Plant. [+] FINDING: (2) Properlv riflhts of others As proposed, the project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. The project is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan. The future land use maps of both these plans show the property as appropriate for medium density suburban development, and the plan conforms to master plan policies related to layout and design. The proposal is also consistent with the policies and goals of the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan. Best management practices will be incorporated to minimize environmental impacts. The Planning Commissionfound the project in non-compliance with the Edwards Community Plan, which projected medium density for this parcel "only if all relevant standards for development were adhered to". The Commission determined that lacking dual access to the site, the project should only be allowed 12 units, and not 24. Not withstanding the above, the project is consistent with applicable provisions of Eagle County Master Plans. In April of 2003, the Board of County Commissioners granted a variance from improvement standards allowing one point of access. As identified in the referral response from NWCCOG dated 01/29/04, the project is generally in conformance with all policies of the Regional 208 Plan, and the Applicant has acknowledged the need to comply with the same (see conditions # I and # 2). [+] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with plans The project IS consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. 6/15/04 6 (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions~ The Applicant has assembled a group of experienced planners, engineers, landscape architects and real estate professionals to plan and develop this project. All improvements will be paid for by the Developer, with public improvements secured through a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA). [+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capabilitv The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. (5) The Project is techllically and financially feasible. DLD Engineering has prepared the engineering design for the project, and has determined the project is technically feasible as indicated by submitted engineering studies and plans. The Applicant has studied the costs of installing water and sewer lines and has determined the ro"ect finanCiall feasible for the ro osed 24 lots. [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazard. The site has been evaluated by DLD Engineering, Watershed Environmental Group and H.P. Geotechnical, Inc. No geologic risks or natural hazards of significance have been identified. In their referral responsefor the proposed Preliminary Plan, PDP-00026 (02/02/04), the Colorado Geological Survey identified steep slopes and differential settling as primary concerns, and recommended sub-surface investigations for each building site and positive drainage awayfrom each structure. Eagle County Wildfire Maps indicate a moderate wildfire risk on the flatter portions of the property, surrounded by high risk on the steeper slopes. Wildfire hazards will be generally mitigated through the paving of roads, burying of utilities, the installation of fire hydrants, and the creation of defensible space. All development will be in accordance with Eagle County Wild lre Re lations. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk (rom Hazards As proposed and mitigated, the project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natural hazard. (7) The project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The project is an in-fill development that complies with local master plans. The project will result in 24 single family homes on 11 acresofland, which is less dense than existing clusters of development within the Homestead Planned Unit Development to the north, south, and east. The proposed units will be designed to be similar in appearance and quality to the developed areas adjacent to the subject property. The Eagle County Planning Commission, in their referral comments of March 3, 2004, expressed concern for the proposed density given the single point of access, and determined that a less dense project would be desirable. 6/15/04 7 In April of 2003, the Board of County Commissioners granted a variance from improvement standards allowing one point of access. While it is always possible that development on one parcel could trigger similar developments on adjacent properties, it would not appear that this project, in and of itself, will influence any significantly adverse land use patterns in the Edwards area. [+] FINDING: (7) Land use Patterns The project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on land use pa.tterns. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability oflocal governments affected by the project to provide services, Or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. All utilities and road systems will be financed and constructed by the developer. Both drinking water and wastewater treatment plants that will serve the development have been recently expanded and have the capacity to serve. . Taxes and fees collected from the proposed new homes will help to retite the debt incurred to construct these expansions. Local governments providing service should be minimally impacted by the proposed development. All service line extensions and utilities will be paid for by the Developer. Once completed, new roads are proposed to be dedicated to the public and maintained by Eagle County. The subject property is within the Edwards Metropolitan District, and will be served by Edwards Metropolitan district water lines, and sewer lines maintained by Eagle River Water and Sanitation. [+] FINDING: (8) Service capacities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the capability oflocal governments affected by the project to provide services, NOR WILL it exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. The Applicant will be paying for the design and construction of all new water and sewer lines. The Edwards Metropolitan District fee structure and tax levy have been structured to have development pay its own way. This project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of Eagle County. Asproposed, and assuming the acceptance by ERWSD of the sewer linesfor the project, Heritage Park should not create an undue financial burden on the future residents of Eagle County. [+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden The operation and maintenance of a private sewer system WILL NOT create an undue financial burden on future residents. (10) The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. This is a residential project which should assist in the economic development of Eagle County by providing a source of housing for middle management and business owners. 6/15/04 8 The proposed development should generate more revenue for the economy in the form of employment and taxes. Construction equipment and materials will likely be contracted and/or purchased locally. Owners of the new homes are expected to have above average incomes, and could be expected to contribute to the local economy accordinflly. [+] FINDING: (lQ)Protectioll of Local Economv The project WILL NOT significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. The property does not contain nor is it scheduled to contain recreational amenities. The plan does include open space areas that would be available to residents of the neighborhood. In their referral response of March 3rd, the Eagle County Planning Commission noted that the proposed project would benefit only the developer, and did not believe that benefits from the development outweighed the loss of the natural and recreational resources of the subject property. Aside from its characteristics as natural open space, the property at this time does not appear to support any significant recreational use. In addition, the proposed development would not diminish or revent the use 0 other recreational sites or 0 ortunities in the Edwards area. [+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. (12) The plan:ttilig, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy elfici~ncy and recycling or reuse. The Heritage Park Planned Unit Development is being developed in a manner that promotes resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling. The landscape plan and design guidelines encoura.ge water conservation through limiting lawn areas, requiring drought tolerant vegetation and water conserving irrigation. Design guidelines also encourage energy efficient windows and doors, and solar orientation in the positioning of homes. Resource conservation techniques will be used on the project, as outlined in Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Uniform Building Code and the Eagle County Building Code. In addition, the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority has implemented a Water Conservation Plan designed to encourage increased efficiency in water use. This plan will be followed where a licable to this 1'0 'ect. (+) FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation The planning, design and operation of the Project SHALL reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Best Management practices will be followed to minimize fugitive dust. The proposed project is not expected to cause any adverse long term effect on ambient air quality. Some short term impacts may result during construction. Less than 25 acres will be 6/15/04 9 disturbed, and as such the project is exempt from having to apply for an air pollution emission notice. No wood burning devises will be allowed, and only new technology pellet and gas stoves will be allowed per Eagle county Standards. Increases in heating and vehicle emissions rom the ro osed develo ment is ex ected to be ne Ii ible [+] FINDING: (13) Air Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air uali . (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The Planned Unit Development Guide and design guidelines will ensure that this residential development blends into the existing landscape through the use of similar colors, materials and forms. As noted by the Planning Commission, the project is proposed for an elevated site that is highly visible from adjacent roads, residential properties and from the more distant Interstate 70 corridor to the north. The site is elevated above properties that surround it to the north, east and west. When viewed from these vantage points, the proposed development will be silhouetted on the skyline. Depending on ones' perspective, the subject property is no more visually prominent than many of the existing developments in the surrounding Homestead PUD. The anticipated visual impacts are not uncommon in developed mountainous terrain, and the Applicant's attempts to use neutral colors, limit structure height and to require roof forms to follow the contours of the land should helvmitiflate this concern. [+] FINDING: (14) VisualOualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade existing visual quality. (15) The Project will not Significantly degrade surface water quality. A Storm Water Management Plan will be prepared and approved by Eagle County prior to site disturbance. Both temporary and permanent erosion control measures have been submitted to assure minimal impact. The referral responses from Eagle County Engineering, 02/02/04, and NWCCOG, 01/29/04; identified a number of deficiencies related to drainage, erosion control and storm water detention and maintenance. The applicant has agreed to address all listed concerns prior to any disturbance on the site (see condition # 2). [+] FINDING: (15) Surface Water Oualitv The project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface water quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade ground water quality. The Planned Unit Development limits uses to single family dwellings that will be served by domestic sewer lines. The plan requires prompt revegetation of disturbed soils. This project will not significantly degrade ground water quality. The subject property does not contain any live drainages, riparian areas, or ground water recharge areas, and the project should not introduce contaminants into the local ground water supply. 6/15/04 10 [+] FINDING: (16) Ground Water Quality The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground water quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. The environmental inventory indicated that there are no wetlands or riparian areas located on this ro e [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and Rioarian Areas As conditioned, the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. Wildlife maps prepared by the Colorado Division of Wildlife show that this property does not include wildlife habitat that needs protection. [+] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or Aquatic Animal life The Project as proposed WILL NOT significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. The inventory of plant life prepared by Watershed Environmental Consultants does not identify any endangered or protected species on the property. Approximately 2 acres ofland will remain as undisturbed natural vegetation. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial Plant Life The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. The geotechnical study prepared by Hepworth Pawlak concluded that the project as designed could be constructed without any degradation of the underlying soils or geologic conditions. The referral response from CGS submitted pursuant tofile PDP-00026 identified nothing that would reclude develo ment 0 the site as lanned. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and Geoloeic Conditions The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. (21) The project will not create a nuisance. Several plans and mitigations are proposed to ensure that this development will not create a nuisance. These plans include the control of domestic pets, prohibition of wood burning devices, erosion control, revegetation requirements and limiting hours of operation for large truck deliveries during construction. If constructed to established standards, the proposed public sewer will operated and maintained by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. However, two (2) of the proposed lots will require the use of individual grinder pump systems to deliver household waste to the domestic sewer lines located in the street. Two other lots will require grinder 6/15/04 11 pumps for waste water generated below ground level (i.e. a basement). The operation and maintenance of these grinder pumps would be the responsibility of the individual home owner. Reference submitted information, these grinder pumps come equipped with wet well holding capacities of either 75 or 150 gallons. If the average daily production of wastewater from a single family home is 300 gallons, these wet wells would hold either 25% or 50% of the daily expected outflow. This may not provide adequate protection from overflow in the event of a pump or electrical system failure. Since these grinder pump units are typically located outside the foundation of the dwelling unit, there is a concern for release to the environment, and otential im actsto ublic health. [+/-] FINDING: (21) Nllisance While most nuisance items can be effectively mitigated for this project, the requirement for individually owned and maintained grinder pumps to convey waste water on four of the proposed lots MAY result in a release of waste water to the environment, and a hazard to public health. (22) The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. The project area is not identified as having any paleontological, historic or archaeological features. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontoloeical. Historic or Archaeoloeical areas The project WILL NOT significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. As a residential development there will not be any significant storage or use of hazardous materials on the property. During constrUction, all necessary plans Or permits will be in place to assure that an fuel or construction materials are handled ro erl . [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous Materials The project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. (23) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. The subject property is not prime agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial or natural resource land. As a vacant parcel, it could be argued that there is some marginal natural value to the property. Four acres of open space will be maintained. The proposed residential use of the property by the people who will live and work in Eagle County will outweigh the loss of any value the property may possess as a natural resource. In there referral response of March 3rd, the Planning Commission disagreed with the position taken by the Applicant, stating that proposed project would benefit only the developer, and that benefits from the development did not outweigh the loss of the natural and recreational resources of the subject property. Not withstanding the above, the property does not seem to contain any outstanding or unique natural resources, and has little potential as a site where agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources might be developed. 6/15/04 12 [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits Outweigh Losses The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the project DO outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of 0 ortunities to develop such resources. Pursuant to Eagle COlUlty Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Pro;ects, and as more specifically described in the application for the Cordillera Southern Parcel Water Tatlk, the following additional analysis is provided. 1. The project shall eIllphasizethe most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. The project is included i:Qthe Upper Eagle Valley Water Authority service area, and will be served by a central water facility. The Authority recently implemented a Water Conservation Plan, which will be followed where applicable. Water use will be metered, and low flow fixtures and toilets will be used as required by local codes. Exterior landscaping will utilize xeriscape techniaues, and irril:!:ation will be limited. [+] FINDING: (1) Efficient Use The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. o. The Project shall not result iil excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The proj ect is included irithe service area of existing central water and wastewater facilities, and will utilize extensions frOm existing lines located nearby. No other Water systems will serve the affected area. [+] FINDING: (2) ExcessCaoacitv/Duolicate Services The Project SHALL NOT result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate semces. . 3. The Project shall be neceSsary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The project will be located on the highpoint of a hill surrounded on three sides by steep terrain and on the fourth side by existing development. Lines will be sized appropriately for the density proposed, and no additional density is anticipated that would require additional water and sewer service via the lines ro osed for this ro'ect. [+] FINDING: (3) Necessitv The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. 4. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas The project is not indicated to be in an active aquifer recharge area. Sanitation will be accomplished through connection to a domestic treatment system. Storm water will be directed to an on-site storage pond designed to retain and clean runoff from the site. 6/15/04 13 [+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer RecharI!e Areas Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems SHALL BE accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. Special Use Permit Waiver In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision of the Eagle COlUlty Land Use Regulations, "the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon awritkn petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.I.2.a. A pe111lit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Pe111lit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.I.2.b Compliance with the Special Review Use permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Pe111lit requirements, as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. If the Applicant can adequately address issues pertaining to the potential for a public nuisance associated with the use of grinder pumps at four of the proposed homes to the satisfaction of the Pe111lit Authority then Staff would recommend the following motion: Joe Forinash, County Planner, gave a slide show presentation, highlighting the' location and views ofthe proposed sight. Cliff Simonton, County Planner, presented information related to the 1041 permit. He showed the board the lots that would require grinder pumps. These systems are typically located in a wet well and gave some specifications for these wells. He highlighted potential problems with these types of wells and detailed some possible solutions. Staff recommends conditional approval. Terrell Knight, KnightPlanning Services, spoke to the board. He introduced Tom Boni and Mike Sheldon, David Despot and David Leahy and Steve MacDonald. Jim Guida, the developer was also present. Jim Guida, Eagle COlUlty resident and local builder and contractor, spoke to the board and expressed that he was pleased to present the project for preliminary approval. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, spoke about the 1041 application. He informed the board that he had contacted Holy Cross Electric to dete111line the likelihood of a power outage in the Homestead pun. He was told that during 2003 the maximum period that the power was off was 2 hours. "That said, the applicant is in favor of using the larger wells" said Mr. Boni. Chairman Stone asked for public comments on the 1041 file only. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Gallagher commented that eventually water will control Eagle County growth. He clarified that even though there are letters committing to serve this site with water, the providers are committing based on average yield, and the last few years have shown that these numbers will need to be changed and be based on proven yield. Chairman Stone added that since the developer had offered to enlarge the wet wells, and since there is also the possibility for grinder pump failures, he asked for information about the type of part that might wear out. Chris Gelden, representing E-l, spoke to the board about the grinder pumps. He told the board that the part that wears out is a rotating part inside the grinder pump and these are stocked across the state. 6/15/04 14 Chairman Stone asked that the conditions be added to the appropriate PUD file. Commissioner Gallagher moved that the permit authority approve file No. 1041-0053, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review and incorporating Staffs findings, with the following conditions: O. That, reference referral responses from Eagle County Engineering, 02/02/04, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, 01/29/04, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, 01/29/04, a CPDES (Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit shall be obtained prior to any disturbance on the site. O. That all issues related to site drainage, erosion control and storm water detention and system maintenance, as identified in the referral responsefrom Eagle County Engineering (02/02/04)and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, (01/29/04) be fully addressed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to any disturbance on the site. O. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. The vote passed by a two to one vote with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Gallagher voting in favor and Commissioner Menconi voting against the motion. PDP-00026 & ZC-00065 Heritage Park Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00026 & ZC-00065 Heritage Park. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff reports: STAFF. RECOMMENDATIONS: Zone Change: Approval PUD Preliminary Plan: Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Zone Change: Denial (7-0 vote) PUD Preliminary Plan: Denial (7-0 vote) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: . Edwards Area Community Plan . Extent to which factors such as infrastructure, transportation, existing development patterns, topography, and environment were considers with respect to the future land used designation for the subject parcel . Contemplates conformance with Land Use Regulations, e.g., two points of access . Art advisory document . Proposed density - impact on neighborhood . Access . Clarification of purpose of Tract B . How was width of 50 feet for Ttact B established? . Is access through Tract B too limited for 24 homes? . Is Allen Circle adequate for the additional traffic? . Sanitary sewer line . To be owned and maintained by Home Owners Association (HOA) . To be extended to Allen Circle rather than through open space to the northeast . Need for more specific requirements in PUD Guide . Anticipated costs and necessary HOA reserve to cover costs . Water service 6/15/04 15 . Whether a copy of the Water Service Agreement is available . Detention pond - designed in conformance with Land Use Regulations . Building height . Some buildings will seem particularly tall because they will sit above surrounding lots . Open to reducing maximum height of buildings? . Whether :revised definition of building height in the revised Architectural Design Guidelines is consistent with that in the Land Use Regulations . Visibility from 1-70 . Likely cost of homes . Anticipated deed restrictions - limiting sales to local residents . Energy efficiency of homes - open to Green Build certification? . Affordable housing ~ cash in lieu payment . Inclusion of "home occupation" in the revised PUD Guide . Response to issues raised by Colorado Geological Survey - modifying building envelopes . Fences - reducing maximum height to 42 inches . Sidewalk on Allen Circle - is it a requirement of sketch plan approval of variance approval? . Snow removal on Allen Circle - anything proposed beyond normal snow removal? . Maintenance of sanitary sewer, storm sewer and open space . Heavy vehicle access . Community need ~ whether need has been demonstrated? . Closer ties with Homestead - have they been investigated? 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: An appliCation for a zone change from Resource to PUD and a PUD Prelimina.ry Plan for 24 single family lots and a common open space tract on 11.473 acres adjacent to Homestead Filings 1 and 3. The subject property abuts the Homestead PUD on the north, south and east sides. The Green Ranch PUD is adjacent to the west. Internal roads are to be dedicated to the public. The sanitary sewer system will be maintained as a private system. Individual grinder pumps will be necessary on four ofthe lots on the northeast corner of the site. Potable water will be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District. As of this writing, a Water Service Agreement has apparently been executed between the Applicant and the Edwards Metropolitan District, but an "Ability to Serve Letter" has not been issued pending payment of $155,000 to the District. [Revised 9 March 2004.] B. CHRONOLOGY: 1980 - Exemption Plat approved by Board of County Commissioners for the Hollis Allen Parcel, a 10.37 acre parcel in the Resource (R) zone district. 2002 - PUD Sketch Plan for Heritage Park approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2003 - Variance from Improvement Standards approved by the Board of County Commissioners to allow only one point of ingress and egress to the subdivision. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses! Zoning: East: West: North: South: Existing Zoning: Residential! PUD Residential! PUD Residential! PUD Residential / PUD Resource 6/15/04 16 Proposed Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: GroSs Density: Minimum Lot Area: Maximu.m Lot Area: Percent Usable Open Space: Water: Sewer: Access: Planned Unit Development (PUD) 24 11.4 73 acres 2.1 units per acre 0.203 acres 0.367 acres 25 percent Edwards Metro District Eagle River Sanitation District Homestead Filing 1, Tract B, Allen Circle 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department Merno dated 29 January 2004 . Various comments with respect to: Drainage Study, Allen Circle Conceptual Sidewalk Plan, Road Plans, Overall Grading Plans, Water Plans, Sanitary Sewer Plans, St0111l Sewer Plans, Shallow Utility Plans, Signage and Striping Plan, Drainage and Erosion Plan, Stormwater Detention PoridPlan, Landscape Plan, Preliminary Plat Document, Traffic Report, and Geotechnical :Report. [See attached Memo dated 29 January 2004.] Memo dated 9 March 2004 . The Engineering Department has received numerous materials and information in response to the earlier engineering comments. It has been agreed with the applicant that mOst of the engineering cormhents will be addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer with the preparation of the Final Plat and Construction Plans with certain exceptions related to detailed plans for the sidewalk along Allen Circle, estimated costs and maintenance responsibilities for all private utilities, and the long term stability of fill material placed around the detention pond. [See attached Memo dated 9 March 2004.] Eagle County Road & Bridge Department . Would like to see islands removed from cul-de-sacs, for easier maintenance. . MOre snow storage is needed behind the sidewalks. . Who is responsible for storm drain maintenance outside of ROW? . Are the sidewalks maintained by HOA? . Would like to see identification of the "snow storage areas". . Would like to see the trees planted behind the sidewalk increased to a 10 feet minimum, instead of 6 feet. . There is a vegetation management plan, but no mention of noxious weeds, and a control plan for them. · What are the improvements to Allen Circle, since they will be increasing traffic? . Does the proposed drainage plan direct drainage across Edwards Village Boulevard or Lake Creek Road? Eagle County Weed and Pest Control (Memo from Steve Elzinga dated 13 January 2004) . Suggests a provision in PUD Guide and/or Covenants such as "No County listed noxious weeds shall be permitted to infest private lots and/or common areas". . To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, specifically diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), topsoil should not be removed from the site, including topsoil that ends up contaminating construction equipment. 6/15/04 17 . Weed and Pest Staff requests permission to enter the site during normal business hours within the growing season (mid-April- mid-September) to inspect for noxious weed infestations. . Requests that during construction/earthmoving activities no County listed noxious weed be permitted to produce seed, and that the presence of any County listed noxious weed would require the property owner or developer to implement weed control activities. . Weed management guidelines within the Landscape Plan (Exhibit P) seem appropriate. If this proposed construction and chemical control does not occur during the 2004 growing season, the property owner will be in violation ofthe "Colorado Noxious Weed Act" and the "Amended Weed Management Plan for Unincorporated Eagle County". The property owner is responsible for implementing weed management activities. . The seed mixes listed in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit P) are erroneously called native seed mixes, since the component species are mostly non-indigenous plants. The use of true Colorado native grasses is encouraged but not required. Establishment of a drought tolerant perennial grass cover in the "natural areas" will complement any other weed management efforts. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The drainage in the northeastern portion of the plan between lots 7 and 8 is a major chimney feature. The plan addresses this with the construction of a detention pond in this drainage. This hazard has been sufficiently mitigated. . The northern portion of the parcel, abutting lots 9, 10 and 11, has a slope that reaches near 30%. A maintained lawn between the houses and the native vegetation will sufficiently mitigate this area. . The proposed addition of a fire fighting water supply into the subdivision will significantly lower the subdivision. This system should be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. . As with all wildfire mitigation improvements, maintenance will be a key concern. The areas of vegetation management should be monitored and maintained as conditions change. ECO Trails . The trails that are planned are great. They will get used. . The only question is maintenance and ownership - should be pinned down. Eagle County Sheriff . Recommends traffic calming such as speed bumps, stop signs, etc. Ea.gle County Housing Department . Heritage Park needs to provide three employee housing units. All three units could be low income units, or a mix of two low income units and one moderate income unit, according to the spreadsheet provided. . If the Heritage Park developer elects to make a payment in lieu of building the three required lUlits, thatpayrnent would be $77,527.44. . The payment in lieu represents the difference between prevailing market prices and the Maximum Purchase Price for the targeted income group as set forth in 2004 Payment in Lieu Calculations and Requirement Under the Proposed Local Resident Housing Guidelines. [Revised 26 March 2004] Eagle County School District . The proposed preliminary plan includes 24 single-family units, which would result in a dedication requirement to 0.36 acres. . As the land dedication is minimal, the District will accept the cash in lieu. Eagle River Fire Protection District . It is the District's understanding that the roads are proposed to meet County standards for width, grade and shoulder. 6/15/04 18 . The project has been reviewed for turning radii based on the fire department's Pierce Quantum turning performance analysis and is acceptable. . Eagle River Water & Sanitation has been identified as providing services and the water system will be installed to their minimums. Edwards Metropolitan District & Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Letter from Collins Coekrel & Cole dated 29 January 2004 . Unless and until the Water Service Agreement is executed by the Applicants sometime in the very near future, and full payment of the cash in lieu of water rights fee is paid, the District and the Authority will not issue an Availability of Water Service Letter. Edwards Metropolitan District Letter dated 3 Mareh 2004 . A fully executed water service agreement has been transmitted to Mr. Jim Guida. . The remaining condition of payment of$155,000 must be completed prior to the issuance of the Ability to Serve Letter. Letter dated 5 March 2004 . Edwards Metro Distri~t and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority have entered into a Water Service Agreement with Heritage Building and Development for the proVision of water service to the Heritage Park property. That Agreement has a contingency that water service would not be provided unless certain conditions were met. . As of5 March 2004, the conditions of the Water Service Agreement have been met, and the Edwards Metro District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority will provide water service to the property in accordance with the terms of that Water Service Agreement (copy enclosed). Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Letter dated 19 Jafluary2004 . The project has been included into the boundaries of the Edwards Metropolitan District and the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. . At this time, a Water Services Agreement has not been executed between the District and the developer. . The District understands that the developer will be paying cash in lieu of the conveyance of water rights. . Preliminary submittal of construction drawings for water and sewer has been made to the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The drawings have not yet been approved for construction. Letter dated 7 January 2004 . The District has excess capacity and will provide domestic sewer service to this development. Letterdated 16 March 2004 to Jim Guida . Construction Plan Approval has been granted for the Heritage Park Project. . Construction of all water and sewer lines must be in accordance with the District standard specifications. Deviations must be approved in writing. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . A CPDES (Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for stormwater control on a construction site is required from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In general, a detailed erosion control plan that meets both CPDES and Eagle County requirements needs to be developed and implemented. . Regarding the detention basin, some form of a maintenance program should be established to clean out trash and deposited material in the filter bed. Over time, it will probably be necessary to remove and replace the top layer of sand to maintain system performance as designed and prevent clogging. It should be clear who is responsible for monitoring and maintaining this feature. 6/15/04 19 . The detention pond should be one of the first features installed during site development in order to provide protection from sediment associated with the clearing of the site. . For the remainder of the developed site that does not drain to the detention basin, treatment by infiltration in the grass lined ditches should be adequate. . The only outstanding issue from the NWCCOG December 2001 comments is that of temporary stabilization of exposed areas during construction. That should be addressed in the final erosion control plan submitted to Eagle County. Colorado State Forest Service . CSFS has given the site a wildfire hazard rating oflow, which means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . Even with this low rating, CSFS suggests that Eagle County consider dual access into the development for additional safety. . CSFS also recommends that vegetation be removed or mowed within 30 feet of all homes. Colorado Geologicnl Survey . Majority of proposed lots 11, 19 and 20, and the northwest corner of Lot 21 contain moderately steep slopes of 20 to 30 percent. It would be prudent to reduce the size of the building envelopes on these lots to exclude areas containing slopes steeper than 25 percent. . CGS agrees with HP Geotech that cut and fill depths should be limited to 10 feet to reduce the risk of construction-induced slope instability. . Fills should be benched into slopes steeper than 20 percent. . Due to soil conditions, a design~level subsurface investigation will be needed at each building site to characterize soil engineering properties such as clay thickness, density, consolidation potential, bearing capacity and soil corrosivity. This information is needed to determine maximum bearing and minimum dead-load pressures, and to develop final design criteria for individual foundations, floor systems, and pavements. This will help minimize the risk of foundation damage due to differential settlement and heave. . The likelihood of collapse features in the underlying Eagle Valley Evaporite propagating to the surface is remote. However, homeowners should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development and future ground subsidence. HP Geotech's report contains appropriate recommendations for mitigating risks associated with collapsible soils. . Careful, thorough observations of all buildings and property should be made on a regular basis during and after construction to help reduce the risks of unsafe conditions and structural damage due to settlement. . Additional foundation damage due to compaction and differential settlement can occur if water infiltrates the soils adjacent to and beneath the foundation as a result of, for example, landscape irrigation and roof runoff. It is imperative that proper grading, compaction and drainage are incorporated into the development plans. During site grading, any adverse conditions encountered (voids, for example) need to be mitigated if necessary and incorporated into the final design of foundations. Division of Water Resources . Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with the COlUlty and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not provided. . Since insufficient information was not provided, the Division cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-28-136(1 )(h)(II). Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA) . No comment. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Address Coordinator, Eagle County Ambulance District, 6/15/04 20 ..;;': Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Health and Environment, CenturyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Homestead HOA. B. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or controL [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. Heritage Park Building and Development, Inc., is both the Applicant and the owner of the land that is to be a part of the Planned Unit Development. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of a PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] -The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district deSignation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed for this PUD are 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", including single-family residential uses. The initial PUD Guide included several definitions, including "home occupation", but did not include home occupation as a permitted use within the PUD. "Home occupation" as defmed in the Land Use Regulations, is "the conduct of a business, occupation or trade as an accessory use entirely within a residential building or accessory structure for gain or support, only by residents of the dwelling, that does not serve patrons on the premises, except in an incidental manner." [Emphasis added.] Home occupation uses occur frequently in unincorporated Eagle County, are a use by right in most zone districts, are a convenience to homeowners, and generally do not create significant adverse impacts. A revised draft PUD Guide (dated February 4,2004) includes "home occupation" as a use by right, but defines it in a manner that may not clearly distinguish it from "home business", which does permit employees who reside off-premises and does serve patrons on-site The Applicant has deleted "home occupation" as a permitted use in response to concerns of property owners in the neighborhood. The Land Use Regulations limit "home occupations" such that employees must reside on-premises and patrons are not served on- site, except in an incidental manner. As such, home occupations will not increase 6/15/04 21 vehicular traffic through adjacent neighborhoods and, by allowing individuals to work in their own homes, may even decrease vehicular traffic. It is likely that home occupations will occur whether or not they are an allowed use. As a condition of approval, the POO Guide should be revised to provide that "home occupation", as that use is defmed and otherwise regulated in the Land Use Regulations, shall be allowed as a use-by-right. [Condition # 1] [Revised 9 March 2004.1 [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] . The uses that may be developed in the PuD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARI>: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply tothe 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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j., Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Certain variations from the dimensional limitations in effect for the Resource zone district are being requested in order to allow the development to conform to a more typical design for a residential neighborhood in this part of Eagle County. All variations are reasonable. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3..340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. But, the Board MAY grant a variation from these dimensionalliITlitations pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. 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 parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or a) 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. Parking requirements will comply with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin and Loadin Standards, without a 6/15/04 22 necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and fllumination 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 application includes a Detailed Landscape Plan for the development. A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that certain recommendations of the Eagle County Environmental Health Department be addressed, including "a drought resistant plant palate and a limited amount of lawn areas to reduce the amount of water required to maintain the landscaping and reduce the quantities of fertilizers and pesticides that may be transported to the Eagle River." The landscape plan indicates that landscape materials are all "either materials native to the region or recommended by the Colorado Nurserymen's Association as materials appropriate for xeriscape conditions." The common turf area is generally limited. In addition, the application indicates that the covenants will incorporate provisions that reduce somewhat the landscaping for individual lots and require drought resistant materials. There are provisions in the PUD Guide revised and dated February 4,2004, [see Sections H (Items 1..7) and I (Item 1), pages 4 and 5, of the revised draft PUD Guide] which include certain landscape requirements for individual lots. These provisions address. certain landscape features and characteristics, and the minimum number and size of trees. Such requirements are not appropriate forinc1usion in the PUD Guide and enforcement as zoning provisions, but are better included in the covenants for the development. As a condition of approval, Items 1-7 of Section H and Item 1. of Section I of the Pun Guide should be deleted and included in the Covenants for the development. [Condition # 2] A condition of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan is that "all comments of the Road & Bridge Department regarding incorporation of a Weed Management Plan into the Landscaping Plan" . . . be addressed" in the Preliminary Plan. In those comments, it is noted that the "ordinance requires the integrated management" of some 15 noxious weeds. An integrated weed management plan is suggested as part of the Landscape Plan composed of the following features: Inventory, Goals, Alternative Techniques, Integrated Control, and Monitoring. In response to this PUD Preliminary Plan application, the Weed and Pest Control Division has indicated that the weed management guidelines in the Landscape Plan seem appropriate. The Weed and Pest Control Division makes several other requests (see referral response) and encourages the use of "true Colorado native grasses" to encourage establishment of a drought tolerant perennial grass cover in the "natural areas" in order to complement other weed management efforts. As a condition of approval, the following provisions regarding noxious weeds should apply: [a] a provision should be included in the Pun Guide and the Covenants to the effect that "No County listed noxious weeds shall be planted or permitted to infest private lots and/or common areas"; [b] construction and earthmoving activities should be conducted in such a manner that topsoil is prevented from being removed from the site, including that which contaminates construction equipment, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, specifically diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), 6/15/04 23 and that County listed noxious weeds are prevented from producing seed; and [c] if construction and chemical control of weeds set forth in the Landscape Plan do not occur during the 2004 growing season, the property owner should implement weed management practices sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Amended Weed Management Plan for Unincorporated Eagle County . [Condition # 3] A cost estimate for the landscape plan is provided. However, it includes only the cost of the landscape materials, and not the cost of installing the materials, as required by Section 4-220, Landscape Plan. As a condition of approval, a complete cost estimate for the approved landscape plan, including the cost of supplying and installing the materials, should be provided which is satisfactory to the Director of Community Development with the initial application for approval of a final plat for this development. [Condition # 4] The Engineering Department has requested that all handicap and curb ramp improvements, sidewalks, paths and other improvements be coordinated with the preliminary engineering plans. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] The Weed and Pest Division has requested that permission be granted to its staff to enter the site during normal business hours within the growing season (mid-April through mid- September) to inspect for noxious weed infestations. While such permission is appropriate for the open space tracts, it is less so for the individually owned residential lots. As a condition of approval, the fmal plat for the development should include a note authorizing Eagle County Weed and Pest Division Staff to enter onto and across the open space parcels from mid-April through mid-September for the purpose of inspecting for noxious weed infestations. [Condition # 61 [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] With the proposed conditions, it HAS been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the POO complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within thePUD. Sign standards will be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. However, the Engineering Department has noted deficiencies in the signage and striping plan. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial fmal plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the Coun En ineer. [Condition # 5 [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The signs within the POO WILL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. 6/15/04 24 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] Potable water supply. Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metro District. A "will serve" letter has been provided by the District and accompanies this Report. [Revised 9 March 2004.] [+] Sewage disposal. - Wastewater treatment services are proposed to be provided by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. A "will serve" letter has been provided by the District and accompanies this Report. The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District has subsequently indicated that it has approved the constrUction plans for the development. [Revised 23 April 2004.] [+] Solid waste disvosal. - Solid waste disposal services are generally available in the area. [+] Electrical supply. - Electrical service will be provided by Holy Cross Energy. A "will serve" letter is included in the application. [+] Fife protection. - This site is within the service area of the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD). E'RFPD has indicated that it is satisfied with the proposed development, and that it is has been demonstrated that the site design provides access and adequate tum..a-rounds fOr emergency equipment. The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has notes that the proposed development plan adequately mitigates the more significant hazards on the site, and goes On to say that monitoring and maintenance of vegetation as conditions change is important. [+] Roads. - Eagle County Engineering has provided several comments regarding the road plans submitted with this application. Additional detail will be required prior to approval of the final plat. In addition, the Engineering Department notes that the traffic report is deficient in that itd()es not have a 20 year design period. It will be necessary to confirm prior to approval of a final plat that roads are adequately designed. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] The Engineering Department notes that the cul-de-sac islands are not acceptable and need to be re-designed. The Director of Road and Bridge has commented that the islands should be deleted altogether to facilitate maintenance and snow removal. [See discussion below under Improvements (Section 5-240.F.3.e (8).] The revised Landscape Plan/Site Plan has deleted the cul-de-sac islands. 6/15/04 25 A condition of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan was that the Applicant "must either provide a secondary point of ingress/egress [ or] a Variance from the Improvement Standard (VIS) that requires dual access points" to the subdivision. In April 2003, the Board of County Commissioners granted the required variance. One of the conditions of approval of the variance is that the Applicant provide a designated traffic control representative for the purpose of receiving complaints, and directing and coordinating traffic during construction times, and that the Applicant limit the hours of large vehicle access to the property for a time period acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. A proposed schedule limiting large vehicle access is provided as Appendix X to the application. Vehicles subject to the schedule include "excavation equipment, concrete trucks, cranes, etc." Specifically excluded are typical lumberyard delivery trucks. The following is proposed: . Hours When School is in Session O. Weekdays - No deliveries between the hours of7:30 - 9:00 AM or between the hours of 3 :30 - 5 :00 PM without prior notice to all families with grade school children living on Allen Circle. O. Saturday - No deliveries after 10:00 AM without prior notice to all families with grade school children living on Allen Circle. O. Sllnday - Only with prior notice to all families with grade school children living on Allen Circle. Hours When School is Out of Session O. Weekdays and Saturdays - No deliveries after 10:00 AM without a street flagger supervising movement of vehicles or equipment. O. Sundays - Only with prior notice to all families with grade school children living on Allen Circle. Staff notes that: [a] The prior notice provisions do not specify how much prior to equipment movement notice would be provided, nor does it allow residents any recourse. [b] Saturday deliveries (when school is in session) and weekday and Saturday deliveries (when school is out of session) may occur prior to 10:00 AM without a flagger. It seems arbitrary to assume that a flagger would be required after 10:00 AM but not before. [c] Movement of any of this equipment on Sunday may be unduly disruptive to this neighborhood. Further, a "traffic control representative" has not been designated, as required. In a letter dated 17 February, 2004, at least in part in response to the revised large vehicle access plan recommended by Staff, the Applicant has proposed his own revisions which are generally satisfactory to Staff. 6/15/04 26 Pursuant to the Applicant's most recent proposal, and as a condition of approval, the hour's of permitted access for large vehicles and related conditions should be modified as follows: Hours When Schoo1.is in Session Weekdays - No deliveries between the hours of7:30 AM - 8:30 AM. No deliveries after 3:00 PM without a street flagger present to supervise movement of vehicles or equipment. Saturday - No deliveries after 10:00 AM with a street flagger present to supervise movement of vehicles or equipment. SlUldav - No deliveries. Hours When School is Out of Session Weekdays and Saturdavs ~ No deliveries after 10:00 AM without a street flagger supervising movement of vehicles or equipment. Sllrtdavs - No deliveries. Additional provisions are as follows: [a] Largevehic1es are defined to include those in excess of 26,000 pounds GVW, per CDOT standard;. [b ] Mr. Jifu GUida has designated himself as the initial traffic control representative, and may name any employee of Heritage Building & Development, Inc., or Guida Construction to act as a representative in the future, provided that the owners of all the properties on Allen Circle and the Eagle County Director of Community Development be notified in advance; and [c] MO'difications or amendments to these restrictions may be allowed with the approval of the owners of a majority of properties on Allen Circle, and with the concurrence of the Eagle County Director of Community Development. [Condition # 7] [Revised 9 March 2004.] Certain other conditions were made a part of the approval of the Variance. As a condition of approval, all conditions of Resolution No. 2003-059 regarding a Variance from Improvement Standards should be met in a timely manner, as detenn.ined by the County Engineer. [Condition # 8] [+] Proximitv to Schools - Public elementary and middle schools currently exist in the Avon and Edwards area. A public high school currently exists in Eagle-Vail. Schools are in reasonable proximity of the site. [+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection, and Emerflencv Medical Services. - Public safety services would be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff's Office, Eagle River Fire Protection District and Eagle County Ambulance District. The proposed PUD is in reasonable proximity to these emergency services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] With the recommended conditions of approval, it HAS been demonstrated that the development 6/15/04 27 proposed in the PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan 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 sefV1ces. 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, ImlJrovements 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. E(ficient 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-aI-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 Pathwavs. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areaS shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network andfrom off-street parking areas. The Eagle County Road and Bridge Department recommends that the islands proposed in the cul-de-sacs be eliminated to make maintenance easier. This change has been made on the revised Landscape Plan/Site Plan. Road and Bridge further notes a need for designated snow storage, especially at the cul- de-sacs, where snow can be pushed clear and stockpiled. The revised Landscape Plan/Site Plan has areas within the right-of-way labeled as snow storage areas, but none are shown at the cul-de-sacs. At the cul-de-sacs, the right-of-way extends only seven feet beyond the curb and gutter. This may not provide enough snow storage in these critical areas, especially if the street is constructed off-center of the right-of-way. As a condition of approval, snow storage easements, 10 feet in width, or some other width determined by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the Director of Road and Bridge, should be provided on the final plat along both sides of all streets which are a part of the development. [Condition # 9] 6/15/04 28 In addition, Road and Bridge notes that on either side ofthe road providing entrance to the subdivision from Allen Circle (Heritage Park) is a nearly vertical 6 foot high wall within 6 feet ofthe curb. The attached sidewalk extends from the curb to the wall. Snow storage along this section of Heritage Park would necessarily be on the sidewalk itself. Road and Bridge also raises the question of who will be responsible for the maintenance ofthe sidewalks. In the revised Landscape Plan/Site Plan, the sidewalk has been moved from the east side of the street to the west side, but it is still adjacent to the street. Presumably, children will walk to and from this development to Allen Circle (and perhaps beyond) to and from a school bus stop. At certain times during the winter, they will be forced to walk in the street due to snow stored on the sidewalk. Staff has suggested that the "entry walls" and sidewalk be set back from the street, but the suggestion has not been incorporated into the design. As a condition of approval, a note should be added to the final plat for this subdivision, satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, noting that snow storage easements exist along both sides of all streets within the. subdivision and that removal of snow from any sidewalks within these snow storage easements is the responsibility of the property owners and/or the Heritage Park Homeowners Association and not of Eagle COlUlty. [Condition # 10] The segment of the street entering the development from Allen Circle does not have a clearly indicated name. It may be the intent that all streets associated with the development be named Heritage Park, including the street entering from Allen Circle. This would result in a "Y" shaped street, all segments of which have the same name. This is contrary to customary street naming conventions in unincorporated Eagle County. In addition, the customary street naming convention would have a suffix added to the street name, such as "court", "lane", "place" or "way" for dead end streets less than 1,000 feet in length. As a condition of approval, when the final plat is submitted for approval, the street entering the development from Allen Circle and that segment of the internal street referred to as "Heritage Park North" should be named Heritage Park Lane (or "Place" or "Way"), and that segment of the internal street referred to as "Heritage Park West" should be named Heritage Park Court. [Condition # 11] Eagle County Engineering has noted several deficiencies in the road plans submitted with the application. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial fmal plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the COlUlty Engineer. rCondition # 5] [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - With the recommended condition, it HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b) internal pathways, ( c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, 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. 6/15/04 29 The proposed residential PUD is similar in nature and density to the Homestead PUD which abuts on the north, east and south sides. To the west is a 28.3 acre Green Ranch PUD which is zoned for one single-family dwelling and a caretaker unit. Given the similarity with the Homestead PUD and the separation of the building envelope in the Green Ranch PUD, the proposed development is 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 IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). EAGLKcotrNTY.MASTER.PLAN Xl x2 x3 XS x6 x4 x Xl _ With the recotntnended conditions of approval, these guiding policies will be met. x2 ~ The linear park and other common areas within the subdivision will preserve a portion of the site as open space. x3 ~ Development ofthesite balances protection of the County's natural environmental assets, enhancement of the quality of life for residents and visitors, and economic development. The development does not adversely impact the natural appearance ofthe mountain skyline and preserves the COUl'1ty'sscenic quality. x4 _ The MasterPlan is not specific regarding what constitutes "affordable housing". What is being proposed in this development is targeted more toward middle income households, and does not address housing needs for lower income households, which is typically more limited. (See discussion below under Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan and under Housing Guidelines.) x5 - Roads within the development are appropriately designed. x6 _ The site is in an area designated as "Comtnunity Center" on the Future Land Use Map. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land use Xl Housing x2 Transportation x3 Open Space x4 Potable Waterand Wastewater XS ,. 6/15/04 30 Services and Facilities x6 Environmental Quality x Economic Development x7 . Recreation and Tourism x8 Historic Preservation / x Implementation x Future Land Use Map x9 Xl ~ The development contributes to balanced growth in the Edwards Planning Area In addition, the development is located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man-made environment; ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services; and contributes to the retention of the unique variety oflifestyles and quality oflife found in Edwards. x2 ~ As noted in the discussion above regarding the Eagle County Master Plan, what is being proposed in this development is targeted more toward middle income households, and does not address housing needs for lower income households, which is typically more limited. As is the case with the Master Plan, the Edwards Area Community Plan is not specific regarding what constitutes "affordable housing". x3 ~ The traffic circulatioIl pattern contributes to efficiently, conveniently and safely moving people, goods, and services throughout the Edwards community. x4 ~ The development includes useable Open Space. x5 _ It has been demonstrated that wastewater treatment service will be provided. A "will serve" letter has been provided by the District and accompanies this Report. [Revised 9 March 2004.] x6 _ Provisions haVe been made for environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes. x 7 - The development supports balanced, orderly and sustainable growth. x8 _ The development contributes to the availability of recreational facilities and open space in the Edwards Planning Area. x9 _ The site is in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Residential", with a gross density of ~ 3 units per acre, and is at a density and character consistent with the surrounding development. X I - Open space and recreation land is provided based on the standard established for Planned Unit Developments. x2 _ The development is compatible with preservation of the high visual quality of the County. x3 _ The development occurs adjacent to the existing community and enhances open space values in the outlying areas. x4 - Development will not occur on slopes greater than 40 percent or which present natural hazards. 6/15/04 31 x5 _ The development does not occur in areas of critical wildlife habitat. 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 workhere. 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. 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 mtinicipalities . . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x s. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Corrtmercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . X 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged X 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock X II. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 6/15/04 32 ITEM 12. Eagle Count)' recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl _ The Master Plan is not specific regarding what constitutes "affordable housing". What is being proposed in this development is targeted more toward middle income households, and does not address housing needs for lower income households, which is typically more limited. The proposal does not provide housing for the lower ranges of "local resident housing" as that term is used in the Comprehensive Housing Plan. [See discussion below under Housing Guidelines.] f+J FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The public improvements for this PUD will be developed in one phase. A phasing plan is not required. [+] FINJ)ING:P'hasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan is :NOT REQlJIRED for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be mUltiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.f-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. 11 Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. 6/15/04 33 (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 alllandoWllers within the PUD. The total development is 11.473 acres. The recommended amount of common recreation and useable open space is 2.87 acres (11.473 x .25) plus 0.63 acres (10 acres for every 1,000 residents ofthe PUD) - a total of 3.50 acres. Total open space is 4.14 acres. The Applicant calculates that the useable open space is 2.89 acres. Given the nature of the development and the proposed improvements, the amount of use able open space seems sufficient. Certain improvements are proposed within the open space tracts, including landscaping, pedestrian walkways, playground equipment, benches and fencing. These improvements will be required to be completed as part of the public improvements. The draft PUD Guide provides that the Property Owners Association will be responsible for the use and maintenance ofthe.Open Space. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(12)] The applicant lIAS demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: ( a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; or (d) organization. STANDARD: Natural pesource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed PUD the available analysis documents and referral responses. is responsive to [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a Subdivision: 6/15/04 34 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)1- [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDA.RD: 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 Develooment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts Except as modified under the provisions of a PUD and with the recommended conditions [see discussions above], the proposed development complies with all of the standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Theproposedsubdivision complies with the requirements of this Division. [+]Landscaping and illumination Standards (Division 4-2) As discussed above Under Landscaping [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)], and with the recommended conditions of approval, the development will satisfy the standards of this Division. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of this Division. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] JVildlifeProtection (Section 4-410) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that certain recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) regarding proper methods of dealing with trash, compost, pets, and feeders be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Most of the recommendations have been added to the PUD Guide. However, two CDOW recommendations are not clearly set forth in the application. One has to do with the return of trash containers to bear proof storage no later than 8:00 PM on the day of pickup; the second with a prohibition of trash storage in detached garages. As a condition of approval, the final PUD Guide should be revised to clearly include all of the recommended provisions ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife in its letter dated December 10,2001. [Condition # 12] 6/15/04 35 ~:.:::-.. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has provided several comments, including the following: . The building envelopes on Lots 11, 19,20 and 21 should be limited to exclude areas with slopes greater than 25 percent. . Cut and fill depths should be limited to 10 feet to reduce the risk of construction-induced slope instability. . Fills should be benched into slopes steeper than 20 percent. . Design-level subsurface investigation should be provided at each building site to characterize soil engineering properties in order to minimize the risk of foundation damage due to differential settlement and heave. . Homeowners should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development and future ground subsidence. . Recommendations ofHP Geotech should be followed to mitigate risks associated with collapsible soils. . Careful, thorough observations of all buildings and property should be made on a regular basis during and after construction to help reduce the risks of unsafe conditions and structural damage due to settlement. . Proper grading, compaction and drainage should be incorporated into the development plans to avoid foundation damage. Adverse conditions encountered during site grading should be mitigated and incorporated into the final design of foundations. As a condition of approval, the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated February 2, 2004, should be incorporated into the design and development of the site in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 13] [Revised 9 March 2004.] In addition, the EngineeringDepartment has noted certain deficiencies in the response to the Geotechnical Report. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has given the development a wildfire hazard rating oflow, but recommends that vegetation be removed or mowed within 30feet of all homes. The County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has provided a similar wildfire hazard rating and a generally favorable review of the proposed development. He also notes that on-going maintenance will be a concern, and recommends that areas of vegetation management should be monitored and maintained as conditions change. The developer and property owners will be required to comply with Section 3.12.1, Wildland Fire Regulation, of the Eagle County Building Resolution. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - A provision of the proposed PUD Guide prohibits wood burning fireplaces and wood stoves. 6/15/04 36 [+ J Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The site is not located within an area of "possible ridgeline impacts". [+] Environmental Impact Revort (Section 4-460) - An adequate environmental impact report has been provided. [+] CornmerciaLand Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) The provisions of this Division are not applicable. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - Eagle County Engineering has provided several comments regarding the proposed road design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - A condition of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan is that the Applicant "must either provide a secondary point of ingress/egress [or] a Variance from the Improvement Standard (VIS) that requires dual aCcess points" to the subdivision. In Apri12003, the Board of County Commissioners granted such a variance. One of the conditions of approval of the variance is that the Applicant "complete a preliminary design of a 4 foot sidewalk within the right-of-way for the entire length of the outside of Allen Circle for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan". The Applicant has indicated that residents on Allen Circle have stated a strong preference that the sidewalk not be constructed. A petition to this effect has been received and is attached to this Staff Report. [Revised 9 March 2004.] As noted by Eagle COlUlty Engineering, the sidewalk plan included in the application is merely conceptual in nature. It has not been demonstrated that a sidewalk could properly be constructed along Allen Circle. If the sidewalk along Allen Circle is required, complete construction plans will be required. The plans for the proposed development initially included external pedestrian connections to the north to connect to Meile Lane and to the northeast to connect to Homestead Drive. These access routes would cross open space parcels in the Homestead PUD. The Applicant indicates that he has yet to be granted access through the Homestead open space parcels. No construction plans have been provided for these connecting trails. The Landscape Plan PlartlSite Plan was revised on 3 February 2004 to delete the foot paths connecting off-site and indicate that their installation is pending agreement with the Homestead Homeowners Association. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] 6/15/04 37 The initial Landscape Plan Plan/Site Plan showed pedestrian paths running through the on-site open space areas. The Applicant reports that, at the request of property owners adjacent to the site, these pedestrian paths have been deleted from the Plan. On the Landscape Plan/Site Plan dated 3 February, 2004, the only pedestrian path is in the central common area, and the only sidewalk is along and adjacent to the entry portion of the street which enters Heritage Park from Allen Circle. The Road and Bridge Department has noted that snow storage along the entry road from Allen Circle would be the sidewalk from the development to Allen Circle. The sidewalk in this area has been moved from the east side of the road to the west in the expectation that less snow will be pushed from the street to the west as snowplows exit the site. However, the sidewalk is still adjacent to the street. Presumably, children will walk to and from this development to Allen Circle (and perhaps beyond) to and from a school bus stop. At certain times during the winter, they may be forced to walk in the street due to snow stored on the sidewalk. Due to the constrained 50 foot wide tract that provides access to the development, the options to resolve this situation are limited. An additional burden will be placed on residents of the development to compensate for the constraints. As discussed previously under Improvements [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)], it is being recotnn1ended that snow storage easements be created on either side of the streets and that a note be added to the final plat that snow removal from sidewalks is the responsibility of the property owners and/or the Heritage Park Homeowners Association and not Eagle County. [+] Irrizatioll Svstem Standards (Section 4.640) - The requirements of this Section will be satisfied. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has provided comments regarding the following: . The necessity of having a maintenance program for the detention pond and an identified entity responsible for monitoring and maintaining this feature. . The detention pond should be one of the first features installed during site development in order to provide protection from sediment associated with the clearing of the site. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should, with application for the initial final plat for the development, comply with the recommendations of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments in its letter dated January 26, 2004, in a manner which is satisfactory to the County Engineer and the Director of Community Development. [Condition # 14] Both the Engineering Department and the Road and Bridge Department have noted certain deficiencies in the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, including the need to have an entity responsible for the maintenance of the storm sewer. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction 6/15/04 38 drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements of this Section. However, the Engineering Department has noted certain deficiencies in the Overall Grading Plan. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [ +] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements ofthis Section. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has noted that . A detailed erosion control plan that meets both CPDES (Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and Eagle County requirements needs to be developed and implemented. . The only outstanding issue from the NWCCOG December 2001 comments is that of temporary stabilization of exposed areas during construction. That should be addressed in the final erosion control plan submitted to Eagle County. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, comply with the recommendations of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments in its letter dated January 26, 2004, in amanrter which is satisfactory to the COlUlty Engineer and the Director of Community Development. [Condition # 14] In addition, the Engineering Department has noted certain deficiencies in the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which ate satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Utility and Lif?hting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements of this Section. The Engineering Department has noted deficiencies in the shallow utility system design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metro District. A "will serve" letter has been provided by the District and accompanies this Report. [Revised 9 March 2004.] The Engineering Department has noted deficiencies in the water system design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction 6/15/04 39 drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Wastewater treatment services are proposed to be provided by Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. A "win serve" letter has been provided by the District and accompanies this Report. The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District has subsequently indicated that it has approved the construction plans for the development. [Revised 23 April 2004. ] The Engineering Department has noted deficiencies in the sanitary sewer system design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 5] [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The land dedication requirement for a 24 single family lot development is 0.36 acres (24 units x 0.0151 acres/unit). The Applicant intends to make a payment of cash in lieu of a school land dedication. The Eagle County School District (RE50l) has indicated that a payment of cash in lieu is preferable. PursllilIlt to a recent amendment to Section 4-700.C., Cash-in-Lieu of Land Dedication, an appraisal of the per-acre value of the site will be required at the time the final plat is submitted to determine the amount ofthe cash-in-lieu payment. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) -Payment of road impact fees will be required pursuant to this Section at the time of building permit issuance. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] Due to the lack of a demonstrated potable water source, it HAS been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. 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. 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. . 6/15/04 40 No inefficiencies have been identified with respect to this development. [+J FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog".pattem of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] -The property proposed to b~ 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 fitture public improvements to the area. The ro ertyis suitable for develoment. [+J FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area, STANDARD: Compatiblewith Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed residential Pun is similar in nature and density to the Homestead Pun Which abuts on the north, east and south sides. To the west is a 28.3 acre Green Ranch Pun which is zoned one single-family dwelling and a caretaker unit. Given the similarity with the Homestead PUD and the separation of the building envelope in the Green Ranch PUD, the ro osed develo ment is compatible with the surroundin . land uses. [+J FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)J The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surroimding area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: PurSuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: A Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions. With the recommended conditions discussed above, this requirement has been met. [+J FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section have been fully met. Requirements for a Zone Chanee. In Section 5-230.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor." Based on the 6/15/04 41 above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: (1) [+] Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with the proposed development, it IS an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or Its densitylintensity; (4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) [+] Community need. It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern, WILL NOT constitute spot zoning, and WILL logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. (7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. C. O'rBERCONSIDERAnONS HOllsine Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion andnegotiatibn of applicable housing criteria. A condition of Sketch Plan approval is that the Applicant "sufficiently address the findings identified by the Eagle County Housing Department in regards to the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan and pending regulations." (Attached to this Report is a copy of the referral response from the Eagle County Housing Department dated 21 December 2001, and a response from Knight Planning Services, Inc., dated 2 July 2002, in response to this issue, including a commitment to make a "payment in lieu contribution" of $76,476.) During early discussions with the Applicant, it was noted that the "pending regulations" referred to ate no longer pending. The initial Preliminary Plan application included a commitment to make a "payment in lieu contribution" of $76,476, which was not included in the final application. The Applicant's response to this condition is to state that this project is "being designed to appeal to middle management and local business owners" which "will not create significant employment impacts". The Applicant further states that recently developed housing "has resulted in high vacancy rates in the rental market and a significant supply of ownership housing for groups targeted for assistance in the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan". The Housing Department has subsequently provided a response to this Preliminary Plan application, and indicated that the Applicant "needs to provide three employee housing units". The units may consist of three "low income units" or two "low income units" and one "moderate income unit". The Housing Department also notes that if the Heritage Park developer elects to 6/15/04 42 make a payment in lieu of building the three units, that payment would be $77,527.44. [Revised 26 March 2004] The Applicant has now offered to make a payment of $77 ,524.44 in lieu of providing affordable housing, "provided th~t [the Applicant is] being treated in a fair and equitable manner". Terrell Knight spoke to the board about the files. He clarified that the applicant had been following the conditions of the preliminary plan. He informed the board that he was aware that there were neighbors who were not in favor of the project. He stated that this is a classic example of in-fill development which is encouraged in a community center. He stated there are roads, schools and utilities in place and that the master plan encourages this type of development. These were all considerations priorto the developer getting involved in the project. This type of development also allows larger lots and helps preserve open space and visual areas. He spoke about consistency with the surrounding neighborhood and informed the board that the developer would improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. The plan has been modified to meet many concerns. The development represents lower density than the surrounding neighborhood and the standards for the homes are higher than the existing neighborhood. Tom I30ni showed the board some slides and highlighted the background of the project. He quoted Eagle County regulations related to the sketch plan, which were in favor of the project. He reminded the conunissioners that over the course of five meetings, the sketch plan was approved. There were 12 or 13 conditions placed on approval of the sketch plan. He believes that now is the time to review the technical conditions and to present properly engineered solutions. He highlighted the Site Context and showed that it is within walking distance ofthe post office, the school, shopping etc. He reviewed in detail the project history. He went over the evolution ofthe project from sketch to preliminary plan. They relocated one lot, increased the a.rea for a landscaped park area, and increased overall open space. Design concepts include single familyhornes, each lot backing up to Open space, building character and massing respond to topography and existing architecture. He showed some drawings of available home designs. The minimum size ofa home will be 3200 square feet, or 30% of the size of the lot. Mr. I30ni stated that during the last 12 months the applicant had completed negotiations with the Edwards Metro District and had worked out the sidewalk details around Allen Circle. The applicant had met with homeowners in the adjacent area. The applicant consistently attempted to reach agreement with the Hom.estead Hom.eowner's Association with regards to maintenance, and design guidelines. They committed to matching the building requirements for phase one of Homestead, they would maintain the open space with the same standards of Homestead, and they would work with the Claymon family to provide an additional landscape buffer. They eliminated the privacy fence along the boundary and added more landscape materials. He summarized the project with all applicable details related to density and open space. He spoke about the roadways and traffic study. Eagle County Engineering, Fire Department and emergency services have all given their approval for this project. He quoted some of the statements from the Ea.gle County and the Edwards COmITlunity Master Plans which supported the project. The project is in compliance with both the Eagle County and Edwards Community Master Plans. The Edwards Community plan recommended 2-2.5 dwelling units per acre. He spoke about in-fill development concepts. He spoke about preliminary plan standards and explained how their project complied with these standards. He stated that a zone change represents a wisdom and a judgment, not controlled by anyone factor, but the following considerations should be used: consistency with the master plan, compatibility with surrounding used, changed conditions, effect on the natural environment, community needs, development patterns and public interest. He spoke about community needs and how they are not based on immediate need but a medium range need. Steve McDonald, Coldwell Banker Real Estate, spoke about the statistics available from Vail Board of Realtors, and discussed how sales in the Homestead area have decreased from 2002 and 2003. He further discussed home sales in the Edwards area and stated there is a tighter market in Eagle County, and 6/15/04 43 that inventory is not available to accomplish the needs of the community. He stated that there is a much tighter market today than in 2002 or 2003. Mr. Boni summarized the cOncerns that the Planning Commission had have been addressed: affordable housing, inclusion of "home occupation," fences, heavy vehicle assess, and community needs. He reviewed conditions of approval and stated that staff findings are positive. He stated this developer has been particularly sensitive to the needs of the community. He also stated that the concerns of the Planning Commission had been addressed, and that the developer would pay fees in lieu of employee housing as provided for by Eagle County housing regulations. Michael Shelden, counsel for applicant, addressed legal issues raised by the neighborhood. He stated that the County Attorney opined that access to Tract B is appropriate. Additionally to commitments that are being made, he added thtee additional commitments: 1) Provide restrictions to the height of buildings that will match Homestead PUD Filing 1,2) Maintenance of open space of Heritage Park will be perfo111led at the same or higher standards the same as Homestead, and 3), Mr. Guida is willing to work with the Clayrnon Family to provide berming, additional landscaping between preliminary plan and final plat. Mr. Knight spoke again. He told the board that there had been several questions about the variance procedure. He is aware that the board and staff are aware of these procedures. He clarified that the purpose ofa varianceis to adapt regulations to unique circumstances. Chairn1an Stone asked members of the public to come forward as their name was called to speak. Elizabeth Wilt has lived in the Valley since 1969 and bought a home in 1991 in Homestead. She bought in this area because of the peacefulness of the area. She stated that 24 homes from the Heritage development mar the neighborhood and opposed the development. Staci Wasson stated her opposition to the Heritage development. Peter Runyan made thteepoints: 1) He does not believe that the Edwards sub area Master plan is a perfect document and accepts partial responsibility for this and does not reflect true feelings of the Edwards C0ITln1lU1ity.2) He stated that the zoning is resource and Mr. Allen should have been aware of that. 3) Buying land is an investment and it is a risk. It is not the job ofthe Commissioners to guarantee gain. . Dave Lath, represents owners of 3 adjoining lots, stated the Planning Commission voted 7 against and none for the project. He spoke the density of the planned development is 24 on 10 acres. The developer includes the open space from Tract B to dilute the density of the development. He reiterated that Homestead is 1.1 unit per acre and the proposed density of Heritage is twice that. BobWatner, president and developer of Homestead, stated density is the issue to the north of the proposed site. He agreed that water is an issue, and wants healthy streams. They should be subject to Homestead DRB. He stated he is in favor of the project. Dave Sloan, resident of Homestead since 1983, added his opposition to this project and stated the majority of the residents believe Heritage is much too dense. He spoke to the inventory of homes for sale in the area and added his belief that no one is looking to buy a home. Mike Clayrnon asked the opposing public to stand to give the Commissioners an idea of the number of people opposed. He reviewed his compelling reasons to deny this plan: is not consistent with master plan, is not compatible with surrounding areas, does not fulfill community need, and is not in the public interest. He stated the Planning Commission stated density is not appropriate, the volume of traffic at Allen Circle and Homestead Drive will be much to busy for the area. The increased traffic on Allen Circle with the addition of 24 homes will triple and the safety of the children will be at risk. Dorothy Cummins share the views with the prior members of the public. She continued with Mr. Claymon's regarding how the development does not fulfill the need of the community. She spoke of the traffic on Highway 6 and Edwards Spur Road and how they are exceeding their capacity. Increased zoning is too much for the water supply. She stated the height of the buildings will be visible from Edwards area. Bonnie Vesey, Allen Circle resident, added her opposition, her husband's and neighbors' opposition. She continued with danger of increased traffic on Allen Circle. Tract B is located in the Homestead PUD 6/15/04 44 and any construction and landscaping must be approved by Homestead DRB and the use is for vehicular and pedestrian access. She reiterated that the Planning Commission voted 7-0 against the sketch plan and the preliminary plan. Commissioner Stone stated that Mr. Claymon's power point presentation was given in paper form to the Board. Steve Kirby, Homestead homeowner since 1989,asked if the commissioners have visited the site. Commissioner Stone stated yes. Mr. Kirby continued with Mr. Clayrnon's presentation by itemizing requirements for a zoning change that have not been met. He asked that the traffic problem be addressed before the density in the Homestead area is increased. Suzartrte Smith,. owner of a duplex on Edwards Village Boulevard, brought her son to show the face offamilies in the area and how the increased traffic will adversely affect the children's safety. She added the street already has too much traffic and an additional 250 vehicle trips will make the street that much more unsafe. She added that if there was at least one more access then the safety issue will change. Cindy Petrehn, homeowner on Allen Circle, reiterated several points: . this is a rural community, there isnot a need for this project, density is too high ~ twice that of surrounding area, water is an issue and the County needs to plan ahead, wildlife in the area is at stake because there is a natural wildlife path through her neighborhood. Lynll EtnITler, homeowner in Homestead, reviewed her thoughts: scenic pollution, increased traffic, and the fact that thePlartrting Commission unanimously opposed this project. She added these concerns have been voiced by many other HOmestead residents, and this project is not in the area's best interest. Paul Oberbroeckling, recent homeowner in the area, decided to buy in the Edwards because of the rural setting, lower density and sense of community. He stated there is no need for in-filling. He stated an increase in density would make him look in other areas. He added his agreement to the water issue brought up by Commissioner Gallagher. DertrtYShay, resident of Edwards for the last 10 years, stated that Jim Guida is the most honest contractor he has worked with in Eagle County. If this project is approved, then Mr. Guida will put the custOmer aIid COII1ITlUrtity first. Rich Howard, Homestead resident, spoke in favor of this project. He reviewed his research regarding the traffic problems that already exist in surrounding areas, He stated that most developments in the area can be seen by other developments in the Edward area. He added the master plan encourages development near water and sewer facilities, transportation interchanges and major roads, employment and recreation centers, fire stations and schools. The master plan states that the county should seek to cluster neW development to the extent possible. He stated this project is a classic example of in-fill development. He stated the market should be allowed to detennine the cost of housing, not this project. Ron Brave, f0111ler member of the Planning Cornmission, stated this project is smart growth. He added his agreement to Mr. Howard's comments. Steven Richards, architect in Eagle Valley, stated this is a classic example of in-fill development that needs to be approved. Mike Matzko, professional planner and homeowner, stated he was hired by the developer as an independent consultant. He reviewed his process for looking at this project. His professional opinion is that this project is the best for this area and could not fit into the County regulations better. The larger concern is what rules do we use for inevitable development and growth, and the Eagle County rules are a good attempt to handle the growth. Mike Guida, brother of Jim Guida, stated this is a good project and he is in favor of it. The density of Heritage complies with the Master Plan. David Despeaux, civil engineer and Homestead resident, stated his belief that the Commissioners should approve this project as it complies with the master plan. Jeannie Hauff, resident of Homestead, read an e-mail from Richard DeClark "Sorry I'm out of town and cannot make the Heritage Park hearing. Please let the County Commissioners know my feelings on this file. I feel that 11 or 12 units would be appropriate for this site and that the Homestead owners have 6/15/04 45 been very open-minded allowing that number of units. Otherwise the site is zoned for one unit and that the commissioners should only allow the one unit if the developer can't live with the 11 or 12 units." She stated that the moral character and the financial gain should not be a consideration when deciding the fate of this project. Tract B is part of the Homestead PUD and cannot be a part of another PUD. She stated the residents of Homestead want to protect their legal rights. Mike Burk, general manager and co-owner of Edwards Building Center, added his support for Jim Guida. He added his support to Heritage project. Kraig Forbes, resident of Eagle Valley since 1980, asked the Board to approve Heritage project. He added his high opinion of Jim Guida. Ken Pearson, former employee of Mr. Guida and resident of Edwards, added his support for the proj ect. Chris McCoy, Homestead resident, stated he makes his living from development but he opposed to the development Of Heritage Park. He stated the increased density and traffic is beyond the master plan. The in-fill development is just an attempt to make money. He stated this development would decrease the livability Of this area. He spoke of future developments that will need access through Homestead. Chuck Harrison, resident of Homestead since 1996, stated he has attended previous hearings on Heritage Park and supports Mr. Guida. He stated the density of Heritage Park is less than adjacent areas, access is through an easement from Allen Circle, and statistics show there is a demand for homes like Heritage Park will have. Judy Phillips, designer and has worked with Mr. Guida, and hopes the Board will approve this sketch plan. She stated that Mr. Guida's highest level of integrity will be brought to this project. Stephanie Uberbacher, owner on Allen Circle, added her opposition to this project. Dick Dennison, resident of Homestead and a builder, stated this is a great design and but it does not fit here, and objects to the density of Heritage Park. He does not object to development of the property, but objects to this development. Spencer Butts, Singletree resident, stated this development would be a compliment to this area. Charles Howard, homeowner in Homestead, stated he is pro Heritage Park and believes that it is proposed to be tastefully done. Nancy Kirby, 30 year resident ofthe Valley, stated one ofthe biggest issues is water. She stated she is against this development as it is proposed. Thefe were many letters received from members of the public. They have been scanned into the record, along with the Power Point Presentation and can be found in another file: 06- 15pubicletters.pdf. A hafd copy of this document isfollowing these minutes in the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Stone closed public comment and asked the applicant to respond to public comment. Mr. Knight summarized that there is need, it meets appropriateness, meets the Master Plan, and meets technical requirements. Chairman Stone reviewed the staff findings to determine where there would be agreement or disagreement amongst the commissioners. Commissioner Menconi questioned members ofthe public about their comments. He asked Mr. Warner about letters from him in the file from March of 1980 as to the history of this property. Mr. Warner replied there was an exemption process and the AlIens did not proceed quickly enough to apply for that exemption. He filed on the Allen's behalfto create a 10 acre Hollis/Allen exemption parcel. He did not have plans to develop this parcel. The original access to the entire property was off Lake Creek Road. Commissioner Menconi asked about consistency about the Master Plan and whether Mr. Warner believed this complied with the Master Plan. Mr. Warner said the density issue comes down to adjacent pockets or density of the overall area. His personal opinion was that the issue was overall density. 6/15/04 46 Cotnn1issioner Menconi asked if it was fair to include the overall density of the entire parcel to compare the density. Mr. Warner stated his personal opinion this was not the way to determine density. He stated the Homestead Homeowners Association is not against development but is against the number of units that are being proposed. Chairman Stone reviewed the findings and determined if the Board was in agreement with each finding and returned to deliberate findings where disagreements occurred. Chairman Stone and Commissioner Gallagher made findings and Commissioner Menconi withheld his comments until all the findings were read. 1. Unified ownership and control- positive finding and there was no discussion by the board. 2. Uses - the uses that may be developed in the POD 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, resource zone district use schedule or table 3-320 commercial industrial zone districts, for the zone district in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for the PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to section 5-240 f, 3f, variations authorized. Chairman Stone stated that this would be a positive finding ifthe PUD is approved. 3. Dimensional Limitations - there would need to be a variance on this issue. 4. Off street parking and loading was a positive finding 5. Landscaping and ilhnnination standards was a positive finding 6. Signage Was a positive finding 7. Adequate facilities '-- potable water and sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, roads. The issue of roads was deferred to later in the meeting. 8. Improvements - was deferred for later discussion 9. Compatibility With surrounding land uses- was deferred for later discussion 10. Consistency with master plan related to PUD was deferred for later discussion. 11. PhasiIigwas a positive finding 12. Common recreation and open space was a positive finding 13. Natural resource protection is a positive finding 14. Consistent with Master Plan related to subdivisions was deferred for later discussion. 15. Spa~al plans were deferred for later discussion. 16. Spatial patterns Was a positive finding 17. Suitability for development was a positive fmding 18. Compatibility for surrounding uses was deferred for later discussion. 19. PUD guide must be submitted and was a positive finding 20. ZONE CHANGE ~ this repeated a lot of the other issues that were deferred for later discussion. Consistency, compatibility, change in conditions, development patterns and public interest will be discussed. Chairman Stone returned to items for discussion: Dimensional Limitations; Mr. Boni stated the applicant is asking for variation to this issue because they were asking for 24 units. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the differences in lot size and set back and if the PUD is approved the variations would be approved. Chairman Stone asked for discussion on adequate facilities. He clarified that sewer disposal, electrical supply, and fire protection have been addressed. Chairman Stone stated that the approval of the 1041 pe111lit and the commitments to serve address potable water supply and sewage disposal. He asked Mr. Forinash about the roads. Mr. Forinash stated most of the roads in the development are adequate aside from the legal issue related to the roadway through tract B, because of the 50 foot right of way. Staff has determined that this was adequate. 6/15/04 47 Commissioner Gallagher asked about the traffic study. The graphic appears to show that every dwelling unit will make five trips per day making an increase to 250 additional trips per day. He asked if Allen Circle is adequate for 250 vehicles per day. David Leahy, TDA Colorado, traffic study expert, stated the number is correct and it is standard number. He stated that Allen Circle traffic meets county standard which is 750 per day. The speed limit on Allen Circle is 25 mph. Helen Michelbrinkstated 25 mph is the proper speed limit. Coinmissioner Gallagher asked about the T -bone intersection and the grade of the intersection. Philip Loeman stated the applicant was requested to make the grade less severe and complied with the request and that this is a good design to prevent ice buildup. He stated that further improvements could be asked of the applicant if the sketch plan is approved. He stated this plan meets county standards. Chairman Stone stated that it appears the applicant has kept the limitation for large vehicle access. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the hours of operation. He wondered if deliveries would occur before 7:30 a.m. Mr. Guida stated that this was possible but not likely in the wintertime. It was more likely in the summer. Commissioner Gallagher asked about deliveries on Saturdays. He wondered how it is okay for trucks to come before 7:30 on weekdays and before 10:00 am on Saturdays. Chairman Stone asked Commissioner Gallagher to suggest a change. Mr. Forinash stated that he believed there had been some discussion about this. Conunissioner Gallagher suggested that flaggers be designated for large vehicle traffic on weekdays before 7:30 a.m. He suggested that the flaggers be used during school bus pickup times in the morning. IIe was interested in offering protection for the children who might be waiting for a bus. Mr. Guida agreed that the flagger schedule would mirror the bus schedule. Commissioner Gallagher Spoke about Saturdays and school off days, not just in summer. He wondered where the 10:00 time frame came from. Mr. Guida was agreeable to changing the flagging schedule as needed to make sure safety issues with children playing in the neighborhOod would be addressed. Mr. Forinash suggested no deliveries on Saturdays and non-school days. Commissioner Gallagher suggested adding a flagger for the early morning hours on Saturdays and during non-school times. Commissioner Gallagher referred to page 26, under modification and amendments. He wanted it changed to "with the notification of owners of the maj ority of owners on Allen Circle and with the concurrence with Eagle County Community Development." He requested that notice be provided, but that the decision be left to the Board of County Commissioners. He requested a requirement of minimum of 72 hours notice. Chairman Stone defined reasonable notice as written notice delivered to each person's property. Chairman Stone moved on to the next condition - "hnprovements". Mr. Forinash reviewed the conditions. Commissioner Gallagher asked that condition number 9 be more specific. He asked if staff was comfortable with a 10 foot limit. Chairman Stone asked about the sidewalk requirement on Allen Circle. Mr. Forinash stated that the applicant was required to provide plans for the construction of the sidewalk. Chairman Stone had the impression that the majority of the homeowner's didn't want the sidewalk. He stated that if the property owners didn't want it, it should not be required of the developers. A member of the public present stated that the developers told the Allen Circle homeowners that they would support that request. Commissioner Gallagher asked why they did not want the sidewalk. Steve Kerby circulated the petition against the sidewalk because it would eliminate curbside parking and would create problems for mature landscaped properties. 6/15/04 48 Chairman Stone recommended removing this condition because it is not in keeping with the neighborhood at large and would cause destruction. The area was not initially engineered for sidewalks. Commissioner Gallagher concurred at the homeowner's request. He referred to condition #11. He stated that these hames are inconsistent with the 911 addressing standards. He would be looking for a different naming structure if the file is approved. Chairman Stone spoke about compatibility with surrounding land uses. Conunissioner Gallagher spoke about the view from the North. He referred to the ridge development tothe left ofthe proposed area. Mr. Boni affirtned that there would be houses on the top of the line on the ridge. Commissioner Gallagher asked for a highlight of the western boundary. He stated that what is already there in tertns of ridge line development would be at most doubled. He asked what the overall density of the Homestead subdivision would be ifthis development is approved. The developers told the board that there would be 811.4 acres with 834 homes. The density would be .97 homes per acre. Commissioner Gallagher stated that he believes it is consistent with the contiguous density. Chairman Stone spoke about the scale of the home sites. and pointed out that the scale is larger than that on Allen Circle. He felt that the use was compatible with surrounding land uses. Chairtnan Stone spoke about consistency with the master plan. Conunissioner Gallagher spoke about affordable housing. He stated that the applicant will contribute to the affordable housing fund. This contribution would be approximately $77,000.00. Chairman Stone stated that he felt that staffhad done a good job with the findings. The next condition he wal1ted to review wason page 35, related to Master Plan requirements of subdivisions. Mr. Forinash explained the difference between the master plan related to the subdivision and the PUD. Chairman Stone spoke about the consistency with land use regulations. The other conditions for approval were reviewed. The amount that was agreed to for cash in lieu for schools was 0.36 acres times the current land dedication fees. The road impact fees would be based on the most recent road impact fee base. Ms. Michelbrink spoke to the board and pointed out that this subdivision will not be putting sidewalks on the interior roads. She stated that not having sidewalks is the number one complaint that is received in the Engineering department. Chairman Stone stated that he didn't believe there should be sidewalks because it would not be compatible with the rest of Homestead. He went on to speak about compatibility with surrouriding uses. He stated that the only parcel that might be developed in the future was to the west and the access waS off of Lake Creek Road. Mr. Forinash spoke about different conditions currently than when the parcel was originally zoned "resource. " Commissioner Gallagher spoke about "community need." He referred to an analysis from Coldwell Banker related to whether or not this type of housing would sell. It Was their opinion that indeed these lots would sell considering the price ranges. He believes that there is a need in the cotnmUllity for this type of housing. Chairman Stone stated that in order to be consistent with open space values, the board should continue to condone in-fill development. Commissioner Menconi asked who in the audience who is not being paid to be at the meeting. A number of people raised their hands. He told Mr. Guida that his character had been exceptional. Since the sketch plan was heard two years ago he was against it and since significant changes had not been made since then and the fact that the Planning Conunission felt the same way, and it is a difficult file. Many of the findings have had compelling arguments on both sides. He felt that the citizen input was powerful and well presented. The main reasons that he is against the file is because of the density. He had not heard a willingness on the part of the developer to change the density. There is obviously a difference of opinion as to how this project complies with the master plan. He stated that it has been a 6/15/04 49 unique file in that a great majority of people have come forward to express their opinion. He spoke about the use of smart growth principles. He wondered what the expectation is of in-fill development. He didn't believe that the in-fill development in this situation is not meeting community needs. He spoke about the second home market and the need for employees to service these homes. He wondered if in-fill housing would be available for retirees and thus create more need for employees. He has not been satisfied with consistency to the master plan, compatibility with surrounding areas due to traffic, accessibility for needed housing and the fact that the Planning Commission was not in favor of the file. Conunissioner Gallagher spoke about the master plan, which when he ran for office it was out of date, and it was not folloWed. He committed then to getting it updated and that happened, as well as the Edwards Community Plan. He could not understand how the Planning Conunission did not find this project compliant with the master plan. He believed it was based on the public outcry. He believed that the overriding thing to remember is that we are going to continue to grow up to our limits of growth. He believes that wise preparation based on master plans and community plans is the way to go about this growth. He sees his job as reviewing the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to balance this compared to staff recommendations. He believes this file does comply with the master platt. The developer has made numerous concessions, and the only concession the developer has not made is to reduce the density further than has already been agreed to. He will support this file conditionally. Chairman Stone asked that a copy of the applicant's power point presentation be added and accepted into the record. The power point presentation along with public comment letters is found in document 06- l5publiclettets.pdf. [Clerk's note: the hard copy is filed in the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners.] He also talked about the purpose of public comment and that is one part of the decision making process. Valuable insight is gained from public comtnent and oftentimes these comments allow conditions to be more applicable. He stated the two main comments he heard today were density and traffic cohcems. He spoke about the views expressed by Rich Howard, who went through the master plan in preparation fOr his comments. He stated that he understands the public's views about additional development in their neighborhood, however he believes it is in the public's best interest to develop the limited number of in-fill properties available in the county because to do anything else is to encourage sprawl. Commissioner Gallagher clarified for staff that the conditions that need to be re-written are condition #7 relating to the hours of traffic control, condition #9 relating to the 10' snow storage or removal, number #11 relating to compliance with 911 addressing standards, adding three conditions brought by the application: the height limitations PUD, the maintenartce of open space, landscaping, the 300 gallon tank, and caution signs. Conunissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. ZC-00065, incorporating the staff findings. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Gallagher and Stone voting in favor, and Commissioner Menconi voting against the file. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. PDP-00026, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: Mr. Forinash read the conditions. 1. The PUD Guide shall be revised to provide that "home occupation", as that use is defmed and otherWise regulated in the Land Use Regulations, shall be allowed as a use-by-right. 2. Items 1-7 of Section H and Item 1 of Section I of the PUD Guide shall be deleted and included in the Covenants for the development. 3. The following provisions regarding noxious weeds shall apply: [a] a provision should be included in the PUD Guide and the Covenants to the effect that "No County listed noxious weeds shall be planted or permitted to infest private lots and/or common areas"; [b] construction and earthmoving activities should be conducted in such a manner that topsoil is prevented from being removed from the site, including that which contaminates construction equipment, to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, specifically diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), and that County listed noxious weeds are prevented from producing seed; and [c] if construction and chemical control of weeds set forth in the 6/15/04 50 Landscape Plan do not occur during the 2004 growing season, the property owner should implement weed management practices sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Amended Weed Management Plan for Unincorporated Eagle County. 4. A complete cost estimate for the approved landscape plan, including the cost of supplying and installing the materials, shall be provided which is satisfactory to the Director of Community Development with the initial application for approval of a final plat for this development. 5. The Applicant shall provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 6. The final plat for the development shall include a note authorizing Eagle County Weed and Pest Division Staffto enter onto and across the open space parcels from mid-April through mid-September for the purpose of inspecting for noxious weed infestations. 7. The hours of permitted access for large vehicles and related conditions should be modified as follows: Hours When School is in Session W eekdays ~ No deliveries within 30 minutes of scheduled school bus pick up times. No deliveries after 3:00 PM without a street flagger present to supervise movement of vehicles or equipment. Saturday - No deliveries without a street flagger present to supervise movement of vehicles or equipment. Sunday- No deliveries. Hours When School is Out of Session Weekdays and Saturdays ~ No deliveries without a street flagger supervising movement of vehicles or equipment. Sundays - No deliveries. Additional provisions are as follows: [a] Large vehicles are defined to include those in excess of26,000 pounds GVW, per CDOT standard; [b] Mr. Jim Guida has designated himself as the initial traffic control representative, and may name any employee of Heritage Building & Development, Inc., or Guida ConstructionJo act as a representative in the future, provided that the owners of all the properties on Allen Circle and the Eagle County Director of Community Development be notified in advance; and [c] Modifications or amendments to these restrictions shall be allowed with the 3 days prior written notification, by U.S. Mail, of the owners of a majority of properties on Allen Circle, and with the concurrence of the Eagle County Director of Community Development. Such notice shall be deemed effective 3 days after deposit ofthe notices in the U.S. Mail. 1. All conditions of Resolution No. 2003-039 regarding a Variance from Improvement Standards shall be met in a timely manner, as determined by the County Engineer. 2. Snow storage easements, 10 feet in width, shall be provided on the final plat along both sides of all streets which are a part of the development. 3. A note shall be added to the final plat for this subdivision, satisfactory to the Director of Community Development, noting that snow storage easements exist along both sides of aU streets within the subdivision and that removal of snow from any sidewalks within these snow storage easements is the responsibility of the property owners and/or the Heritage Park Homeowners Association and not of Eagle County. 4. When the final plat is submitted for approval, the street entering the development from Allen Circle and that segment of the internal street referred to.as "Heritage Park North" 6/15/04 51 shall be named Heritage Park Lane (or "Place" or "Way"), and that segment of the internal street referred to as "Heritage Park West" shall be given a unique name consistent with the Eagle County Addressing Guidelines and the E-911 Street Naming Guidelines. 7. The final PUD Guide shall be revised to clearly include all of the recommended provisions of the Colorado Division of Wildlife in its letter dated December 10, 200 I. 7. The recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated February 2, 2004, shall be incorporated into the design and development of the site in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer. 7. The Applicant shall, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, comply with the recommendations of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments in its letter dated January 26, 2004, in a manner which is satisfactory to the County Engineer and the Ditector of Community Development. 7. 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. 7. The Applicant shall provide and install traffic control and advisory signs (e.g., "Stop", "Caution: Children at Play") as shown on the sign plans submitted with the application materials and/or as required and approved by the County Engineer. 7. A note shall be added to the final plat requiring that homes built on lots requiring individual grinder pumps shall be equipped with sewage storage tanks with a capacity of at least 300 gallons. 7. The language contained within the Heritage Park Design Guidelines regarding restrictions on the height of buildings shallexactIy match the language contained within the Homestead Ranch Architectural Standards for Filing 1. In a similar fashion, the language contained in the Planned Unit Development Guide for Heritage Park with regard to building height shall exactly match those contained in the Homestead Planned Unit Development Guide for Filing 1. 7. Maintenance of the open space contained within the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development shall be performed to the same or to a higher standard as the maintenance of the open space contained within the Homestead Planned Unit Development. 7. The Applicant is willing to work with the Claymon Family to provide bertning and additional landscape treatment based on a mutually acceptable program. This effort shall be made between Preliminary Plan approval and Final Plat approval. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Chairman Stone and Commissioner Gallagher voting for and Commissioner Menconi voting against the motion. ZS-OOl14 Believers Way Chainnan Stone noted for the record that the file had been withdrawn. VIS-0023 Riverstone SubdivisionN ariation from Improvement Standards Justin Hildreth, Project Engineer, Engineering, stated the applicant has withdrawn the file. AFP-00192 Riverstone Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development, stated she placed a memo in front of the Board explaining why the Variance Improvements Standards was removed. It changed the plat slightly. She reviewed the file. The intent of this project, known as the Riverstone Subdivision, is to 6/15/04 52 vacate elements of the previously platted Logan Park PUD and create new lot lines, building setbacks, easements and road names. The Logan Park PUD Guide shall remain in effect for this development. When Logan Park was originally platted, construction of the new Miller Ranch Road Bridge was not contemplated. Since the completion of the new bridge and road, the Logan Park PUD was sold to the current owners. Access is now proposed via Miller Ranch Road directly into the development (formerly, access was anticipated to be directly from U.S. Highway 6 and the old Cemetery Bridge), the current owner! developer has decided to alter the initial construction plans to slightly modify the design and road names. There will be no change to the number of lots previously platted as the Logan Park PUD. This Amended Final Plat will solidify the amendments as proposed by the new owner. She stated all findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Surrounding Land Uses! Zoning: East: Eagle County! Xcel Energy Gas Exchange Facility! RSL \ West: Residential! Resource North: Residential! Resource South: ROW: Highway 6 Existing Zoning: Logan Park PUD Total Area: 1.873 acres Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: Via an easement through Eagle County property, known as Tract A, to Miller Ranch Road. Pursuant to Section 5~290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All adjacent property owners were notified for this file. No responses were received from the following adjacentproperty owners, as supplied by the applicant: Country Club of the Rockies, Paul and Shirley Kudel, Jesse Alberts, Eagle County and Public Service Co. of Colorado. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Originally platted in January of 2001, the intent of the original was to subdivide Logan Park into five, residential lots. This residential intent has not changed. The owners have decided to slightly lnodify the road construction designS, name of the development, easements and lot lines. At a quick glance, the overall design is almost exactly the same as was previously platted. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. It was necessary to accomplish a Variancefrom Improvement Standards prior to the approval of this AmendedPinal Plat. Upon the VIS approval, this plat may also be approved. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES apply. A new Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be signed with this Amended Final Plat. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. Chairman Stone asked about the new emergency access. He said it was a great location towards the end of the property. He asked that the applicant maintain the access during heavy snow times and not use it for snow storage. Rick Hermes stated that pavers would be used and would be easily maintained. 6/15/04 53 Comlllissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. AFP-00192 incorporating the Staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign both the plat and Subdivision Improvements Agreement. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-OOl17 Sprint @ Trinity Baptist Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development, presented this file. The applicant desires to relocate a previously approved Low Power Telecommunications Facility on the Trinity Baptist Church property located near Homestead/South Forty Subdivisions in Edwards. The facility, which has not been built as of yet, is proposed to consist of a 35' tall, 18" wide, stealth monopole which encases the cellular antennas, and a small equipment shed, located near the base ofthe pole (see attached). The previous application (ZS-00086) was approved in October 200 I, in a location closer to the Trinity Baptist church. Since that approval, the property owners have decided that the telecommunications facility should be shifted further to the east to accommodate a proposed expansion of the church. As Special Use Pertnits are site specific, and an amendment process for a Special Use Pertnit does not exist, the applicant is applying for a new Special Use for a telecommunications facility in the location as depicted on the attached site plan. July 200 I - In order to increase the cellular coverage for wireless users in the Edwards area, a Special Use Permit for anew Telecommunications facility is being proposed. October 2001- Sprint Spectrum received its original approval for the telecommunications facility. Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential/Homestead PUD West: Residential/South Forty Subdivision North: Edwards Commercial Park South: Residential/Homestead PUD Existing Zoning: Resource Total Area: Approx. 2.5 acres (800 square foot lease area) Water/Sewer: Not applicable Access: Via Lariat Loop/South Forty Subdivision The Eagle County Planning Commission had no real issues with this file, as it was a previously approved file. The Planning Commission did question the fact that to get to the equipment shelter, Sprint would have to cross a Holy Cross easement, and the staircase to the facility was situated in the easement as well. As a result, a new condition from the Planning Commission was added to this proposal, and is as follows: Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by Eagle County the Applicant will provide proof to Staff of proper easements recorded with Holy Cross. Staff agrees with the intent of this condition from the Planning Commission, and has added it as condition number 3 of this Staff report; however, Staff has re-written the condition to be more specific. The Planning Commission Recommended approval of file ZS-OO I 17, incorporating all Staff findings and conditions, with one additional condition STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Sheriff, memo dated April 27, 2004: . Advantages: 6/15/04 54 . Away from church by itself. . Hidden over hill and not in plain site . Disadvantages: . Possible vandalism done to facility (graffiti, etc.) . Could also be a problem being hidden and not in plain site . Vandalism done to pole . Skateboarders trying to jump of railing and skate . Recommendations: . Fence around facility . Gate leading into stairway down to facility . Small gate or fence around 35' ft pole so no vandalism occurs . Video camera system (if possible) . Combination lock door leading into facility . Hostile shrubbery around fence so it's not tempting to climb fence Referrals were also sent to the following agencies, with no response received: Eagle County Engineering, Attorney, Assessors, Animal Control, Housing Colorado State Division of Wildlife Nat1.lral Resource Conservation District Fire District, Metro District, Eagle River Water and Sand, Holy Cross and telephone provider The Homestead and South Forty HOAs DISCUSSION: PurSuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a SpeCial Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.1 COllsistent with Master Plan. ..The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be COnsistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, qnd intensities of use. THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN . Environmental Open Spacel Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality ReCreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X Community Center Non Conformance Mixed ConfOITilance Not X X Applicable Community Center is the future land use designation for this area; the Eagle County Master Plan is silent regarding Telecommunication Iacilities. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X X X X X X Non 6/15/04 55 Conformance Mixed Conformance R Not X I Applicable The Eagle County Open Space Plan contains a mix of concerns and policies, used to guide development in Eagle County. This plan is silent regarding where to place wireless towers, poles and related equipment. According to the Open Space Master Plan, the area of the pole site is in compliance with recommended development: it is not located in either a historic site or a site of unique characteristic; it is part of an existing development. EAGLE RIVER W ATERSBED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X Non Confonnance Mixed Conformance . Not X X X X Applicable The application site is situated within the watershed boundary. The site, however, is not directly adjacent to any water course, or collector area. Due to the nature of the equipment, this proposal is not antici ated to de ade the wildlife habitat. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standatds for building and strUctural intensities and densities, and intensities ofuse. ST ANDAR.D: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. There are telephone/power poles of similar height which exist within close proximity of the site, as well as a light pole located adjacent to the church. The proposed monopole will be painted to blend in with the sUlTounding landscape. The church has continuously worked with the applicant in choosing the site. Because there are plans to alter the church and the immediate vicinity thereof. It is for this reason that the area of the facility is being moved; the church has requested this change. The character of the surrounding vicinity of Eagle County should not be com romised by this S ecial Use TO osal. [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surroundin land uses. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The Telecommunication Facility will remain in the Resource zone district. There are no specific standards for these es of uses found in Section 3-310. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed S ecial Use DOES comply with the standards 6/15/04 56 of the zone districtin which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource ~~ . STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands;furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. The proposed monopole structure is designed to encase the antenna array minimizing the visual impacts ofthe structure. The pole shall be painted to blend in With the surrounding landscape, and shall not emit any odors, noise, glare or vibrations. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact; The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it CAN avoid adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding noise and traffic, and WILL NOT create a nuisance. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The proposed Special Use is designed to minimize environmental impacts and will not cause significant deterioration of water, air, wildlife habitat, scenic or other natural resources. [+] FINDING: Desigh Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use WILL fully minimize environmental impacts, and will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater faciliti~, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The proposed facility is un-manned. Power and telephone are available. The existing road used to access the site is adequate. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, arks, schools, olice and fire protection, and emer enc medical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Developmeht Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) 6/15/04 57 Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed. Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not necessary for this Special Use Permit. Commercial and Industrial Perfortnance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards are not anticipated as a result of this development. Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) There have been no complaints received concerning this finding. All Telecommunication facilities have to comply with FCC standards (the regulating authority). Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) No new roads will be created. Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) krigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards inthis section do not a I. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES fully comply with all applicable standards in Article 4, Site Develo ment Standards. [nJa] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [nJa] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [nJa] STANDARD: Sectioll 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. No other provisions of the Land Use Regulations are applicable to this proposal for a Special Use Permit. (+]FINDING: The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics Brad Johl1son was present for the applicant but had no comments. There was no public comment. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. ZS-00117, incorporating the staff findings, and with the foil owing conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Applicant (Sprint PCS) shall notify the Community Development Director when altering or modifying equipment on the Telecommunications Facility. Notification shall include both a written description and detailed plans showing equipment on the inside of the pole, as well as any modifications to the equipment shelter. Any increase in the height of the monopole, or increase of the equipment shelter, will necessitate a new Special Use Permit. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit by Eagle County the Applicant will provide a copy of the recorded easement agreement between Sprint and/or the Landowner and Holy Cross regarding 6/15/04 58 access and the construction ofthe staircase to the Sprint Telecommunications Facility which is situated in the existing Holy Cross easement. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unammous. AFP-00180 Trailside Lot 5 Jena SkinIler-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development, presented this file. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this Amended Final Plat is to modify the shared property line between Lot 5, a residential lot, and Tract B: Common Area (the majority of which is Trailside Lane), in order to enlarge Lot 5. There is currently an existing house constructed on Lot 5. Sometime after recording the Arrowhead at Vail Filing 27, Phase 2 Final Plat, a surveying error was discovered necessitating the enlargement of Lot 5; the building, as constructed, exceeds the boundaries of Lot 5 as platted and encroaches into Tract B. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Residential/Arrowhead at Vail Fling 27 West: ROW: Cresta Road / Arrowhead at Vail Fling 27 North: Residential/Arrowhead at Vail Fling 27 South: Residential/Arrowhead at Vail Fling 27 Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: 1.038 acres Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: Via Cresta Road to Tract B a.k.a. Trailside Lane. Co STAFF FI.NDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards forAmended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All adjacent property owners were notified for this file. No responses were received from the follOWing adjacent property owners, as supplied by the applicant: Vail/Arrowhead Inc., Meridian Co. LLC., and Thomas and Kari Schmidt. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Originally platted and recorded in May of 2003, the intent of the previous plat was to further subdivide Trailside on Arrowhead Mountain into several residential lots and common area. In September of 2003, the Applicant's notified Staff that Lot 5 was incorrectly platted and made application for an Amended Final Plat; this application does not affect the intent of the underlying plat as nothing new is either being created or eliminated with this amendment. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. 6/15/04 59 d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. AFP-00180 incorporating the Staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement - Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Vaughan Construction, Inc. for Construction of the Eagle County LandfIll Vehicle Storage/Shop Building Ms. Mauriello asked that the Board postpone action on this file. Attest: The~e be;~11(),~~er busine~~.~o discus.~, the meeting was adjourned until June 29, 2004 (-""'~~'~'~J~i~; ",':~ .j;t.<.'......:;:...'...............,t..."i;..... :......(~.;,.,;.:;>:>1' 'l,-'f.-y..s4~ ~.. . '\\-.J ~ ....~ '. .' -' _..~/.t' ,.:, ,'_ ,,~, . //J .. .' -t.. . , .... '-' -C.f '..,' i - f rK to ~he B~.u;4;{r Chairman ' 6/15104 60 04-26-04 01:49PM FROM JIM GUIDA CONST. POl ! ~ EAGLE RIVER 111//(' WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT rJii' 846 Forest Road' Vall, Colorado 81657 (970) 476.7480 · FAX (970) 476.4089 March 16, 2004 Mr. Jim Guida Heritage Building Development, Inc. P.O. Box 760 Vail, CO 81658 Subject: Heritage Park Development Dear Jim: This letter is to inform you that Construction Plan Approval has been granted for the above-referenced proj eeL Please submit three (3) sets of plans, one wet-stamped to the District for our files. A mandatory pre-construction meeting is required to be held at least 48 hours prior to commencement of construction. It is assum!'..1 ","-.. ,lans submitted will reflect all requirements as stated in the District specifications for water and sewer lines. Any oversight by the Construction Review team during the review process shall not be construed as permission to construct anything that does not adhere to the District standard specifications. The District must grant any deviation from District standard specifications through written approval. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, \~~~ ~ Fred S. Haslee Regulations Administrator Cc Roby Forsyth David Despeaux proj eet File FSH/mem "\15WSD\8RE~S\L'tt",~~.~2 MANAGEMENT 5,"'lc" A Bill Hopp P.O. Box 961 Edwards., CO 81632 926-3203 Phone 926-5230 Fax i ..'~~C RECEIVFD:--=-~~ I! I ~___'r ..11----- I i I 1. . Eagle County r-:-~.~'-:-::::_::.:~-~' I Community Development L,,"n~=~! , . .' I. APR 05 2004 March 24, 2004 Board of County Commissioners PO. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RE: Heritage Park Planned Unit Development Dear Chairman: I am wTiting as a member of the Edwards Community Master Plan Committee. We as a committee met at counties public meetings. The community members offered input into the direction of the Edwards Community Plan and how they considered the growth of the community should be managed. Many citizens were against density and the plan ~1lS reduced accordingly. The Edwards Community Master Plan was ultimately approved. To now have neighbors in the Homestead Subdivision coming forward at this time in an effort to stop the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development from being approved is wrong. These citizens had more than ample opportunity to help direct the information of the Edwards Community Master Plan. This certainly appears to be another selfish example of NIMBY. I strongly urge you to consider approving this project. It follows the Edwards Community Master Plan and is the right infill development for this area. Sincerely, 69 ff7f Bill Hopp RECEIVED APR 0 5 20M @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~ & CC>, IfIC 970-926-6226 . FAX 970-926-6227 P.O. Box 1888 . Edwards. Colorado 81632 April 7, 2004 -;-'P'j ---;--,-;:::~=-'--'- I ; 'i,J' f. I .."._^.-!~.:- ----- -- , 'm...~. . r r I ; - ~---'-'! Dear Chairman: I '1 l Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 R'2:tu:n 0: (g. To Mr. Guida has prepared a residential development on the Allen Parcel t t confonnslo the direction in the Edwards Community Plan for that specific parcel. .- In response to neighborhood comments, density has been reduced to the lower end of what is stated in the Master Plan for this parcel. Design changes were made to have the least impact possible on the adjacent lots in Homestead. The Sketch Plan was approved for this development. I believe that the established process of using the county Master Plan as the guide for development should be followed. I believe that the approval of the Sketch Plan should provide the basis for the expenditure of funds required for Preliminary Plan submittal. Heritage Park has met these requirements and deserves your continued support. Rick Mueller Remonov & Co., Inc. RECEIVED APR 1 3 2004 EAGLE COUNTY COMMl-JNITY BEVEL0PMENT RECEIVED APR 1 2 2004 ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners .. .:...-.......~.:..-:..," CHARLES RIDGWAY P.O. Box 989 Eagle, Colorado 81631 ,., ." ,-., '--<("';< ,,,.,,.....-.-.,...... ......_~~,.. "" '--'" April 13, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Chairman: As a fonner member of the Eagle County Planning Commission and someone who is interested in the quality of life in Eagle County, I support managed and well-planned County growth. In an effort to achieve this goal, Eagle County has adopted Master Plans. We are not a no-growth County. We are, in my mind, a smart-growth County. Therefore, when a development project such as Heritage Park is presented that complies with the Master Plan, I think it is imperative that we approve such a development. This sends a message that we have a Master Plan for growth and that we use it to guide development. Yours truly, " (Q~~6 (f f~~~G~_ Charles Ridgway RE EI o APR 1 4 200!~ Eag~e County Community Development @ RECEIVED April 14. 2004 APR 2 3 2004 Eagfe County Community Devefopment I .-J Eli";;:: l Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle. CO 81631 Dear Commissioners: I'm writing to express my support of the Heritage Park project. I am aware of the difficulty in balancing development. density, and open . space. While each is important. priority must be given to that which benefits the greater good and vision of the community. I believe the 24 homes in Heritage Park are in perfect balance and represent a very good example of quality, Will development and smart use of our land. I do not agree with the minority opposing this project. It is my understanding that this development complies with the Master Plans of Eagle County and Edwards. I also believe Heritage Park will be an asset to the community now and in the future. As a registered voter and property owner in Eagle County, I strongly support this development and urge you to approve Heritage Park. Thank you, DJ;;J~ IO~ /h~ ~/ a~C-~L ~~ REceIveD APR 2 2 2004 Eagte Boa.rd pf county oTr!rn!SsJoners . ";,. ~'.'" .,.---........___.....J ;2J- ~ I.~I APR 2 3 2004 ':--~"\. -- ~ I ~ . ., ''7n 1 . 2> u Eagle County :----',' "-~ _! O~& .~ \ (J 0 I~ \- . ~ :s / \.-.--:--....--:-:-.-'. ... n/ tLi - -' r"~ --c ChJMfll~ tM /MIU;~ t I M~ ffil4 flU? ~ {{ ~ fltf' _~x~qaa/ ~. . (. LItOj ~ df ~r.:d~ ~ cUd/~ Y ;//1. :J J ~ q fltt/ f7rU ~ elM ~~:f' I ~/( ~ ),(S RECEIVED APR 1 3 2004 Eagle Board of County ~l Q commissioners ~ Mr. Tome Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Arn Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631-0850 . . .... \'--,:-:-:-;:;T' - \ ,', I "7~' ..\ ~-=~~1i~t I. '7.lJ!2!-l....~ R E CE IVE D~=_~~~.L~~~~ \ \ --_.-- :______--J-::::---:-- ~ , n.~'...n\ '. :"l 10 . ~_ ,l\:'7.ld1 ~~. . . ,'0'.:>., ,__---- EagJe County \.~- ~~ . J Community Development April 23, 2004 APR 2 7 2004 Dear Commissioners, I am writing in support of Heritage Park in Edwards. I encourage you to approve this application. I have been aware of this project from the outset and am very familiar with the Owner/Developer. I am also familiar with the architect who has been retained for this development. There could not be a better team to oroduce this proposed neighborhood. While it IS important to consider balancing the needs of the surrounding community in areas such as open space, density and development it is equally important to have a vision towards the future needs of our community. After reviewing plans and renderings of Heritage Park I have no doubt that this new neighborhood would represent the best in terms of quality of construction, aesthetic value and sense of community. Edwards has grown rapidly over the past decade and not always with a vision and concern for the community at large. Heritage Park would be different. As I understand; it complies with the Master Plans of Eagle County and Edwards and the proposed density is well within the limits proposed for Homestead. This development would be a quality addition to the community. Certainly the development of the Allen Parcel could be considered the "highest and best use" of the land in a part of this county that is projected to grow strongly for many years. As a registered voter of Eagle County I strongly support the development of this parcel and urge you to approve Heritage Park as submitted. Si7Y' ~~pe rson P. O. Box 8337 Avon, CO 81620 RECEIVED APR 2 6 200~ @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners Dear Commissioners: r-;(t;-~. .., DEPT. . 1 '-'~--_. "t' " L.,,__..., L. ct j._---~ ~.~:.~ --,~~__.- I ; I I :..-__L_ , I' r{a."u-'_~ ;'.'rl~ ~ I ' r....! .:1 ..~. 'C,:' i 0 f'~~ _ I April 21 , 2004 Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 One of the concerns raised by residents on Allen Circle is a fear that the additional cars associated with the 24 homes will overwhelm their street. I live on a street where cars from more than 30 homes pass by my house, and I consider my street a quiet residential street. In reviewing the plans for Heritage Park, I believe that it represents somewhat of a model for smart, in-fill suburban development. Its open space and landscaping along the boundary with Homestead will add privacy to the adjacent properties. This project fits with the surrounding neighborhood and I recommend that you approve it. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~ Po ;301/ 'XG/h ~ (Ju.'\) Co fIG ~ 0 RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners @ Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 c~ Ii. ~....' : I -- .-~..----. . . -. ~_ i ---- , __~J...._. ~G~.~-;':-""-""...' I -.".- ----.- :--..-:\~--- i" C ...;:::::---.. /-_, '0::.1-'1. . , i--. [ I ! April 26, 2004 Dear Commissioners: As an Edwards resident, I believe that Heritage Park should be approved. The density is very compatiole;llie localiords per.fed-ana1he-bawardsC:oniirl\inirY'--~."-" Plan specifically supports this site for this kind of development. Please continue to support smart growth such as Heritage Park ?o. ~ (q(0 ~:s, CD ?!b32 - RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development RECEIVED APR 2 7 2004 c[~) I Eagte 80a,rd 91 County ommlsSloners I April 1, 2004 RECEIVED MA'1 1 7 2004 Mr. Keith Montag, Director Eagle County Department of Community Development and Planning P.O. Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631-0179 EAGLE COUNTY r:: I COMMUNITY DEVELOPM....t" T RE: Heritage Park Dear Keith, As a former member of the ~agle County Planning Commission, I was interested when I read about the Heritage Park project. It appears that you and your staffhave concluded it is consistent with both the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Sub Area Plan. My analysis agrees with that conclusion. Many citizens of the Edwards area spent a great deal of time and effort to complete the Edwards Area Master Plan. The plan was well done and adopted by the Planning Commission, that decision set a very good guide for planning in this area. I encourage the Board of County Commissioners to respect that document. Heritage Park is both consistent with the Mater Plans and has met all requirements. I believe it should be approved. Sincerely, Rich Barnes 0137 Knudsen Ranch Rd. Edwards CO @ j XC DEPT. I-- ! May 12, 2004 i ~! l Rmurn Orit;. To .J Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 ~ Dear Commissioners: I'm writing to express my support of the Heritage Park project. I am aware of the difficulty in balancing development, density, and open space. I believe the 24 homes in Heritage Park are in perfect balance and represent a very good example of quality, infill development and smart use of our land. It is my understanding that this development complies with the Master Plans of Eagle County and Edwards. I believe Heritage Park will be an asset to the community now and in the future. As a resident and voter of Eagle County, I"::''' ..elf support this development and urge you to approve Heritage Park. Thank you, Rich Caples P.O. Box 341 Avon, CO 81620 RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2004 Eagfe County Community Development RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2004 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners 7 28 04 01: OOp p. 1 Al1i~on Elaine Wells P.o. Box 8810 Avon. CO 81620 Tel: 970 949-3293 Emu;l: U1t-'ells(a)mOlmtuinma.Y:.net .. ,....... ~- .._"'~...__.._~'~...,..,- i ; A,til ';.-"':;~A ~_1 ,._P.-l~ ' \._-_:=._~..-.. . t~\~ C:I;~'\ t...--.."..-- !..~._~----_. Mr. Michael Gallagher Eagle County Commissioner P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 Dear Chairman Stone: Eagle County Community Development Heritage Park is a prime example of what carefully planned, quality development is alLabout}..and-I----""~.....- strongly encourage your endorsement of this project. \ fbtl/.rn On;;; Tt~.._~...... r ------~- . In Jim Guida, you have a developer of superb integrity and sensitivity, who has a 'ltested.-1R~est'-_....-. in our community. .1 have witnessed development squabbles in other U.S. communities and in Eagle County over the last 20 years, when developers wjthout Q vested interest do not comply with civic guidelines or cooperatively address visual quality, density, environmental sensitives, or community compatibility issues. I know Jim Guida through my work as an educational consultant to his children, and I can personally attest to the highly principled character of this man, whose sensitivities to others and to his community are far above the norm. In following the news articles about Heritage Park, it is dear that Mr. Guida has bent over backward to adhere to the Eagle County Master Plan, the original intent of the Allen family and Homestead Ranch Corporation, the guidelines of the Edwards Area Community Plan, and to plan a development that attractively flUs a niche in the environment and neighborhood. . I have often thought how much could be learned from Newport Beach and Santa Barbara, California, where I previously lived and watched dvic leaders address growth and development issues. In Santa Barbara, where nirnby politics impeded development for a number of years, the economy grew severely depressed. the community actually declined in appearance, and residents learned the hard way what could result from a hungry economy and later approvals of unattractive buildings by unvested, out-of-area developers. In Newport Beach, where neighborhood people feared the projects planned by a giant local developer (the Irvine Company), but civic leaders applied established guidelines in a fair and even-handed way, the long-term result was more favorable. Today, residents are grateful that the developer of much of the community land had a vested interest in the community and they are proud of their low skyline and red-tiled gas stations and movie theaters. The key to responsible governance of development lies in strictly administering established guidelines and trusting the recommendations of established boards, which in their due process listen to neighborhood caucases and listen to requests for developer variances, prior to making their recommendations. Heritage Park has already undergone reviews and adapatations; it is time to approve the project. Sincerely yours, ~~ Allison Wells RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners Apr 28 04 11:55a p. 1 RECEIVED ...~ i c,-i:r:--J ~.~~~:'. n~--cc-., :--~:~ I April 27, 2004 Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2 9 2004 Eagle County Community Development , .' ' C~;;.;";i ~~;',;:-=i'n -1 . ..... ..."",.--................. ..- - Dear Commissioners: Sometimes it's hard to remember that development isn't just about houses, density, traffic, and views. It's about planning for the people who want to live here, and creating a vision that benefits all. I'm not sure who decides what is right or what is to be taken seriously, but it was my understanding that this was, and is, the purpose of Master Plans and Community Plans. How can we guide our future when these very documents are subject to the whims of whoever thinks differently? I'm an advocate for the environment and love open space. It is stupid to think growth will stop or that we can "zone away" the people. If we truly want to protect the things that are most important to us, we need to start making smart decisions with our land. In- fill development is such a critical component to smart land use decisions. What better place to give greater density than to a parcel that is close to the center of the community. What better way to help reduce the pressure of sprawl and our daily dependency on vehicles? What better way to provide for growth and benefit of all? Please make the right decision and approve Heritage Park. Sincerely, ~:t:~ . 0 . P." jg'f5' dvovd 8/b~ O. 'f. . . RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 @0 Eagle Board of County Commissioners 1V :" Hr'1< L~'U4 lL:L4 NO.UU~ r'.Ul Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 ,,__~_:".1'~-- ,":J RECEIV . Df~.~...~.:.t.. ~~~ . E _. ".". '. .>JV'r1 I . ~ .(._.LL..i.\-.. APR 2 9 2004 i'~-~"- ;..-.....-----1 r---'-)'J' ._..,.~.._-=.~,---{ EagJe County H~tij(n c-ng. To. ..! Community Developm nt -..~~._- April 26,2004 Dear Commissioners, I writing .LO 3.(;k that you approve the Heritage Park application. 1 am famlliar with this project and with the developer. Heritage Park confonnsto the Ma"ter Plan and Edwards Community Plan. It is centrally located and will nunimizc the need for new services such police, fire, EMS, snow removal, etc. Wise use of our land and resources provides a benefit to all people in the valley. Please continu~ your support of Heritage Park. Sincerely, ~- (J. O. tSCl1> f. d ~.J2-0$ I :J.y;).. & .6'16 ~2- @ I RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners Chuck and Leticia Harrison P.O. Box 364,839-6 Edwards Village Blvd., Edwards, CO 81632 Tele: 9701926-4538 Fax: 9701926-6432 April 25, 2004 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2. 9 2004 Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners, We have lived in Homestead since 1996 and'have heard about the Allen parcel since we moved here. We have watched with interest the progress of the Heritage Park development and Mr. Guida's wilJingness to meet with the Homestead Board, the neighboring homeowners and the County in an effort to develop the property. Not only has Mr. Guida been willing to work within the Homestead Design Guidelines and work closely with all parties, but has incorporated much of their input. We support Heritage Park and believe that it will truly be an asset to Homestead and the Edwards area. It incorporates everything Homestead strives for. Additionally it has a lower density than the adjacent Homestead filings. The proposed density is appropriate and desirable. We hope that you follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master plan and Edwards Community Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer~, C.I1J{,dL jJt//~ U)~-"-- Chuck and Leticia Harrison (' 0, I> /l)l ~ 1:/-( ~c(t-t/C'V~1 , C u '6/ G") z- / Ii . L~v-- RECEIVED APR 2 B 2004 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ' April 25, 2004 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR ? 9 200/~ Eagfe County Community Development Dear Commissioners: Weare ~ting to rnmmet<l.t on the rr(lpo~ed Heri.tl3.ge Park project, As an. Edward;: resident, we have seen the impact of rapid gro\.\.th and poor planning. We were pleased when the Edwards CommunitY Plan was finally adopted. As you know, it was designed to be a more restrictive plan to make certain that development and density reflected what the people wanted. I believe you have the responsibility to uphold this Plan for the people of Edwards. Uncierstanding the various concerns regarding Heritage Park, we feel that developer Jim Guida has addressed all of the important issues. This is especially true concerning density. Anyone with the ability to understand a map can easily reason that Homestead is not one unit to the acre. 1t's a misleading concept that will set the wrong precedent and dilute the efforts of those who worked to create a plan for the future by balancing gro'-\'th and density in Edwards. Vv'e believe this kind of development should be encouraged. We hope that you, too, after reviewing this will agree and will vote in favor of Heritage Park. Thank you for your consideration and acknowledging our support of this project. Sincerely, ~{#fj ~~ Spencer Butts & Lita Hitchcock P.O. Box2040 Edwards, CO 81632 926-7133 RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 ._ _ .. . '.. s ~ ", . " : ~:'.'" l;'" ~!"_~~.-.~.~ , . ~ .- .:',' ~ ':. , ;'.E~gle:Boa.r'd~f County ~E'.:.rr:l~}~~rs .. ." no,' "=" .'.- . " J..' J ~. .- ;" '.. .~ ,." "'. . . . , ....t. ;..~ .. ;,-,'< uJ.' ... i".l';'<"" . .. ~'" r f f. '.' ,'J.t ' . ..,1 i..-; "~ '. ..1 -... '.. :.:....:....;....: ..~. ~.~-./!~.~::.<;~:. " "':' ~.. " .~.; ", ; ~ : '. ~ .:' ...- ~_'. \.', _ ~:... ~~1'. '.:" ,'_:":,:~ ..)t .::'l~.~~,,:;. ,. -:' . . . @ ~' ,~ . #'.' .'''. .,' . April 21, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2 9 200': Eagfe County Community Development Dear Commissioners: I'm writing to request your support of the Heritage Park project. More importantly, I would like to encourage you to uphold the common good of the community in your decision concerning this project. I do not feel development should be controlled by special interest or nimby groups. I personally am not smarter than those who analyze and understa,nd development, growth, and density issues in a county where open space is so important and developable land so scarce. And I certainly would not place myself above the efforts of the many talented individuals, who through public process, create and adopt the Master Plans that are in place to guide growth and create a vision for the future of this county. I believe in this election year you should stand tall in your support of the Master Plans, and your record, and vote for approval of Heritage Park. RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 8 Eagle Board of County Commissioners April 26, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2 9 200i~ Eagfe County Community Development Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners: I am a past owner of Homestead and currently live in Singletree. I have previously attended meetings concerning Heritage Park and understand the issues concerning this development. I feel strongly that there is a need for the type of housing that Heritage Park is providing, especially in the Edwards area. I do not agree with those who state the density is too high or the traffic too much. As the community grows there will be greater demand for housing and business's that are close by. Heritage Park is an excellent example of good development in Eagle County. Please continue to give this project your support. Thank you, ~ .:jJt)Jd'''C? C0..>2-- '7~3->x 878 \" Co 8,~.3::) ~ ().)iCU"" I . @ April 27,2004 Eagle County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVED Re: Heritage Park APR 2 9 200ft Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners This letter is to express my support for the Heritage Park project in Edwards. This is an ideal location for residential development in a growing community. In-fill development will have opposition because it is always going to be in someone's back yard. As Edwards continues to grow as a community, I feel the 24 single family homes of Heritage Park are a perfect density for this site, especially given the location to the commercial center and existing public infrastructure. I think your support of the Eagle County Master Plans is the greatest service you can give to the community. Please continue your support of Heritage Park. Thank you, Rob Hall @ April 21, 2004 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2 9 2004 Eagfe County Community Development Dear Commissioners: As an Edwards resident, I believe that Jim Guida has acted responsibly in preparing the Heritage Park PUD for 24 single-family homes adjacent to Homestead. I feel he has reduced the density to a very acceptable level given the location and pressure on all private land. I also believe his willingness to adopt the Homestead Design Guidelines demonstrates a commitment that should give everyone comfort. This project represents the kind of development that should be encouraged in Eagle County. I agree with the staff at Eagle County who supports this application. I do not think it is a good policy to place control of development in the hands of special interest or NIMBY's. I encourage you to support this application and follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Community Plan. Thank you for your consideration. RECEIVED I APR 2 8 2004 @ Eagle Board of County commissioners April 21, 2004 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 2 9 2004 Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners: As an Edwards resident, I believe that Jim Guida has acted responsibly in preparing the Heritage Park PUD for 24 single-family homes adjacent to Homestead. I feel he has reduced the density to a very acceptable level given the location and pressure on all private land. I also believe his willingness to adopt the Homestead Design Guidelines demonstrates a commitment that should give everyone comfort. This project represents the kind of development that should be encouraged in Eagle County. I agree with the staff at Eagle County who supports this application. I do not think it is a good policy to place control of development in the hands of special interest or NIMBY's. I encourage you to support this application and follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Community Plan. :::;:::;l~ RECEIVED APR 2 8 2004 @ Eagle Boa.rd 91 County Commissioners t2-iJCC , StePh~~hi~~hards ~.. ];S::'"d : 'I,' ~ .\ ~ meD ARoumCI'IJRAL DdiGlVS .I....N{tr. .l' 'Dfap"oO P.O. Box 1114 . 4th and Broadway · Eagle. Colorado 81631 · (970) 328-628f'll A f'f{IL '2 g 1 29 o~ EAC:LE Ccut.J't/ Cortt,"i~S' ~D" -=~s RECEIVED APR 2 8 20D4 ~~ t? ~ r;A4'c-E J (0. g I&> '3/ RECEIV Eagle Board p1 County ommlssloners SI{25 APR 2 9 2004 Eagle County Community Development 1H-''5 ,os J. L..~te:. ,... $"Vt'Po~ DF A~"VA.(" t:>F -r:HE. l4"~r1ACE:. f),t2-tC. M€tt:#S1> ~o C tJl!..lfU.M Tl?'" 'O~ FofU Y"eJ. T ~ E.A~ u.. C Du t-.l TY mAS TEll!. f1 L-..A ~ E:J.i UJ cJ fl.Ac~s 11J.:r l c...(.., r JZ.oJ Ee 7S $<J c: l>f M 7}JIS ~-n.j.~ -r I-J~ 1. CT'T'( ~4' Of V t,l.-C r IYlf:. 14, S~6.JL -t1-f~OOCHDvr .otJ~ V4-~y'S.. , ,.J w f l.I(... A'T'1Z N 'D E. D f'fZA.lEc:t5 olceu..,-t..r AFF~"" Sc/n~ -,t-JA M ~S . Ill' S' 'Ft=-~oL.~ H~e( Ht; s M'D 71-J V.f' mAftES I rr V~~oa.,ut-(~&.,Y 1t-l~Iu.. M~Ic:;-I#}I)~DDS PtotLe. H- A tl-"D (t> 4o~,A-("'ST ~$.;!: ~nl~OWl--t.ef2-S WISH-CS. J-,..l ~s cA-~t: --r'f/E ~~.J~~T I S SI)1.A~ .A-ND jf#-~ ~fZ-o'fof-J,.r#.J.r JS ).,.J'O #As hfA~ S/e;HIF((!A-~T p:.t:V'5fON5 ,0 tnJrfC~ 1"'1 p1c>t2-C. pA-tLATA~U.. +JMJ/~e; Ucr/~O ';~~qJ, f?iAN. .AfPtU~'- ']: /,.VDUt..r:> 5u~~~s-r Tl-L4r ""'H~ ~Fft..f~T 1-/;"$ ~~Ac#fiO ~ ~I~T -r....}.Ar IT Wec.J(....:O B~ u-.{'f411Z. "'-0 ,.Jo, A ~J"i- ..;fl S ?/Z-OdLqr. ,\u. 'C?~cr:;JotJs Ll~ ~~'- AU 1b<)<;1I :sor y.. "(i~~:)"" ,000A<l-17DN ,,, ),ff'I!~crJm:D. ~(fJ.a"-L 0/ ,tqS <:Ltl-a- Q__i_J rn ".L..U.L-r..JU"'" u.""-"nll yn~~ ~~~V~I~ ~~v. ~v I'1V..::lt:H t"'.C: V A , L RESORTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY April 28, 2004 RECEIVED VIA TELEFAX APR 2 9 2004 Eagle County Community Development Mr. Tom Stone, Chainnan Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 8163' RE: Heritage Park Prelim;nary Plan Zoning Dear Commissioners: It has come to my attention that the Heritage Park Preliminary Plan Zoning is scheduled to be heard before the Commissioners on May 4, 2004. It is my further understanding that the 24 units on this approximate II-acre parcel is comparable in density to the surrounding area within the Homestead community, but more importantly is in conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan which has been recently adopted after substantial input from many sectors of the community. Vail Resorts Development Company supports quality infill development that is in compliance with the Master Plans that have been adopted after appropriate community input. Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on this matter. Sincerely, OPMENT COMPANY @ -------- 'VAIl. Rt.J:lo"yr Vail R6Ilorte Deye!oplPenl Compl\DY . 137 BEnclu:nan Road . Post Office Box 959 . Avon, Colorado 81620-0959 . (970) 84S-2S3S . fn (970) BI}5..2S55 . W1nor.vroc.com Vail. Breekenridge . Keystones. Beaver Creek. . Bachelor Gulch$ . Arrowhead- . Red Sky RDDCh'" o APR.30.2004 l0:29AM DC&A NO. 352 P.l April 27, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chainnan Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 3 0 2004 Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners: fm writing to express my support of the Heritage Park project. 1 am aware of the difficulty in balancing deVelopment, density, and open space. While each is important, priority must be given to that which benefits the greater good and vision of the community. I believe the 24 homes in Heritage Park are in perfect balance and represent a very good example of quality) infill development and smart use of our land. I do not agree with the minority opposing this project It is my understandiDg that this development complies with the Master Plam; of Eagle County and Edwards. I also believe Heritage Park will be an asset to the community now and 4t the future. As a resident and voter of Eagle County, I strongly support this development and urge you to approve Heritage Park. . Thank you, {Eo;;; Soo:..,rJ S ~, ,1'" fj W. ~~~o.rc&~ J:>rz...\. vE~..::1- Vlrll,.., Co e-I t&>.("1 ~1) 04-30-04 10:14am From-E&S Unltd 7603607083 T-905 P.OOI/OOI F-972 April 28, 2004 RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle; CO 81631 APR 3 0 2004 Eagle county Community Development Dear Commissioners: As a Homestead owner/resident of eight years, I bave been aware of the Heritage Park development. I am also aware that Mr. Guida has met with the Homestead Board and the neighboring homeowners on several occasions in hopes of reaching an agreement to have this development fit and feel more like Homestead. After understanding more about Heritage Park, I want to state my ~port oftbis development. Mr. Guida's willingness to adopt the Homestead Design GJlidclines and be subject to the Homestead DRC should eosme that this development blends with me neighborhood. I believe the density for this parcel is appropriate. Edwards is very much a local communitY. This is where I choose to live, however, there is very little to choose from to live in other than townhomes. I am being married in one week and we will be looking foT a single :family residence to call home in Edwards. I am very excited about the opportunity to be able to purchase a single family home here in Homestead and stay in the community that I so like. I believe the Heritage Park plans are very appropriate for this parcel I encourage you to follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Connnunity Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Charles Howard Stag's Leap @ 04/30/2004 12:51 4709251499 DENNY SHAY April 29, 2004 Eagle County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Heritage Park Dear Commissioners PAGE 01/01 RECEIVED APR 3 0 2004 Eagte County Community Development I'm writing to express my support of the Heritage Park project. I am aware of the difficulty in balancing dev~)opment, density, and op~O space. While e.aqh.is important, priority must be given to that which benefits the greater good and vision of the community. In~fill development will have opposition because it is always going to be in someone 's back yard. As Edwards continues to grow as a community. I feel the 24 single family homes of Heritage Park are a perted density for this site, especially given the location to the commercial center and existing public infrasInJctlIre. It is my understanding that thiS development complies with the Master Plans of Eagle County and Edwards. I also believe Heritage Park will be an asset to the community now and in the future. As a 25 year resident and voter of Eagle County. I strongly support this development. I think your support of the Eagle County Master Plans is the greatest selVice you can give to the community. Please continue your support of Heritage Park. Thank you, ~ /hz-'ly.-SA'7 Denn}' Shay 0541 Singletree Rd. Edwards, CO. 81632 @ . . 1#-.... "." ~.'." .... Post Office Box 3550, Eagle, CO 8l63l · (970) 524-3842 · info@evhba.com April 26, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Arn Menconi Board of; County Commissioners , I P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 APR 3 0 2004 EagJe County Community Development Dear Commissioners: On behalf of the Eagle Valley Home Builders Association, I am writing in support of the Heritage Park PUD. I'm sure it is no surprise that growth will likely continue in Eagle County. As an organization representing home builders and associate trade members, it is vital to the growth of our ec'onomy to provide housing for all who choos~ t<., live here. This includes affordable. move-up. and high-end homes. It is equally vital to grant zoning and densities to projects that comply with the guidelines adopted by the county. ' Our organization is concerned about our environment and our natural resources. We believe that the commitment Heritage Park has made to "Build Green" the 24 single family homes demonstrates the direction' and concern of our organization. Equally important. is the fact that Heritage Park will inherently promote conservation of our resources and pUblic services due to its close proximity to the community center of Edwards. We believe Heritage Park represents smart development that will provide a sustainable future for the Edwards community. Sincerely. ~~ l~~UK Lori Bishop, President \.) Eagle Valley Home Builders Association @) '-'. BOSSOW EXCAVATION S70-524-0888 p.2 Ap~ 28 04 08:2Sa April 27, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle. CO 81631 Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED MAY 0 3 200i~ Eagle County Community Development I have witnessed the growth in this valley over many years. It was my understanding that the purpose of all the work involved in creating the Edwards Community Plan was to create a document that would guide land development in Edwards. I do not understand the opposition tbat Heritage Park is receiving, Many of these people participated in creating the Community Plan. More people will come and live in Edwards. The Allen parcel is close to schools, stores, and restaurants in Edwards. Rw-al density suggestedby some of the neighbors is absurd. Please follow the Master Plan and approve HeritaKe Park. The plans I have seen are excellent. Sincerely. .. aC~- )/0 60 'x r ~ '8 (;( (X3C/ lill C~ RJG j 7 8 April 23, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 MAY 0 3 200/~ Eagle County Community Development Dear Comrnissioners: I'm writing to express my support of the HeIitage Park project. I am aware of the difficulty in balancing development, density, and open space. While each is important, pIioIity must be given to that which benefits the greater good and vision of the community. I believe the 24 homes in Heritage Park are in pertect balance and represent a very good example of quality, infill development and smart use of our land. I do not agree with the minoIity opposing this project. It is my understanding that this development complies with the Master Plans of Eagle County and Edwards. I also believe Heritage Park will be an asset to the community now and in the future. As a registered voter and property owner in Eagle County, I strongly support this development and urge you to approve HeIitage Park. Thank you, 1'.0 . Bc~ 190 fDw~(t:>S (0. ~I b3"d- , RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 Eagle Board of County Com~sioners Kraig Forbes P.O. Box 5110 · Avon, CO 81620 · 970-845-0400 April 27, 2004 RECEIVED Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 MAY 0 3 200/~ Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners: I pay close attention to both zoning and density as envisioned by Eagle County for any given property. The Master Plan is the formally adopted document that guides growth and development. Mr. Guida has prepared a residential development on the Allen Parcel that conforms to the direction given in the Eagle County Master Plan and, more specifically, in the Edwards Area Community Plan. In response to neighborhood concerns, the density for this project was reduced to the lower end of what was specified in these Plans. Design changes were made to have the least impact possible on the adjacent lots in Homestead and the Sketch Plan for this development was approved. The established process of using the county Master Plan as a guide for development should be upheld and not controlled by special interest. Providing all conditions are met, I believe it is very important to follow the established process and approvals. Heritage Park has met these requirements and deserves your final approval. RECEI\ ED APR 2 9 :~-- 't @ Eagle Boa,rd ~4 ":'ounty CornmlSSi(' .'3 April 29, 2004 Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVED RE: Heritage Park t1A Y 0 3 2001: Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners: In my opinion, Mr. Guida has prepared a residential development on the Allen Parcel that conforms to the direction given in the Eagle County Master Plan and. more specifically, in the Edwards Area Community Plan. I believe that both zoning and d~nsi\) as encouraged by Eagle County has been closely followed, with density for this project reduced to what was specified in the plans. It appears that neighborhood concerns and impact issues to the adjacent Homestead Subdivision have also been addressed. The established process of using the county Master Plan as a guide for development should be upheld and not controlled by special interest. Providing all conditions are met. I believe it is very important to follow the established process and approvals. Heritage Park has met these requirements and warrants approval. Sincerely, ~ Ctk~ Debra Coleman 30 Filly S. Edwards, CO 81632 (970) 926-2173 RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners Thomas U. Banner P.O. Box 357 10 Shotgun Circle Edwards, CO 81632 Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVED MAY 0 3 200!~ Eagle County Community Development April 27, 2004 Dear Commissioners: As a long term resident and frequent visitor to the Homestead area I have paid close attention to both zoning and density as envisioned by Eagle County for any given property. The Master Plan is the formally adopted document that guides growth and development. The developer has prepared a residential concept on the Allen Parcel that conforms to the direction given in the Eagle County Master Plan and, more specifically, in the Edwards Area Community Plan. In response to neighborhood concerns, the density for this project was reduced to the lower end of what was specified in these Plans. Design changes were made to have the least impact possible on the adjacent lots in Homestead. The Sketch Plan for this development was approved. The established process of using the county Master Plan as a guide for development should be upheld and not controlled by special interests. Providing all conditions are met, I believe it is very important to follow the established process and approvals. Heritage Park has met these requirements and deserves your final approval. V~TW~ 1kw - Thomas U. Banner RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 ~~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners _.~"'-~-'-".,",:I'''' Hr. Tom Stone, Chainnan Hr. Hichael Gallagher Hr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners Post Office Box 850 Eagle, CO. 81631 RECEIVED 4.27.04 MAY 03 200ft Eagfe County Community Development Re: Heritage Park in Homestead Dear Commissioners, 1 am writing to you in support of the proposal for the Heritage Park project in the Homestead area of Eagle County, foremost as an owner of property in Homestead. '" "='.. .... "- '" ..c q. ..c "- CI.> -c::: ~ '" '- "" ..s:: As an Architect practicing in Eagle County for the last fifteen years, 1 have watched a tremendous amount of growth occur in our County with the vast majority occurring in the Edwards area. Hany of the approved projects may be considered less than desirable and inappropriate for the location, but that is a matter of opinion. As growth continues in our County and it win. 1 hope that finishing development in the areas already developed in rleu 01 new projects in more rural areas remains a priority. As an infill project, the most ideal type of project possible in the Edwards area, this is the kind 01 smart growth that our county needs. I believe that Heritage Park is a well conceived and appropriate density for this neighborhood as was outlined in the Edwards Area Community Plan of 2003. As a professional in the Architecture and Construction business, I feel that Heritage Park is something that fItS in with the existing context of Homestead. its proposed density, and its neighborhood fabric. Moreover, the proposed Architectural Design Guidelines for this neighborhood is of a quality that few local developers will undertake, and this too is what makes this a good project for our community. 1 urge your support in approving the Heritage Park project as good design and smart growth for our county. Regards, J(!1vV Kyle H. Webb AlA LH. Webb Architects P.t RECEIVED APR 2 9 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ..::.::: @ H3 IOUTH IRONTAGE ROAD WElT HE 216 YAlL COLOUDO 11657 91 0.417.29 9 0 wwlf.lhlb/J. (om HEHIEI OF THE AHEI/CAI IIIT/TUTE OF AICHITECTI April 27, 2004 Ken Netzeband PO Box 3998 Avon, CO 81620 RECEIVED Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Mr. Tom Stone Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 MAY 03 200/f Eagle County Community Development Re: Heritage Park Dear Commissioners: As a voter and resident of Eagle County, I strongly support the Heritage Park development. As with many people, I have witnessed first hand the growth in the valley. I am concerned about future growth, more sprawl, and poor land use decis;ons. I AM NOT, anti-growth and believe the county, especially Edwards, have made great strides to create a visionary guide for future development. I know this developer and understand the issues confronting Heritage Park. Please do not let "trumped-up claims" and "miss-information" become the voice of the community. Thank You, 12.-- ~'\ Ken Netzeband , RECEiVED 1 APR ./.... ".""", f.. :J L...J"t ~l) Eagle Board of County Commissioners - Design Service & Construction 'Ptc >>'D~- <,- I I . ! .,- ! ~~..- -.1 t. ___.J ~~~! ~~._.;. .yyd,tt~< RECEIVED t- _~J>::::::.=>:=:>' MAY 03 2004 r"t~:::~'2: '''--""" Eagfe County Community Development April 29, 2004 Eagle County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Commissioners: As a business owner and resident of Edwards, Colorado, I want to express my support for the Heritage Park project. I understand that this development conforms to the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan. I realize the amount of work involved in creating and adopting the above plans that are used as a guide for landowners, developers and public officials. Since the Heritage Park project complies with these plans, it seems only proper to continue to give it your support. / REGlbs RECEIVED MAY 0 3 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners (jiJ PhODe: 970-926-4780 Fax: 970-926-4781 OI~711ain Street. Suite 0-203 P.O. BOI 1076 Edwards. CO 81632 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 1':~E""l D(~;~:r. -'t ,.---.-.... g;r;c . . 'I-..{... ( I. , :~l 1..----- .ffi' . I. I . , . '. I RECEIVEDt=:~1 I I MAY 0 3 2004 ~_. ~ .---,-------.. Ea....&..c. C t L-... _.L".___...__.._..___ ~... oun y I P"''''''''f'> "'., Community Development ~ ""t<..>-.' , '-~:_-~--- ! April 21, 2004 Dear Commissioners: As a Homestead resident, I have been aware of the Heritage Park development. I am also aware that Mr. Guida has met with the Homestead Board and the neighboring homeowners on several occasions in hopes of reaching an agreement to have this development fit and feel more like Homestead. After understanding more about Heritage Park, I want to state my support of this development. Mr. Guida's willingness to adopt the Homestead Design Guidelines and be subject to the Homestead DRC should ensure that this development blends with the neighborhood. I believe the density for this parcel is appropriate. I encourage you to follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Community Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, at- ~ ~& Q ~/lAl.f: t~c,~( OJ:;gg ff4...:JMA.J t/u. ,4l..(; 6x.,-&V~ J, II c... I E-d~MASI' &~4 t61{,j'L RECEIVED MAY 0 3 2004 (idl) Eagle Board of County Commissioners 1- -:rBAN< OF VAIL 17 VAil ROAD VAil, COLORADO 81657 970-476-5686 . -~'---- April 28, 2004 '. i . ','~- ..'..... ...'. "'.I.! J ~~--~--~._-i~CL-- I RECEIVEd=-Sl MAY 03 200't l--'-~~-~~~-, . ~---"'~-t--- I ...--".-........ j .. I t --- . R21urn Ori;;; T(.,...--...... - . :-;)" ,,' Eagte County Community Developme Mr. Torn Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Arn Menconi Board of county Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 ~-_._----- Dear cornmdssioners: I am writing in support of the Heritage Park PUD application submitted by Jim Guida. I have represented FirstBank of Vail in our relationship with Jim for the past 15 years. Jim has kept me apprised of his progress throughout this process. The approval of his sketch plan was certainly viewed to be an endorsement of his plan, as was the variance which approved the single point of access from Allen Circle. I admit to limited knowledge of the PUD approval process. However, it is my understanding that the Heritage Park PUD conforms to both the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan for this parcel. I believe that a denial of this Preliminary Plan application at this time would effectively invalidate the established process for all development. Furthermore, an in-fill parcel such as this, is the logical site for development. Thank you for your consideration. President MRR/mj RECEI.VED MAY G 3 2004 ~) Eagle Board of County Commissioners April 27, 2004 , :.; I - c:.:;:, 'I .._..."...,_.,~....~ ':',' n~...'...~......... (~'.... . ~ . ~ i"-"'--'! . ~"." .---..\ :,,--.tC'" ...J~... . : ____.lID rrc\.C.t1.- ; '-~''''''~'-''.-- . Board of County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVED i h:,. ';...,", . j..----..... I , , Re: Heritage Park MAY 03 200't Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners, I am very discouraged with the retoretic from Homestead concerning Heritage Park. It is a loss for the entire community when a small group, serving their own personal agenda, can gain support through much mis-information. Heritage Park is and will be a great benefit to the community. I don't care where it would be located, any development that is this close to schools, churches, shopping, and restaurants is always given a greater density. That's what makes smart growth smart. The reason the Edwards Community Plan gave the Heritage Park site a density equal to the surrounding neighborhood is because the people of Edwards are serious about smart growth. Please support the Community Plan adopted for Edwards by voting in favor of Heritage Park. since~JI t ~ -4 ( WI" I> if: n L 2::f[ f- C I n I ( i. E.. Ow A-llfJ ~ Blb"3 L V' (). l S4 E'i>w~jLP.r. RECEIVED MAY G J 200lt ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners Dean M. Kolt An:bitects, LLC PO Box 1175. Edwards. CO 81632 PH. & Fax (970) 926-3698 dkollarchitects@peakpeak.com Apri125.2004 RECEIVED ........-..............--......'. Board of County Commissioners MAY 03 200if P.o. Box 850 i Eagle, CO 81632 Eagle County ~.__. ;...-"." ....-.... .--' ., . Community Development \ __----L,,:-..--;:'...... Dear COmtDlSSlOners. r p"" r~':" '.' :" As an Edwards resident anda local Architect practicing in the Vail Valley for 24 years, I ~;;:::--=',~~.- . Guida bas acted responsibly in preparing the Heritage Park PUD for 24 single-family homes adja~D1 to Homestead. I feel the density to be very acceptable given the location and the proposed development falls well within the standards suggested in the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Community Plan. I ~so believe his willingness to adopt the Homestead Design Guidelines demonstrates a positive neighborly commitment. This project represents the kind of development that should not be discouraged or refused in Eagle County. I have been fonowing this project through the Eagle County approval process over the last couple of years and I agree with the staff at Eagle County who supports this application, I encourage you to openly review all of the documentation presented by the applicant and feel this will lead you to support this application and follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Area Community Plan. Thank you for your consideration. With Best Regards, @ RECE'"EO MA'1 Q 3 2004 d 01 Count'! Eag~o~;~ssioners . April 21, 2004 xc Mr. Tom Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 I l Rstu.m Orig. To i'~ RECEIVED Dear Commissioners: MAY 07 2004 EagJe County Community Development I'm writing to request your support of the Heritage Park project. More importantly, I would like to encourage you to uphold the common good of the community in your decision concerning this project. I do not feel development should be controlled by special interest or nimby groups. I personally am not smarter than those who analyze and understand development, growth, and density issues in a county where open space is so important and developable land so scarce. And I certainly would not place myself above the efforts of the many talented individuals, who through public process, create and adopt the Master Plans that are in place to guide growth and create a vision for the future of this county. I believe in this election year you should stand tall in your support of the Master Plans, and your record, and vote for approval of Heritage Park. Very Truly y~ ~, RECEIVED MAY 07 2004 I ~0 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~.;;:c + Dr-,...-- t:_\'~ ! . ~tJ CQ.. ~ ., '?r;,~ , , '- J 1 i I ~ ! . j May 4, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 L [{.3t'..trn OntS. To !__.~- Dear Commissioners: I a.m. a resident..C>f Homestead and live ~:>n ..Castle Pea~.,lane. very near to the proposed Heritage Park development. Although myhusband'and I have our primary residence out of state, we want to express an opinion regarding Heritage Park. We' have witnessed much development in our lifetime and have come to realize that residential and commercial, development actuaUy_cre~tes. th~ sens~ of community and provide much of the conveniences we aU'LISe and need. We believe it is important that all development utilize our resources wisely, be conscientious, innovative, and fit into the bigger community picture. Heritage Park is such a development. We understand the concerns, yet do not feel any of these will create lasting problems or issues in the future. We live in an area where land is also a very valuable resource. It would be a loss to the community to see this wonderful project reduced in scale or denied altogether. We would encourage you to approve Heritage Park. Thank you for your consideration. , Yours~ t::l~ Alan and Wendy Feldman 42 Castle Peak Lane RECEIVED Homestead MAY 1 2 ~Q04 RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2004 E:AGLf: CeJlJNrY COMMYNlty pr4vtaLOPMEf..rr Eagle Board of County Commissioners :\/\8 l.\C ('~ jq E:UC.)~-~!_ S.J2 ,\.'Jf ~ ro 9tjt)lC}l\~:;' :"1:3L! (S(1(; t;; s:..;c _~J.;StJ;'/ \c;r: l Ch. /" <..i.-~~ ,..., ..,...... J\I......: - .......,.-. -:-.'....-1 l:" ._~... ,Cl':"",,""\ ~_' ,'~'-:",,..,'(':-" ,. '" "t:';;] f . 1'" f" ~Il ...-.t, ~:l.}'-:'.t...: ~-1.)~ .~~ '-J,':"'y "- J\_')~/" t...;;J -~I'.....,1 '0";"'_ '.:; .'v..c:;';:Ci .i~.i'-: : ;.~.;~~"::.. f\.1 1.~6 .. . - .. I . . , . .' .' ".' ':. - -.' -. .Z.lL\.. -.." .. .... -...\--.:::::::.:=. )~~C ~ L.i;:iJI. May 8, 2004 Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RstUfri (.^;i:;. i 0 Dear Commissioners: Although we are familiar with Heritage Park, we have a deeper knowledge of Jim Guida and his company having worked with him on several large-scale projects over the past decade. Never have we had a better experience (especially in the Vail Valley) in dealing with a contractor who does what he promises, when he promises. We can't say enough about the construction management, quality, and professional subcontractors, all of which add to his already high expectations and personal commitment. We would have no hesitation endorsing Jim and his company on this wonderful neighborhood development. As more people choose to call the Vail Valley home, we believe this is exactly the type of development that should be encouraged. It appears Heritage Park has made great strides to conform not only to the requirements of the county, but to the Homestead neighborhood as well. Please vote approval of this project. ~SinCerelY y~ .A ~ /1 (iiL tl-U~;I\..-.._~ Jim and Barbie Allen P.O. Box 973 Edwards, CO 81632 RECEIVED RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners w MAY 1 4 2004 Eagle County Community Development From: Michael Gallagher Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 ~2:09 PM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: FW: Heritage Park development FYI&F (for your information and the file) thanx -----Original Message----- From: Brad Lyons [mailto:BradL@colmtmed.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004.11:24 AM To: Michael Gallagher Subject: Heritage Park development Dear Commissioner's I am writing this letter in support of the Heritage Park Development. I feel that development of this parcel ?f land is perfectly appropriate. I am a homeowner within the Homestead Community and do not feel that 24 high quality homes would be out of place or inconsistent with previous development within our community. I personally feel that this piece of land is currently an eyesore to the community and I don't feel that the density of this proposed development would restrict traffic flow on Homestead Drive. In addition this project could help rejuvinate the local economy, helping many hard working residents in the construction trades and real estate industry. I sense that the only opponents to this development are those homeowners whom have direct views of this parcel of land or whom live on Allen Circle. I think we can all understand the reasons for these individuals opposition, but in reality it is self-serving. Thank you for taking time to read my opinions regarding this project. I have now lived in the Vail Valley for 8 years and feel that well planned development is and should be a part of our lives. Sincerely, Brad Lyons, MD ~ ---Original Message----- rom: Michael Gallagher Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11 :34 AM To: Bob Narracci subject: FW: Heritage Park development at Homestead fyi From: Dennis Goodspeed [mailto:d.goodspeed@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 20048:41 PM To: Michael Gallagher Subject: Heritage Park development at Homestead I am a resident of Homestead and I do not agree with the Board of Directors on this issue. I doubt that there is "overwhe!ming" opposition to this project. The only reason the few Board members don't want any more $800,000 houses in Homestead is because they already have theirs and they don't want any more competition. I stronly urge you to follow the Edwards Master Plan and allow this project to go ahead. Thank you, Dennis Goodspeed 0288 Edwards Village Blvd. #2B 0J) UO-U/-U4 Ul't: 14rM HWM J 1M fiUWA CONS!. , POI ee/87/2eS4 1~=e2 C37lle4!5eee1 PACiE el/l1 : ~..oo~ Mr. Tome Stolte, Chllirn~flLl Mr. Michael OaUaahCl Mr. Am Menccnl Board aCCount)' Commissioners P.O. Box 850 -- .--- Eagte. CO 81631 Dea.r CClnn'11~Siolte1"1 As an BiliIe Count)' resident and ~evelopor t am wrhina \0 e pre-5S \1'>, ormnOI1 and con~enlS regarding Heritage Puk. R.ECEIVFD JUN 08 2004 Eagle County Community Development It is n~y 1.1ndtrstIl11d.ing that the Herltal~ Park Planned Ul1it vel0plnent confomu to tb. Eagle County Muter :Plan and rece~~t1y aclopted Edwal'CS Co '1Snunity Plan. Additionally, I undentend the deve1o~me2'1t received Staff Approval from c ElgIe CQ\U1ty PlaMlt1' Depattment and received Sketch Plan Approval rron~ the !a \8 Co~n'ty Plat\1'11l1i Conm'lfssion. Our coUnty sovenlment a11d locs1 con,munitiec luw! spent e '1a\lstlVe raources to cuttino ftttul'e g1'Owth pfirameteri for Edwards. As a usident of Edw rda, I feel it is now important that lutura srowth follows the establilhcd visiol'1' d goal, of the COIl'l~'.lI1ity Plan. I1t my opinion any decision other than approval of this appIic tion would be ;11 direct cOll.Qi~t witb that plan, . .' . . I P~d~ trL\st In the e$tablish~ Tl11~.t guidelines, approval pro esses.and the h\dividuals that 'admi-' , , '.. ::~. DcnItJ oftbis npplic:atlcl' would certah Iy set'\d f.I. tl'CubIing messa,,, to tllO.1' who created, sUP1,ort and \Iphold the Master Plan of "Sit Co~mty ftnd Bdward.. I trust you will \.\phold our c:01.\nty plaJ's and procIss!S by PIP!' ~')Ving the Herit&se Park Planned Ul'1it Oevelopment apl'tfc.tion. Thank )10\1 for your eonaideraticm. nd)l WIJl~C. C.E:O Prontier Communities, Lt.C @ nrl",. I~O.~ '.n. Gel........, eo I' 'It .hlIlPIl1 JO t.ale 1\oad. Bullrtll1&: ff I, "Willi, co 11620 rhlltlQ '70.... uoa ~ "IU4~ .Agg, _..'.'-II._..."'..nl.....III1'1 April 30, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 To Dear Commissioners: As a Homestead resident, I have been aware of the Heritage Park development. I am also aware that Mr. Guida has met with the Homestead Board and the neighboring. homeowners on several occasions in hopes of reaching an agreement to have this development fit and feel more like Homestead. I'm writing to express my support of the Heritage Park project. I am aware of the difficulty in balancing development, density, and open space. While each is important, priority must be given to that which benefits the greater good and vision of the community. I believe the 24 homes in Heritage Park are in perfect balance and represent a very good example of quality, infill development and smart use of our land. I thought we, the residents and property owners of Edwards were serious about smart growth. Heritage Park is as good an example as any. The only thing I understand about the opposition to this project is that these people living closest to Heritage Park have come to believe they are entitled to their unobstructed view and convenient open space provided by the Allen parcel. If they want that view, they should buy it. A landowner shouldn't have to provide it free of charge or subsidize it by building fewer houses than some of these same people approved (by way of the Edwards Community Plan). Sinc ely,/1 ~ K ~ o estead Resident RECEIVED JUN 0 .Q 2!!n1 v ~.n..,;'" EAGLE COUNTY COMMUNITY D~VP 0D,-.",." .- - 4_"_~""'-i I..t~_; '... J RECEIVED JUN 0 7 2004 ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~~.I\' ~1~'" (/1 !~\ ,'-, Temp Services, Inc. ~. I , ..... i June 4, 2004 1~;U"r. I '~(( I ~-i No~.L' Board of County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVE "0 Re: Heritage Park Development JUN 08 2004 Dear Commissioners, Eagle County Community Development It is discouraging to hear of the opposition regarding Heritage Park. I know this developer, and I am very familiar with the commitment and quality he gives to all his projects. What's most troubling is the loss to the community if individual interest is allowed to prevail or to alter the Master Plans that are established through public process and are adopted to specifically guide and direct county growth. I believe the consequences of not approving this development will be far more damaging in the long run. As a business owner in this county, I depend on a healthy, growing economy, but not at any expense. When a developer brings an application before you that complies with our Master Plans, and represents a smart approach to growth, when he has demonstrated responsibility and has addressed all the issues, than I believe, you have an obligation to support the greater good of the community and vote approval. Reducing density on this site is a huge mistake that will only benefit the immediate interest of a few. And in the long run it will ultimately foster many more undesirable alternatives for community. I believe Heritage Park is the kind of development the must be encouraged. President RECEIVED JUN C 7 2004 Mountain Temp Services PO Box 7415 Avon) CO 81620 Aspen 409 A.A. B.C., Suite A Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920-3686 Fax: (970) 920-3654 Carbondale 981 Cowen Drive. Suite C-1 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone: (970) 963-8335 Fax: (970)963-8320 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners Dillon P.O. Box 4530 Dillon, Colorado 80435 Phone: (970) 468-0402 Fax: (970) 468-0632 Eagle- Vail P.O. BOX 7415 Avon, Colorado 81620 Phone: (970) 845-9823 Fax: (970)845-9853 www.mountaintemp.com FEE::--17-2004 16: 08 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.03/06 GOODMAN AND WALLACE, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 0069 Edwards Access Road, Suite ill P.O. Box 1886, Edwards, Colorado 81632 Telephone: (970) 926-4447; Facsimile: (970) 926-5009 www.goodmanwallace.com Tohn D. Goodman February 17,2004 RECEIVED Via Facsimile (970) 328-7185 FER 1 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development Eagle County Planning Commission P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: File Number PDP-00026 Heritage Park; and ZC-00065 Heritage Park PUD Preliminary Plan and Zoning Change Dear Commissioners: This 0 f:lice represents the Homestead 0 wners A ssociation. A 5 you m ay b e a ware the Homestead pun adjoins the subject property on the north, south, and east sides. Our office was not involved in representation of Homestead in 2002 when the PUD sketch plan for Heritage Park was approved by the Eagle County Board of Commissioners, nor in 2003 when a variance for improvement standards was approved by the Eagle County Board of Commissioners to allow one point of ingress and egress to the subdivision. Please note that these previous actions while approved from a technical standpoint, should not provide the Planning and Zoning Commission with a presumption that the PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change should be approved. We respectfully request that you consider the following objections: 1. Easement for proposed sanitary sewer alignment. As noted on December 22,2003 in File Number 1041-0053 Heritage Park 1041 Permit Application, the applicant has not provided documentation to illustrate that all necessary easements have been obtained in order to provide utility service to the site. The owners of the open space in Homestead Filing No.3 will need to grant an easement for the proposed sewer and sanitary alignment, and as of tIus date such casement has not been granted, is not shown on the Plat, nor the PUD guide. This issue was most recently raised on January 7, 2004 from Fred S. Hassle, Regulations Administrator, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. 2. Water service agreement. It is my understanding that the water service agreement is a requirement of Edwards Metropolitan District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. If the same has been executed it has not made its way into the County file. Upon consultation with District counsel James Collins it is my understanding that water rights fees of$155,OOO.00 have not been paid, and must be paid on or be~\:Y5' 2004. Finally, the District has indicated FED--17-2004 15: 08 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.04/06 that they will not use powers of condemnation to assist the developer in acquiring the necessary casement across Homestead open space and such responsibility belongs with the developer. In a January 21, 2004 letter from the State of Colorado Engineer, office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, the Chief of water supply indicated that the applicant's documentation was deficient with respect to the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. This report was not included and therefore the State Engineer was unable to comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights under C.R.S. 930-28-126(1 ) (h)(l1). Additionally, the exhibits submitted to the Eagle County Engineering Department were incomplete as no details for grinder pumps to handle waste water on Lots 6 - 9 were included with the 1041 Pennit Application. The Planning Commission Staff Report indicates that the development is deficient with respect to conformance \vith the Edwards Area Community Plan. Therefore, the applicant has not be able to demonstrate adequate facilities in the Preliminary Plan for the PUD with respect to a potable water supply, sewage disposal, and solid waste disposal. 3. Visual quality. The Planning Commission Staff Report indicates that the development site is in conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan as it does not adversely impact the natural appearance of the mountain skyline and preserves the County's scenic quality. This finding needs to be revisited. The Edwards Community Plan Map indicates this parcel, site number 4, is visible from much of Edwards and 1-70. The applicant incorrectly assumes that the development will improve the presently open space and natural environment, and that placing non-native vegetation such as evergreen trees will help mitigate the visual quality impacts created by the proposed 35 foot tall residences. When read in conjunction with the Eagle County 1'viaster Plan and Open Space Plan, the Edwards Community Plan supports a further reduction in overall density. An examination of the visual quality map and the Edwards sub-area map supports the area's class 4 designation as ''highly constrained for development, presenting positive visual quality" notwithstanding the applicant's "bettennents" argument. The applicant snggests ways to mitigate impacts including open space and landscaping, however most of the proposed open space is on a steep hillside which does nothing to mitigate the visual quality impacts, and this land is not recommended for development in any event due to geologic, wildfire, and drainage concerns noted. The development will be perched on top of the hm and the visual impact will be a residential massing on the highly constrained plateau. It is requested that the planning commission require :furt~er mitigation to the visual impact by (a) having u:nifonn height limitation throughout the development of 25 feet (as noted in Order Number 01028947-A, Commitment to Insure Title, Stewart Title Guarantee, Schedule B, Section IT, item 12, "no building shall be over 25 feet in parcel II), (b) increased lot size, (c) decreased building envelope size. and (d) increased setbacks . Note: The applicant states' that the Heritage Park Development is in the same visual quality class as Homestead Filing No.1 and ill, however the Open Space Plan was adopted in 1980 and updated in 1996, with significant upgrading in 1996. When Homestead was approved, visual quality was not as valuable as it is today. The applicant's ridgeline analysis under 4-450 E.C.L.U. Regulations is also deficient for the aforementioned reasons. 4. Conceptual landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan is deficient as to overall water usage restrictions (both in the houses and in the yards) and proposed use of evergreens, omamentals and substantial bluegrass sodding. The conceptual landscape plan does not take into consideration the natural environment ~SJnot have any of these species, nor does it FEH-17-2004 16: 09 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.05/06 include xeriscape plant materials and low water use appliances in the development. Nowhere is this more apparent than the bluegrass "park" in the interior of the development. The applicant states that they are improving the land and making it more attractive with their development. The applicant states that the construotion of new homes and their intended landscaping "will be an overall improvement" to this property which has been open space, or in the applicants terms "neglected over the last 25 - 30 years". See landscaping as proposed on the PUD development Guide Dated December 29,2003. This is disingenuous and self serving. The applicant incorrectly states that the development will be softened by landscaping and recreation fields, however the size of the "linier park" is approximately 400 feet and is hidden irom 1-70 and visual corridors by the proposed houses. Due to the location of the proposed houses, this will not mitigate the visual impact, particularly when the landscape plans suggest tree heights of approximately 6 - 10 feet. . 5. Large vehicle access. Despite the fact that a variance from improvement standards was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners to allow only one point of ingress and egress to the subdivision, the applicant proposes hours of delivery for large vehicles. There is no way to enforce this concept when the applicant no longer owns property or is not the contact person. Further, the proposal states the same shall be enforceable during 1.school hoursll in a November 20, 2003 letter, however there is no mention as to the change of contact persons, how such information will be published to operators oflarge vehicles, and what school schedules are going to be adhered to. It is noteworthy that minutes of meetings with the developer reflect that many concerns are "tabled" for later consideration without meaningful resolutions. 6. Fencing. The applicant states that the subdivision will be compatible with adjacent owners, however Homestead only allows split rail fences upon approval from the Design Review Board. Despite a Colorado Division of Wildlife report stating that the area is not a sensitive wildlife area, there is a good deal of wildlife in the area including but not limited to deer and elk. Six foot privacy fencing is not compatible with surrounding neighbors nor with wildlife in the area. 7. Road stacking. Despite a variance being previously granted by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners to allow only one point of ingress and egress to the subdivision, as a practical matter, substantial stacking of cars will likely occur. Compliance with the stop sign at Homestead Drive and Allen Circle, south end, is frequently enforced by the Eagle County Sheriffs Department. Further, there is a bus stop at this location as well as two blocks to the north at Castle Peak Drive and Homestead DriVe. 8. ,Community need. The applicant does not demonstrate community need for the strbdivision and provides contradictory information. On the one hand the applicant states that the subdivision will "appeal to middle management and families", however it is also stated that Ulis development will provide "move up housing", and in another instance it will provide "upscale single family homes". The applicant states that the houses will be approximately 3,200 square feet which means that houses will arguably enter the market at a price p oint of not less than $650,000.00. The Planning Commission Staff Report indicates that the development does not address affordable housing and is in mixed confonnance with the Eagle County Master Plan and does not address housing needs for lower income households. This price point would likely not appeal to middle management or move up families as represented by the developer and affordable housing concerns must be addre.s~? D FEB-17-2004 16:09 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.06/06 9. Compatibility with surrounding uses. Homestead has a building height limitation of 28 feet. The buildings proposed in the applicants subdivision vary from 25 - 35 feet depending on steepness of the lot and should be made uniform throughout the subdivision. 10. Plat map. The Plat map is deficient and shows nothing regarding water usage, easement for utilities, and shows 10 foot setbacks on side lots which must be substantially increased. 11. Soils concerns. The Colorado Geological Survey on February 2,2004 indicated that the majority of the proposed lots 11, 19, 20 and 21 contain moderately steep slopes of 20% - 30%. The Colorado Geological Survey states "it would be prudent to reduce the size of building envelope on these lots to exclude areas containing slopes steeper than 25%. The Colorado Geological Survey advised that "homeowners should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development and future ground subsidence." This advisement was not contained on the plat map nor anywhere else on the applicant's Preliminary Plan. 12. Road impact fees. Road impact fees have not been addressed pursuant to ~4-710 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 13. Home occupation businesses. The Commission should not move to allow home occupations due to the related impacts on the adjacent property owners and traffic. The Homestead Owners Association respectfully requests that this application be tabled until such time as these considerations are adequately investigated and addressed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me in this regard. Very truly yours, GOODMAN AND WALLACE LLP JDW:lds cc: Jeannie Hauff. Manager Homestead Owners Association Homestead owners assoc./PCommission objections G-~~ TnT,.,1 0 l?lC RPR-27-2004 11:35 GOODMRN & WRLLRCE 970 926 5009 P.02/08 GOODMAN AND WALLACE, LLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 0069 Edwards Access Road, Suite ill P.O. Box 1886, Edwards, Colorado 81632 Telephone: (970) 926-4447; Facsimile: (970) 926-5009 www.goodmanwallace.com John D. Goodman RECEIVED April 27, 2004 APR 2 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development Via Facsimile (970) 328~8629 Eagle Board of County Commissioners SOO Broadway P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Heritage ParkIFile No. PDP-00026 ZC-00065 Dear Members of the Board: This office represents the Homestead Owners Association. Homestead adjoins the subject property on the north, south, and east sides. As you may be aware our office was not involved in representation of Homestead in 2002 when the PUD Sketch Plan for Heritage Park was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, nor in 2003 when a variance for improvement standards was approved by the Eagle COWlty Board of County Commissioners to allow one point of ingress and egress to the subdivision. Subsequently on February 17, 2004 we provided notice of objection to the Eagle County PlaIUring Commission of the application by Heritage Park for a PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change. The Eagle County Planning Commission voted 7 - 0 against the project. The comments set forth in that February 17, 2004 objection letter are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The purpose of this objection is to alert you that the applicant intends to seek ingress and egress over Tract B which is not a public right-of-way and which land use is subject to the Homestead PUD, design guidelines and declaration as set forth below. 1. The applicant's Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan states on page 4, paragraph 8(c), "Emergencv vehicles. Roadways have been designed to pennit access by emergency vehicles to a1110ts or units." In subparagraph (d) the language continues "[p]rincipal vehicular access point shall be designed to provide smooth traffic flow.. . Minor roads within !he PUD do not directly connect with the roads outsid.e of the PUD except for the one connection to Allen C irel. which has b ceo d ctermined ~~ C onnly to b. an a ppropriate connection 10 APR-27-2004 11:35 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.03/08 maintain the County's road network." We believe that this may be a misstatement of what actually occurs. 2. The development map for Filings 1 and 3 the Homestead contain a general overview of the location of Tract B between Lots 12 and 13 on Allen Circle. The exemption plat of the Hollis Allen Parcel was recorded subsequent to the conveyance of land in Homestead to Lake Creek Ranch Corporation, a Colorado corporation. Historically, the Hollis Allen Parcel was served by an access road through the Green Parcel from Lake Creek Road. Although we have 110t performed a title abstract of what is now known as Homestead Filing No.1, nor the Hollis Allen Parcel~ I am informed that the access road from Lake Creek was subsequently abandoned by the AlIens in exchange for the western most 6S feet of Heritage Park. The support for this theory may be found in the Receipt and Opti.on Contract dated November 19, 1979 (the "Contract") by and between Allen and Company and the Lake Creek Ranch Corporation. This Contract provided for the conveyance of much of the land now lmown as "Homesteadh Filing Nos. 1 and 3. The Contract provided that the Hollis Allen Parcel would be exempted and reserved to Allen and Company. This document provides in relevant part on page 4, paragraph 6, the following: "Possession. The Seller shall deliver to Buyer possession of the Allen and Company Ranch property to be sold at closing except that the Sellers specifically reserve possession of their dwelling house, garages, and all out buildings connected therewith for a period from the date of closing until December 1, 1980." Further, the Contract provides in paragraph 10 "Reserved 1 0 acre Tract. .. . Sellers specifically reserve an easement and right-of-way for access and utility purposes 50 feet in width fTom the county road to said 10 acre tract (now the Heritage Park Parcel). provided that Sellers agree to accept as such access dedicated legal roadways established by Buyer in connection with its development." This Contract, to our knowledge, was never recorded. The focus must be on the original intent which was that Tract B was to serve the small set of buildings on a resource zoned parcel, not a larger scale residential development. 3. The Warranty Deed dated March 10, 1987 from Homestead Ranch Development Corp. to Allen & Co. makes no mention of any type of use or reservation with respect to Tract B, Block 1, Homestead Filing No.1. Therefore, since the deed was drafted by Allen's attorney it stands to reason that expanded access for development of the Allen Parcel was not intended. 4. There are ways in which access concerns should have been addressed by the Allens which arguably were not. In review of a letter dated January 20, 1987 the Allen's attorney states that it is clear that Tract B "was not dedicated as a public road." The question is in fact what the Commissioners must determine based upon the documents of record referred to below. 5. On October 21, 1997 Homestead Owners Association Inc. recorded a Notice of Release and T emlination of Record Notice with respect to tennination of the design guidelines. Subsequently Homestead adopted the Homestead Ranch Community Standards, Design Standards, and Construction Regulations as of January 2004. TIus document provides in relevant part in ~3.1 "[p]rivate Tracts B, K, and U are access tTacts. These tracts are to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to non-Homestead properties, as limited by the zoning in place on the non-Homestead property at the time the access tract was platted." (emphasis added). At the time the access tract was platted, the Heritage Park tract was resource zoned. Tract B is specifically shown on the Land Use summary:n ~~~a "private tract" and no guidance is APR-27-2004 11:36 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.04/08 given for private tracts. Easements for utilities, drainage, and access are specifically delineated on the Amended Final Plat for the Homestead Filing No.1, and are fOT example also specifically shown on the plat for the Homestead Filing No.3, and recently for the Final Plat Homestead Filing No.2 with a much greater degree of specificity. If Tract B was intended as a public road, private drive, or access easement it should have been reserved as such as was done on all other plats in the Homestead. 6. Further the Design Review COlmnittee Guidelines in Article III of the Declaration, ~3.2 provides for review by the Design Review Committee of any ". ..wall, or other similar improvement or attachment, constructed upon the Properties,.. . and no change in the final grade, nor the installation of any landscaping shall be perfonned unless complete plans and specifications therefore.. . shall be and have been first submitted to and approve in writing by the committee. The committee shall exercise its best judgment to the end that all attaclunents. improvements, construction, landscaping and alterations to structures and on land within the Properties conformed to and harmonized with existing sulToundings and structures." TIus language gives Homestead enforcement jurisdiction over Tract B, together with the Homestead Ranch Community Standards, Design Standards, and Construction Regulations. 7. The access attempted to be expanded by the applicant has bcen historically to access a resource zoned property. 1 am informed that the applicant's predecessor in title, the AlJens, vehemently argued for the tax status of the Allen Parcel to remain resource. 8. Weare informed that an owner may sue the Association for enforcement of the Declaration against the applicant. Although this may not happen it is a concern to the owners in Homestead who have a long standing history of success in their neighborhood and such threat serves to underscore the ramifications of granting the applicant's request in light of the fact he has been thoroughly uncooperative in working with Homestead. Too, it is clear that there is overwhelming public opposition and Heritage Park should be denied. Please review the comments contained in this letter. Once you have reviewed the same please contact me if you have any questions or need further support. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, GOODMAN AND WALLACE LLP ~~ ~~;dman JDG:lds cc: Joe Forinash Eagle County Community Development HomestcOld ownen; ussoc./Bonrd Itr rc County Review ~v 3 . 1.NIR; ,::-;,.., \~~~ . '..~p~;. ;..I!~ .:.:-~:~ .. ..~ ,'; :'d.;1:: '. 'CoII.t .'...:1 ...... ..... I . ....., I .~ -~>"J'~::":: ~ '. ,. .... ..,..::.5....... . . .'.' :~; :.' :::~~~2 -'.. .... .....~.. v;~ '~." APR-27-2004 11:36 GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 5009 P.05/08 I I I I I ,. J I 1 . \ \ I' 1.\ . I:.. . .. ";'. . i .1';VWY+. SWJ/.J. . . ", ..' "...;~. I. I . ,: ...... ...:. ,'. . I 'J". ".: "".': l:~J.'~S...::; 50'.'. . :;. .......- "~. "I~.'.;'.'.: ;y~.... '...~'. l."~ .."" f.... .'. .... "~'.':.1..'.' r " ...c.. . ".. . ~'J..."1.. .... ..""t. .......,.... .......,.,:, ~.~..:: :--_. ,,' ""'. . ~:. ._..~<~.t." ~:~~..: :./04-.! 1 ..~.'. .... .' , -t.,... . 'l' ... "".' . .., ., .. .... '-'7.-'" . f....: .'. _~. .., .,. 1 ':.' . . .' ..' ;'CJ ~,";':" '. I' \....... ..~..., ", '. :'-,,_ ~. . . . . . ~.r."'N- ..,. .. , ~ 1l-.-...'......1 .1'..-...,.... '. '.. ' .~ II:,;).... .,a.:-::- ~.~~-~'::., ...,..:",.i:J::..: ~ "'~1:~=: 'il'.' ~"~ . I '~'_ .":......r ....'" " ~:-,~~.)nf"" ..r'~'V~r.~-,. ,,,,~,,,/~...."'I':-.,.-,,......'. .' -. .' ,:..... ~,."..' .'."'/' JI :'.--:~:"...:I.":'I-:.. ... .....~:. .'-".' \, .,7... . ....:"', ::.~:..~. It :r-' .. . .~ .... -'~':"1'. i t., ...~~.'l;; I'~' .:.:... '.:.1... ...... . :'\..~... .....1. .. .Ir' . ; .~. .' ""'. ..... ....~, .. ....1.... ."'-1 '1'"' .:.,.l "",/'!"J;&.'\! ",..\ .-. ....~..."..'.,.. ,,-.. ",'" '."-:'.. ~~...:>~.:,. I "';~;~.~.lr/.~:J.'.II:--:.:...!r"'. .,~.!--."f.......t~'; ,. ..... . ",I: . I,... .,:- . ::.~~~.;::t:;.~t: .:.~ .:~::i:':~~~~,<:~~~ .~:;..::~~..\~~:~~.~. ::'.'.. ..~;' :; '.. ~.. ,~:_.. .../6'. -. . ~,...v-.::~:':" .. J'l~.. .'1 '~1 .... J.. .... - .... ..' .,. ... ..~: . . ... ._,. .., .... '_i~' "'..-. "..... .... ,~. ,.......... Jr'" ..:;, .......W... .' .. ,.. . ... .', . '_". ..;u. . . :.':-0 ..., 't.)' ,::...."". ~: ~".,....... \",.. .....". ,". ~/P~ A,,-J~c.1 '" . '. . .'1:. ....... .jt ...:..,"".... ....,...J-..... ". . ... .... ;" ':;!'.:-:..~ :''"''~i';'i':r . '. ....~ . ;""., ,~-;::..". .' ..' .NW~.:JLY~;:sll'y. .: :: . " . .:. . of -';J; . 'fJ:~ ;.z;....I'-.rIrlr.. ....-.6!')'t..,~..~..-..:.:~-::'....Lft .., .". . ... "1...~tI!t. ..,....,....1 .:....,.... ....~... .... .,........,..;0 -. . ;t:':l~...;;....._,..........":l;~..~....;..~' --'..:' .... .o!~.. .'~"'o:"_""-""'''"!-''''''' .......\ ....;..~",.. ,~):.~~.::; .';"';P~~1~~': }:~;;!~~I.~'r~~.:i.~:.~~;:.::~;~::.~~~ ...r."~~:': .'~~::if.~ :..'\~:. ~~;= ~r.." ~ :./. ':. . . .' ~!t.~'! .~~~",,,,r,,: ~~~...?J:1I~ - I '.. .-,..,! ...". ..,......,.. .. . .... . ..,," . . .' _~ :.t:~~:."....:.j!.'~ :: :,/t! I;~;~ :~''':'':':. :"".:..~ ':~'.... :.': I ..........: ...:. '.... . ~ f1' :.~~~~~:~~.': ~J'r,'rol".,:'."I' . ........I~H....:..swy.,...s.lti'.v~.. . .:~\ .__""---____.r.. .~- '. ;". .. . :;.:., ~ .".i.:';. :-I'''-':~'=.' .. . ".... .;i. ...... . r. -.. . ,::''','. - .~'\ ,," ................. ..' .... .~ .;.).......~~~~ :r":.i~t~':~i'1.!c. ~-. ~~, :-.ltJI.~;.t~~.;5oft'..5;,":-:i..~' J~{~.:' '~/(' ,.,61 ,.' WI&. .1&7' \",1:'" -!>O:'..~..~~~. ~.'-l-...:.,....t..lf.....,:..r .....J.~l'-~. .' '.. I"": . '.\'~:N ':.':' ':. .il.Bi::!''''''~ "7':. . ~-"'l~ i.7 .''-::--:':'<!-l ;':~<y....~I~' ~'.. '-.:.:-:"II~' '..( ..,:..... ~::. .: ..' . ,:1,' "'..;'.':. ..... ~,,~~';J........'1'r. ........ .....;..\. 1~.""'''''''', ".' ~ ~..::::~ .................,r. ........ ...... ... ''':". .~.(,:~:,,:.;.,. ..":'~....:::.~.i"~.....;. ~ :>;~.y.i~' h ~.i.':;.r: \'.pf'-"~.~ ~_~.. . ..t:.'. ;I~' --.:'. . . ". ~l ~.. /: '.~ ~,..;.co.n*t:it'il";':'''''' ,. ~ n."":'~-::"!l:'" I......'.;...:! ':-,.;;.,;.;-'- If. "':. . ..:: 'l\ " 1i:.~'Ti-': r:.~... ,r:..\;';;J.~....:....~ :,\.: .j'.!. .~ ;'.1. ~', . . .. .~~.:......"""' ,.'l.J'.J.;:,..,:...,\",;,...,: .......;~;,."l":.,... ...... .....~-,J...t7.~. ..~': "'j ~ :",:'",'1\ '~~, .'''.r;~Jo,:r:"./':' '. . .~. ... ~'~:-:r.';!\';'" '. -'.' . .' ........ ~!,;::..~.. ., - .~.-;.. .-=......:..."T('-,...:"~"'.(,... _.~~f.':.~r..I~.;J-Ir".(').""- .JoP.... ... . ...... . . ";.~-.;......, :l-?t~.1l'~~'i~:::--...;?:.J':-'1I,~t."i':'7;;'~~"'~',c;?:,:;..:: ;~.: ,', ~.~:.~;:~ ...'f'i"";:.. . I . ,",".;~~' '"Jic.....;!':.:'~. !'..;~-~I.q~..;.;..."'-. "..~{l-:l':tl.-~.~.."":" "'i~!/~' l.~_.. . :~.. :.'. " .. .. r .,It.~.. .:.. ",''!;. ~ l."". ,. ... "'l"r J" .. I.. . "-"IQ~. r'",:,,~ ,.-:'~Ij/.,.N'.',' orJ.. ;. . . .. t. l"'~--\;\.~J~ ~'~'~J.::'~. ~l..'~, ~~.1o;" .. .....,...~t~~ !"~~ .....!.t!::f::~'!.~.r.:'".,f.. ....." ..... ~... .. ..".,.....r'.~ ...;. ~"'''~~1f5. :,~:"...:. .J':!!..,..... ',,:!:.f~~, ':, .:;'~. ..~...,;t..: ..' .,..... :. -::.',' ~.: '. .I' ...~ -~.. .~.'. '1..,,'.. ,.."t""'/,.. .'"or-;' ..... .. \1\ ,"I~._ . . -:!:._~..; ~.~.,.. . - '\,"". '. "i',~..... ~~...;. ~.k::.~ .,~, .",,-.. *' "f "__ ' '.... ...............ft" ... ~.. -- .. ..... Ilr ...,... ". .. . 1 ~ '1., I. . "S4"'t"': .. ilIil.:~ '-'0. :." _C'rf'-- J ,'. . "W" .... .c:.......,,. .",..','....... ..t'.. .... ). ~tft~.I~.~... ?:-.~I..:....,. '...'t......'. : '~:. .:'. ,': ~:.....:..~.~:;.;,';..s...::~;.~.....~.. ....... ..~. '. :.... .~l,lo. .... "''':'''':''r'' 't. .tot';" .....~. .~. ..-i" . t r..'f. . ..~: ..'t................ -ft..... ..~.I;.... ~. ~~.:.:.~.:{ '.-::'.. ..........,..::.:-I;~....:~....7.:.~:.;t~:~,~~.i'I'~:~I.......:,.':-:'~It :0..:: ~:. ~;": . ,;... . 1 ......~ '.' ....-;} iJ;""" ~'."i' ~~..:.". ",,~,.,.'~-J."'r:"'~'.""'!-' ....... ':\'.~~~.~:' ~~."~: ...:::~..t~~l~{}lt~. ~:~:=~~:~.. ,'~'. ..:,~. :~~?.'i;{::::;. ..' ;-.... : .. :'. .' .:\L;~.v.. """l", \i 1.. I ..,. .... . c: ~ .......... . ~"'.~.'.~ .'. '.l.-l::-.'J:~l~:i. .~~~\: ::-:...:.;~:-:-::.:.' .~~~:""."::- '.",' ~.. .~.\_.,. ...., ..... I ..,...,~.(""c.,\~..~ ~ ....011......_ .....~....., :.I~ .,.;:.. . .-=--,....,. '.\ \1.'_.1. '. . . '.'." ... .. ,.. ';"!s'.l .....lil'I'~--e. .~"'..r.;.:.,-.r.. .:- ",'.' ..'.-" ." . \."h ...,........,). .. i: '9.'...."'l............~ . ....!~~.....:pl .~r;:.. ............ .;,.. ..'!'''~" . ..... '." ,.... .;.;,:~.......::.'":....= ~.~..r:~~t::!~~....:l.:.~ ~ ~ ~. ..........,::: ":: .t. '. . ...... . ~ ... r. ..... ......":".~ 4~... .~. .."... . ':~ ...~.,....~..~,. ........... .. J:;~t?~.c~,j2:f.~;~.~~?7'.~:. ~ ~~:;~'_'I ~.~~~:.~.:. . ;. 1 , , I T-- -- '.' .'0-1 . .' .' ";," #. ..' . .. .. . ~:. I ..' '.' '.. t-/-S:Yo#,.5W j'+ .5~c. S . '. .. .1 I ; " I .. .' '._ ....kq. .,.. ..... I '. ... \ . :";"~:;:;~::.: :;~::. . .~: ~ . .- . . ....~ I Ul" ~'. .' . .' . . . .. . ..... '.' . .... . .'. " ." "':.'. . i;..: .... .' ':'.\-.~ : '. L, .... .:~ ~.":'-: :- .':. ~ . .:oI'J.. ...""," . f . .;'. .. 01/. '-. ..... '.':' . '. .. ':~~~~~~f"~~~.;'~~.:i;~\~l.""~;':':;" ... ...! I:":':" "~ ~~.~.: ~~.. '. .'U.. :.. , . nt:.~,~..;.. -..... . .. . .' . .,::".' .. t...... ~... ...:. . . ., .i..... ." ., .' .:...... '. . .. '. '" ..' " SctJlfll/.'2.000' .... '.' .-" )lMY1Il.W*t'l ,. ~)nlIo1I''l\ lr'c . .----..... .......,............ .... .,...._.. ....~._I I ;.. . .....h.... ... . ......, VICINITY ~AP. . . .."..' '" I I. EXEMPT/ON PLAT HOLLIS ALL~"f4cr:!lIl~&~ r/le NW 1/4 0111111 S~ 1/4 of ,,,, cag/II COlin/f. Co/oIOOtl <. ", ........ ~L.~ l \0.... :. ,,",, , .,~,.. ... ,; . .twI ~ -,. .. "" 'c.t~. 1.-wl' .,..~~ .:~:~~ .oc.. . .., . IU. .... ..." '.i. " . . ~ APR-27-2004 11:37 ~ .~~ GOODMAN & WALLACE 970 926 500~ P.06/08 , ,~ ... ,s.' 'CLOSING. This sale of property' shall be c:1.osed at. a place'designate~ by seller~ within. the St~te of Colorado. 'The par~es agre~ at closing th~t: a) ~allers.shall execute and deliver to buyer their , warranty. deed covering- all of the above qesc.ribed Allen & CO'. .Ran~h. propliilr~ to be sold; b) buyer shall, 'pay.' to s~llers. that portion of the purcha~e price to be Pald at Closing as herein provided; ~) buyer s~all execute and deliver to sel~ers its prom;ssory no~ representing the balance'of the purchase price as abo~e:provided and its mortgage 'deed to secure the same;, ' d). all' generai property ta~s and other. expenses eonpect9~ wi~'~aid'property of a continuing.nat~e ,.shall be' prorated bei:ween the puties as of the da.te of C.lOlll.ing:: ,..... . e)' both part!ies shall e~,oute and del:ive.z: fur1:.her or adClit,1.onaJ; dO;CUIllents as are reasonablY' necessa:ry to ~ffect~ate the closing a~ ~erein' provided. . . '0.. POSSESSIoN. ""1'hlit the sellers shall deliver to ' , , . .... I . b~er posse'ssiotl 'of '~e 'Ulen , Co. ~anch property 1;0. be . , . , s~ld a~'c~~sing.except that the sellers specifically. reserve posaess1on of.their dwellip~ house, garages and all outbuildings connected therewith for a period from the date of closing ~tii'tiecember 1, 1980. That, the sal~ers,have installed a trailer~ouse near their . . main dwel~inq house on the ah?ve,described property. Said trailer house is not. included within this sale, however, sellers agree that.1iuyer'may,utilize said trailer hOUSe for offioe . , purposes from and af~er the date of closing until the sellers . . . ',deliver ?OS5~ssion of. their d~elling house to buyer; provided that the b~yar wili 'pay all utilities ,connected with the use of the trai~er'~d ~e~p and naintai~ ~aid,trailer in.its pres~nt . , conai tion I ordinary "'ear and tear excepted. The sellers have a few,personal'possessions within'said trailer which'sha~l.be APR-27-2004 11:37 ~ @ , . GOODMAN & WALLACE, 970 926 5009 P.07/08 i/ . anticipated costs thereof aha the sellers' cooperation as ~ . . above prc~ided shall be, conditione~ upon such requirements' . '.' bY,Eag-le County. In determinif1g wha.t shall constitute full '1' ~ticipated'c~5ts, the sellers agree to a~cept existing ~ontracts for such i~rovements or engineer's professional ..e,s.t.-i%lW!,tS.s, o.i .,:",s.uc.h costs. " 9. RESER'V'ED THREE ACRE: TRACT. The reservea three acr~ tract shall be aqj~cent to and aroUhd the Lake Creek Baptist ~urch Froperty as a1:"ove 'described and it is intended that, when subdivided, tliis additional three acre tract will be :r;econveyed', bY'l?uye~ to sellers so tha.t '\;he property may be cOIWeyed 'by sellers to auch ch~ch. The parties agree that €he con~iguration of said reserved thr~e acre tract shall be i~ ,the extreme Northeast Corner of the SW.SE~ of said Section S ,adjOin~g ~e ~x~eti~; church,property and shall be of sUCh'co~f~9uration as wi~l coincic1e with th~ develop~ent , plans' of' 'the buyer and rea~onably provide for the anticipated , 1 I ~ Jfee'ds" of 'the. ch~c:h.',' 'rhe sellers reserve .~e riqht to ~pr~ve SU~h. conf:igm::atiohS' 'provided 1:hai: their approval shali not'be unreaspnably.withheld. . , . '10.' RESER.VED TEN' ACRE TRACT.,. The reservec1 ten ac:re tr~ct as ~ove 'described is the Nw~SE~SN%'of said Section S anc!..s'el.la~s specifically. .reserve an easement and.':right of . , way for aeees5 and 'utility p~rposes SO feet.in wid~ from the county ~oad to said t~ acre tract, provided th.t sellers 'agree. to accept ,as I suCh, 'a~c~ss' ~edic:at,ed legal foadways ' , ~S~~lished by ~Uy~:r'in ~onnection w1tb its de~e1opmeni:. 11.. SOB.DIV!SION EXEMPhoN. . Prior to closing, seller,S , . will..ma,ke ,ai;lplication fo:r: a subd~V'ision ekemption to the Board ~f Co~~~,Commissioriers of Eagle Coun~ which will , allow the ten acre t~ac:t '~~served by sellers to be divided from ':the remainder of. 'the ranch property and 'if said ex@mpHon ,1~ obtained pr~o~ ~~ Closing, it shall ~e specifically excluded frc~' the'deed to buy~r. If not approved prior to clos~nq, ~e buyer agrees to reconvey to sellers s&i~ tract '. APR-27-2004 . 355 I 8 8 bouLH..;l:B. ~AGf q~I .;:;Il...~, i :!: j':!I'.I.W'. ~A!lL.t ~.,':. l\(Cul,!;!,i ~~ ~eed KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT H5r. IQ 9 52 AM '87 BOMESTEAtl AANCfJ CEVELOP~'r CORP. Fi,st Party ~/Q Robert warner, Jr. Post Office Box 958 p,O, Sox or Street Address ~von, colorado City State . III i CoIllrldll tllrpOrnlGft C . Pilrln,rship o a Umll.cl Par\ncr1hICl 81620 Zip I..\~ for and in c.oNiderution of ten dollars and ether valuable considerations. in hand paid, herllby sells ilnd conveys to fP ALLEN.' CO. Second Paf1V c/o t!ollis Allen Route 4. Box 265 P.O. Box or Str8et Address Georgetown, ~exas CitV State 78626 Zip . C 'ndlYldl.l.lfy . [J Jolnl "'n.ncy C "'"lne) '0\ tomman o iI CoIo,i1da CorporaUOIl C . "utneJ1hill XI II Umltld h,In.nl1lll . the following described proper1y in the County of .Eagle _ end Stale of ~olorado: .>~ !!? - ~ - - Tract S, Block 1 'rhe Bomes~ead.- Filing No.1, as shown on a pla~ ~hereof filed for recora in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County as 'Reception No. 223530. Oate: ~-IO~7 s_l tp.".J Go. Eagle County State Doe. Fee with lill its appuI lenances and warranu title to thoJ same. except and subject to general property taxes for the current Yllllr. U.S. patent reservations end elCcspticns, allV and ell susmenu and righu of way of 1I public or privlItll nature, ~lllnning. :on1ng and other govprnlT\lln'tlll rules and regulations and prior oil, ~as and other minerai r8S8M1tions ancf exceptions. if any SIGNED thi~ ,.;/71 day of Febr\lary 87 a&ltslfEXlrMNCH' DEVELOPMENT CORP. A COloradocQrporaticn .A~~i.:. .' ". .~ i';'~ :" L~ ~t... i . :l>,~~. "',.~' o?:," i.l,.l ~ ,... .... r . ~. : '. ecretary . ......, ,...........;~.~ '0 ~-;..., P:JI ~. :I...~'.. ~.I.'. . "<::~~~::~;.~:~:~'. ~:.. . 7 By: pre:sident STATE OF COLORADO COuNTY OF ~ARFIELO I . I ss-... - . I . The fOr~Oing Instrumflnt.WBS acknowledged before me this .f(.P'/t:- , davor February 1'9.~by",r/.~I',';:a"",..(,../i... . .as..president anc3 1~..f.rI','t. 1":'- /,,1 \..."Ioo-~.' as Secra~ary of Somestea~ Ranch oevelopmant Corp., a C~loradc corporation Witness my hand 8I1d.of1id.a1 ~al,. My commission expires: 0.,,:">1':.'1"' 1(. , ";.("1 . . '..1 . . .~'~/ ). . ~ .:i ",' ..' .', ;.. / or' I - Notary pti6iie '"' : ....... . NOTIr- :" .- ~.rt.r..:;.j' . . ".~til"'''';~ Mill!" ~Iih .. fl....lar ....,1 I""lud. ..M.' .. ""nIOM' r..uin.. \ ,I ) . Fe b l~; 04 1 0 : 3 B a Nanc~ I<erb~ I~ax L;ate:2/15/04 To: JOE FORlNASH WORK 970-328-8735 FAX 970-328-7185 From:STEVE KERBY WORK 970-471-1020 HOME 970-926-3526 FAX 970-926-2406 ]..Jages: -2- ~:ubject: HOMESTEAD/ALLEN CR SIDEWALK PETITION JOE, 970-926-3526 RECEIVED FER 1 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development PLEASE INCLUDE THIS PETmON WITH Y01JR PAPERWORK FOR THE PROPOSED HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP. PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU ANY QUESTIONS. REGARDS, STEVE KERBY ~~~ p. 1 . . . A Petition We, the homeowners on Allen Circle in Homestead are opposed to the construction of a sidewalk on Allen Circle as it relates to the proposed Herita e Park Develo ment. Address 0/10 .4~.-Le/,/cR olio e. <./ Db '5 '6 QLQilV"' CN, ~~ DC S 'is (Q<LQ... ~"C'",l.t. (!x.::;st. 4L-':'-r.'v & it? OCb-b ,4,. ~.;E ",-\ t!-; e. '(L{ ~ l( L 1-1 Feb 15 04 10:38a Nanc~ Kerb~ February 3~ 200h' ..-.' . ... I ,) C .'11 L . fi (.! ; Ylli n 6. ;'i.'~c...)<;.r-t:\.[.,.rl(' V,I;U; () L~t~ 7. J/JI!JC lS5&y -y I .,: I ;,1 (' ,'y- (: l ~';{ H//r?r1 C irO Ie:: 3ff v9/1e-',.'l {I,'/C Ie 9.2.. 't{.8ff/ C14c?G 8. 9 L/~\ \~ Gi V'.~ OoSS C4illt'" (; r-tk 6\' $;./1 lh:-,v Lt ;,J ~ 14. 15. ~~ - 970-926-3526 p.2 ./ ./ L__ ECEIVED FER 1 7 2004 Eagle County Community Development FEB--18-2004 WED 10: 52 AM FAX NO. P, 02 Fcbnwry 17. 2004 RECEIVED Fr(lll'l : David nnd Margaret Lach 003~ Allen Circle, Edwards, CO FEB 1 8 200ft . Eagle County Community Development To: Eagle County Planning Commission Dr. ,u\d Mrs. Robed L. Fait 0022 ^ lien Circle and 0018 Allen Circle. Edwards, CO Rc: lIcrilagc Park Propo:,;.ll foc Preliminary Plan Approval 1 )Qn.r C.ornm ji';sioJl Mcmbcrn: To unlo, many hours of your ti me have heen spent reviewing documents, listening to the applicnlll and his planners, and the dozens of people who have come to these meeting!; voiying lllcir concerns MU opposition to Heritage Park. We believe you made the right d~cjsion, knowledgeahlc and in good eon!;cicnce, when you unanimously dc:nied this applicanL nL Sketch Plan stnge and strongly suggested reducing the Heritage Park tlcnsity 10 12 ]oL:;j. Approxi1l1utcly 2 ~ ycar~ ago, Mr. Guida met with the adjoining property owners and many other concerned re~idents of Homestead regarding ourthoughlS and concerns ahout. his l)roP<.)~[\l before the County to rezonc the Allen parcel from resource to Jcsidenth.ll. W(~ nIl sniJ we woulu love to see this property stay the way it is, with perhaps one main residence (I."d maybe a careLaker's unit. Howcver, we went on to say we knew that w~s prob~lhly unrealistic. We told him we could rcalisticnlly see 1210t5 on that property ranging in siz(~ from one half, to three quarters of an acre, considering the n~cessary 1'oads nnd cul-dtH;t:1CS. AmI if he would propose such a d.evelopment, we would not oppose it. In lhct,'.wc wOllld !->upport it! We would also like you to know that at that time a group of us p1lt lip $100,000 and signed a contract at a price we believed was similar to Mr. Guida's offer. We specillcally did not make our conLract contingent upon rezoning with a minimum d~nsity roquirement. Ou.t plan for development was based on 10 to ]2 lots maximum. That is how :;criou.') we were about keeping control of our density AND d~$ti ny! ~) FEB--IB-2004 WED 10:52 AM FAX NO. P. 03 Cun'(~nl.ly, the nl~wsrapcr has reported that there an:: developers negotiating with Bruce Ealon tn pun:h"sc and(k~vclop his very large parcel orland much closer 10 the "heart" or Edwnrds~ L'n)f\.~ Mcil thnn lhis property is situated. It was also rcpol1cd that t.he~c dcvc1opL:l's nrC looking to [Impose 400 additional residential units and anot.her half million squmc fc:;et of commercial gpace. Considering its proximity to all infrastructures, ;)nd thl: ntcllhnt such a plan i~ conducive with the Edwards Area Master Plan, we believe such 11 proposal ,.vill m(l~llikcly he approved. Given this, we believe our a1r~ady over- bmdcncd roads, interwctions and bridges will have great difficulty handling such traffic. There arc currently nu plans Of fund~ ll)f rectifying the :;ituation. We ~lrc l)nCC ngnin ~Hiking you to deny the applicant at the current Preliminary Plall st:lge for the :'-><:l1'nc tho\lghlrul Tca~ons you have denied him earlier on: limited access and (kn!-;Hy. The appllC<lOt has had to ask the County Commissioners for a variance fTom Engle. County's suhtlivision requirement of dual access. Two oflhe Commissioners decided denying the applicant the varinnce was a greater hardship to him than the h.lrrlship the neighbors would have to endure, even though the developer had not yct purchi;so(l UIC properly! As we are sure ypu are sorely aware, decisions by the County COl1lfnl);$ioIlCrS so often overmJe your well informed and thoughtful decisions. Docs i L mean the Commissioners know morc thun you? That the Commissioners ar", right and you I.1r~ wrong? No, by all means! In fuct, many times the Commissionen; know far loss thun you hcctmsc they haven't f1ttended mecting after meeting listening to the pros and eons or n purlicolar uevelopment. As an example, the Commissioners held the Sketch Phlllllearing over a mnjor holiday when most of us opposed to the development were \1I'\l.\bk to nttl'lld. We fcd ('.onildcnt 1htlt if you deny the applicant's Preliminary Approval based on the same rC41~onirlg you denied them Sketch Plan approval, we, the opposition, numbering in Lhc hundreds, if not thOUSrulds, will Sllccessfully convince the Commissioners to reverse Lheir ct:lrlier approval of this applicant. Sin<>crC~'lY' / -IJ~/:!. ~ / YJAlwXl f;t1)f---..- David l nd M~lIgarc Jnch H.cpre~t:;nljng Dr. & Mrs. Fait ~4~ FROM NOTTINGHAM FAX NO. 97121 926 4151 Feb. 18 21211214 1212:44PM P1 .1 l-!.e;'" ! Vol ! Celeste C. Nottingham 585 Homestead Drive Edwards, Colorado 81632 . Eagle County Planning Commission Eagle, Colorado Dear Commissioners: 1 writing because the Heritage Park proposal will create a problem for me and my neighbors. The traffic counts for residential homes is 8 y1 0 car trips a day. I know that is standard for my husband and myself, and when the kids are home it is much more. Our community can't take the added traffic. We like to walk on our streets throughout our neighborhood. Many of us walk down the hill to the Post Office and you are always watching for straying vehicles, so It isn't a relaxed stroll. Wny can't Heritage Park do their development. with access that doesn't envelope traffic thru Homestead. is it economics? The developers won't make the tons of dollars as they are planning if they have to secure and provide for their own access. Please don't impact us at Homestead. We all know this is just opening the barn door for the next developer to use our Homestead Community also. I also believe that the Heritage Park homeowners wiD later be using the trails and parks that Homestead j Homeowners Association pays to develop and maintain. That issue upsets me also. Please make these developers pro\lide for the~r own access. This is the moment to send a strong message. Thank you for the denial at the sketch plan phase. Our County Commissioners are not listening real good to their constituents. Thanks to the Planning Commissioners for hearing the neighbors. Res pectfully , ~.C. J/, Cel€iste Nottingham 970...926-0585 RECEIVED FEB 1 8 2004 Eagle County Community Development @ 'll.Mnp.,,la,, P..hrlHU'V 1 i "no.! AtllP:Ti~~ ()n1inp.~ Nortinv~n From: Michael Gallagher Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:09 PM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: FW: Heritage Park development FYI&F (for your information and the file) thanx -----Original Message----- From: Brad Lyons [mailto:BradL@colmtmed.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:24 AM To: Michael Gallagher Subject: Heritage Park development Dear Commissioner's I am writing this letter in support of the Heritage Park Development. I feel that development of this parcel of land is perfectly appropriate. I am a homeowner within the Homestead Community and do not feel that 24 high quality homes would be out of place or inconsistent with previous development within our community. I personally feel that this piece of land is currently an eyesore to the community and I don't feel that the density of this proposed development would restrict traffic flow on Homestead Drive. In addition this project could help rejuvinate the local economy, helping many hard working residents in the construction trades and real estate industry. I sense that the only opponents to this development are those homeowners whom have direct views of this parcel of land or whom live on Allen Circle. I think we can all understand the reasons for these individuals opposition, but in reality it is self-serving. Thank you for taking time to read my opinions regarding this project. I have now lived in the Vail Valley for 8 years and feel that well planned development is and should be a part of our lives. Sincerely, Brad Lyons, MD @ From: Alan & Hazel Cope [mailto:acope@adelphia.netJ Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 10:21 PM To: #EagleAdmin; #ECGWEB Subject: Letter to Planning Commission Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting on March 3. Thank you. P.O. Box 1224, Edwards, Co 81632 March 1 2004 To: The Eagle County Planning Commission Re: Heritage Park Project My wife and I have been Homestead property owners for 10 years and currently reside in a house adjacent to the proposed Heritage Park project. While the presentation of the project was very professional, there were some troubling issues which came up at the meeting on March 3. The developer stated that the proposed density was less than in surrounding Homestead streets. However, my understanding is that the proposed density is greater than Homestead as a whole, because Homestead has set aside more open space. I suggest that the density of Heritage Park be reduced to the overall Homestead average. This is important for two reasons, First, with only one access through a narrow opening to Allen Circle, there will be considerable traffic entering and leaving on to Allen Circle and then on to Homestead Drive. Second, there are other parcels of land, which border Homestead and which may ultimately be developed. If the precedent is set with Heritage Park, other developments may be allowed higher densities. This will lead to intolerable traffic on Homestead Drive. The Homestead project was planned to avoid such problems and I think that the density plan for the overall area should be maintained. Second, the architectural advisor presented some interesting house concepts for the project. I did not hear anything to the effect that these would be a mandated part of the project. If the project is approved, is the developer free to erect other house designs and, if so, who, if anyone, will approve them? If the project were brought under the Homestead umbrella then house design would be subject to the design review procedure of Homestead. Failing that, I would hope you would pay close attention to this aspect of the project as the actual building design would materially affect adjacent property owners. Yours sincerely, J A. Cope @) I "\ ' .; l----." "~~'-"C r -'; L..",-... k1~-,~.... '. Ft:j~~~ R E ~ E Ii V "-,_ -=.1".......f'd. ex r 'fe' cl( \ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner '. '-' I u._., Am Merconi, Eagle County Conunissioner \ Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner MAR 0 1 2004. l"'~-~-"- ; - POBox 850 \ t"':~"~' -. ,.; Eagle, Colorado 81631 Eagle Count" [_.,.~-" ," .- Community Oe-vel~pment ------ '. Dear Commissioners, We would like to take a moment of your time to voice our opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development on the "Allen Parcel" which is surrounded by the Homestead subdivi~lon in Edwards. The following are our reasons for this opposition: 1, First and foremost, the 24 units that are proposed represent a density that is far greater than the Homestead subdivision. The developers claim that they are in-sync with the density of the Homestead area which surrounds the Allen parcel, but in fact, their figures do not take into consideration that the Homestead development also includes 450 ACRES of dedicated OPEN SP ACE. This represents a density of one home PER ACRE within Homestead. If the developers of Heritage Park were truly in sync with the density of Homestead, they would only be proposing 11 units on the Allen parcel. 2. The former secondary access to the Allen parcel that was platted in accordance with the requirements the county has set for the establishment of a new subdivision were sold by the Allen's to Fred Green. I understand that a variance has been granted in this instance, and I do not agree with that variance_ The county and the residents surrounding this proposed development are being taken for a ride. 3, The development as proposed will cause an increase in traffic on residential streets and intersections that were never intended to handle such traffic. 4. The development will not have to adhere to any set design/design review code as do the surrounding homes. Poor, dissimilar, or substandard development on this parcel could severely atl'ect the property values of the surrounding neighborhood that is a planned development with strict architectural guidelines and established covenants. 5. The continued policy of this county to upzone densities needs to stop here, If you allow these densities to exist on this parcel that technically lies within Homestead, you will set a precedence for the other parcels that surround Homestead that will surely cause severe congestion and a degradation of the quality of life for the residents of the Homestead subdivision in the future. Please consider all of the facts and impacts of this development on the surrounding area and vote for denial of the Heritage Park development at the currently proposed density! Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 Patrick J. & Rebecca S. Bultemeier 103 Meile Lane, Edwards CO 81632 926-2815 @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners MAR. 2.2004 1:19PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO. 362 P.l TO: Joe Forinash Eagle County Community Development RECEIVED DATE: March 2, 2004 MAR 0 2 2004 Eagle County Community Development FROM: Mike Claymon RE: Heritage Park Please include the following 2 documents in the packet for the Eagle County Planning Commission Hearing on March 3, 2004. The first document is a letter from 1978 from Terrill Knight to Fred Green indicating that access to the Allen Parcel from Lake Creek Road across Fred Green's property is necessary. The second document is a real estate sales analysis that I will be referring to at the March 3 hearing and shows a 1hat there is NOT a community need for 24 $800,000 single family homes. @ MAR. 2.2004 1:19PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO.362 . P.2 fEAGlE "COUNTY se,partment of Planning and ~Development I. (). Box 179 t:RuLEr (~OlORAl?O 81.631 ~~f{ .'./ .~\.f ~ l' ./, !" ,: .:', , .' r- ~:. . " {.!: I~ ";r',~ ;::. \1, \ '.S5I" .1 t( !~ 'l; : . ,., -:3 .t.. " . . .-' .. . '. .t- ",~"",,) '\ "" '\ . "" ::, .".~~ ,,~:::.'l-,.~ . ^' . -"",'):.c;... '~>-... .....1-.,. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION~RS 32.8-6809 ADMrNlsnlATrON 32.8-6674 [~N1MAL SHELTER 949-4Z92 ,i\SSESSO R ;l28.6593 BUILDING iNSPE.CTICIN ;~28.633S CLERK & . RECORDER Eagle 32E-t:i3n Basalt .927-3244 COUNTY ATTORNEY :328-6674 ENGrNEE.Fi: 32S-5337 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 328-7718 F-XTENSION AGENT 328.6370 j' ARV : '87 p.. IC HEALTH ria gte 328.~"i94 Vall 476-5844 PLANNING ;128-0338 (~OAO & an lOG E ::128-6591 SHERIFF \i::agl~ 32S...{';611 Basalt 927.:3244 Cilman' 821-5751 SOCIAL SERVICES ~~28-G32B TR'EASUR~R ~{:28-637S \ \''''''. ."r.,.,. J' .1 f, ,..,.....10 l'......~ 30 Jun~ 1978 Fred Green P. O. Box 1308 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: File No. Se'-206-78 Green Exemption The Technical Review CoITllnlttee for Eagle ,County (a group of technical advisors from various public agencies) revi.ewed youY' application on 29 June 197a. They offered the following comments to you and the Plannlng Commission for consideration of approval and u~e of the property. '1. There should be, a final plat ~ubmitted. ' 2. A. 701 road right-of-way s~ould be dedicated fat' lake Creek Road. 3. The fields are flood-irrigated and the westerly portion will be difficult to build on unless it ;s drained. Building sites should be carefully checked at building permit stag~ to assure an adequate ~uilding site. 4. The Hollis Allen prop~rty adjacent to this will n~ed to have (l,ccess. These crnmnents will be forwarded to the County Planning Dep~rtment and Plaflning CommisslGn for consideration at their meeting on~ 19 July 1978. .','. If you have any questlons~ please contact this office. ~!/ 'j'L e>:rI11 Knight ~ Acting Director of Planning Tt<lkp cc: Board of County Commissioners @ '0 ~ ~ '1: a.. '0-, - Ul o __ C/J...! (l) '" 't: a.. -cI <5 en ~~~~~~#*~~~~#~~~~~~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~#~ ~O_O~No~~~m~v~~~~M~o~~~m~~~M~~-~V~~ oommm~momm~~~mm~~~~~mmmmwmmm~mm~~m~m - ~LO Cl:l cc oooaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~oo oooooooo~ooooooooooooooooooooooo~oo ~~q~q~qq~qqq~q~qq~qqq~~qq~qqqqqq~q~ ~ooM~~m~~o~o~oo~mo~ONON~O~o~~o~mmoo ~~m~~mNo~O~~~~~~O~o~N~~~m~~NNoMN~mN ~mm~m~m~~w~~m~~m~~~mmm~~m~m~~~mm~m~ ~W~~~W~~WM~W~WW~~~~*WWWW~WWWWWWW~~~ N ~ 0) ~ M m 00000000000000000000000000000000000 o ooooooooooooooooooo~oooo~oooooooooo ~ oomoooOoooo~ooooooo~oowomoooooooooc a.. ~~Q~~O~OQm~o)o)~~m~~~m~~mmmmo)~o)~~~~rim _ ~m~m~~NN~m~m~ccccmmN~mN~Nmm~mm~~Mm~m~ .~ ~~m~~~m~~ccm~~~~m~~~mmmcc~m~m~~~mm~m~ ~ W~WW~~Ww~W~~WWWWW~~WWWWWW~~~WWWWW~~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000 oooooooooooooooooooooooo~ooooocoooo ooooooooooo~OOOOOOOOOO~ONOOOOOOoooo o~~m~~o)mm~~o)~om~o)~o~m~mc~o)o)~~~~om~m ~~N~~~N~~N~m~~ccm~~-V~CCN~N~mmm~mN~~~ cc~~cc~~m~~_~~m~cccccc~~~mmcccc~~mm~~~~~cc~ ~WW~MWWW~~~WW~~WWWWWW~~WWWW~WWW~~~~ tR- ~ mm~~~v_~mMcc~mmmM~-oo~~N~m~~mm~~~mNm mmwm~~Ncc~m~~m~mo-~~~O~~~~~~N-MNmmcc~ ~_N~ m- NWM~ ~ MmmM-N~N-- ~~~N M -o:i 52 M ~ .Q N ~ C") ~ E .g II) -e t'Cl ~ LU .!;;; "l:) o 1Il o o o o o CO CR .s .0 (;8 o . N8 ri~ N E .c 0 ~~ C/J (() -l .g :2 c.. 12 en .9~ 1~ ~:5 '0 .~ "E~ ~ E . aJo~ ::>-..r:: ~ ~~m 16Em >t'Cl-cl := '; >- ~ o,~ E'!; (() oil)"\:: u:<(~ -' 11'1 ::J B en '1:: .;:: c... o c:::_ o m Ul~ ~"" O:E .! CD o 1Z o rn ~ ~ ~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMC")MMMMMMMMMC")MC")~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cc~o~~~_~m~O cc~cc~o~~~~~~~w_w-~o~~o~o~ N~~_~O_NO~MNOOONNNO_N-O~O-OO-_O-~NN ~-~---------~---------------------- ~~~~~~cccc~mmo____~~_NN~m~~~~wm~ooo-~ ooooooooooo__~----oooooooooooo_---- .!B tV o en ::i o ~ ~ 0 NON N N 0 _ or' 'N _ N N 0 0 N N N N N N '" M (f) N N N (f) (1') (f) N ('J 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o~\t)~~~~~~~~ ~ccO~~~(f)(f)_~~cc-~.-_~(f)_'~I-~~~m v~~~~~(f)O ~~~~~~~gQ~e~~CQ~~\t)~~~g~~~~gge~Q~e~~~ ~O~(f)Nm~m_omcc~ccm~ (f)_~_~ON_~u,~~ONCCCC-~ 0_0000000_00000000000---00000_000-0 J:;> (3 ~oowwwwoo~wwwwoowoowenoowooC/Joowwen~oowwooC/JC/Jenrnoo OOOCOOOOQOOCOOCCOOOCQcgoococccccooo ~~~~o::~~~~o::~~oc~~o::o::~oc~~o::~o::~~oc~~~~o::o::~~ ~~~~i~~~ii~5~~i~~~~~~~~~~~i~~~~~i~~ ~wwwwwwww~wwwwwwwwwwwwwww~wwwwwwwww lR .Q: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ $~~~$mmmmemEm~~~~jjj~$J~~jsej~!mm$2 ~~~~~Cii~~~~~~~~~~~~W~=~II'I-~W~~~~u~Cii~W mm~mmmmm~=m=m=~==wmwm~mmm~~=m= ID(()mro ~E~EaEE~E~~~~~~~EEEE~~E~~cE~E~~EE~E ~ 0 ~ 0 .5 0 0 .~ 0 o.~ 0 ._ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0._ ._ 0 .- - 0 0 0 0 0 ro 0 0 c 0 ffiZ~~oozzen~uooowuuuu~x~ww~oorn~~uxu~~zw~ 0::: o OC ~o::oc ~ ~ OCO o::OO~~ I o~ ~~oc 0 C~COC 0:: ~ ~co:: ~CO~~O::~cOC ~ ~w~o::ozuzzz ~ ~ 0 w@ c~ v~~~~~ ~ z~ ~>~~~ocowooo~z~zow~~~~~~~~mzzzZ ~~~5~Effi~~~~o~3~~~~~~~~~~~o~~~Eb5~g~~ -~~CUO~~~ zoZZZ~ > Ooc~~>O cuw~v~G ~g~~~~~C!loo~moooc~moo~~~~~~~~z~~C~~~~~~~Z.'.' uwZO~OWZo>zz~zzzu~o~ <.(o_-o~>o~~~~z~ ~~o~O~~~~~~W~WWW~~Zw~~~~~z~~~G-l~WWO~ -~N~OU_...I ~~u~~~~~-~ UNoo_v ~U~~~~~ ~OOMO~N~~~-~~~~o~_...!om~~~....I~ ~~m~~~- OO~O~O~~O~Ncc~~~m~~ONO~~M~~OW~~~~W CC_N~___~~-~~cc~ ~- ~~mcc---~~~~~~-~~~ Z-SZ- CIl ~ 'C ~ C'.J ?Cl~ . ()l.' 6E92 SvB 0L6 ~Ia3W M3N Wd6't:'t v002'2 'Cl~W Jim & Judy Popeck 00640 Homestead Drive, #A-2 P.O. Box 1607 Avon, CO 81620 c I MAR 0 3 200ft February 28,2004 Eagie C(mnty Community Development Michael Gallagher, Commissioner Am Menconi, Commissioner Tom Stone, Commissioner P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Honorable Commissioners: Weare writing to voice our strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. We have less opposition to this development if access to it is off of Lake Creek Road. Our biggest concern is the huge increase in traffic that will occur making it dangerous. As it is, there is one sidewalk. Pedestrians can walk both ways on the one sidewalk but bicyclists must ride on the right side of the road going uphill. Vehicles come extremely close to bicyclists in that section. If a bicyclist chooses to ride on the sidewalk, they take their chances with negotiating through pedestrians, strollers, dogs, skateboards, etc. Access from Allen Circle would be very unsightly. The area needed to make the roadway safe and to conform to the proper appearance in the neighborhood would totally cut off any yard space for the existing homes. It would make it more dangerous, increase the noise level, and reduce the privacy of those homeowners. Please research the Lake Creek Road access more, and ifthere is no solution for that area, then make the right choice to deny the proposed Heritage Park development completely. Thank you for your consideration and concern for our safety. Sincerely, ~/!2J res L. Popetk -'. @ , 'L ~~ ~ ~po~ec~ RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners From: John Tedstrom [tedstrom@centurytel.net] Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 5:48 PM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: Heritage Park opposition Mr. Forinash - This email is to voice our opposition to the Heritage Park development as it is currently planned. There are too many flaws in the plan and it will have a negative impact on the quality of life in Homestead and specifically for us. Sincerely, John and Carri Tedstrom 970-926-0935 ~ From: Swissrip [swissrip@centurytel.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 11:04 AM To: Tom Stone; Michael Gallagher; Arn Menconi; Joseph Forinash Subject: Hertige Park Dear Commissioners: I am writing you to show our opposition to the Hertige Park development. We strongly oppose the construction of new homes in the Homestead area without the full support of the community that resides here now. Thank you for your time and see you at the meetings. Mike, Lori, Taylor and Augustus Rippstein 470 Homestead Drive Unit 19 Edwards CO 81632 swissrip@centurytel.net ~ From: Chad Church [Chadchurch@MyAmericash.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 26,20048:14 AM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: Heritage Park Opposed Dear Mr. Forinash 0 I live in Homestead and I oppose the proposed density of Heritage Park. I have taken the time to listen to both sides of this matter; for and against. I am certain the builder will in fact build a nice product; however, it is the density that I oppose. It is a tough site to build on and can be seen from 1-70. The density and the size of the homes, specifically on that site will set a poor precedence. Thank you for your consideration. Chad Church Toll Free 877-349-3737 Chad@myamericash.com @ Becky Bultemeier P.O. Box 1051 Edwards, Colorado 81632 ;(C DEPT. REC Eagle County Commissioners P.O. Box 479 Eagle, CO 81631 May 12, 2004 Subject: Heritage Park Preliminary Plan Approval MAY t~,..,---" \ t< .,:::tu~~.n (> f ~ r;. T () Honorable Commissioners, Ea~ Go~u~, Commumty Dev~ I am strongly opposed to the approval of the density of this project at 24 units. My first and foremost reason is the densities are not similar to the surrounding area, which is a requirement in Eagle County and the County Master Plan. Homestead is 1.19 units per acre. The Heritage Park proposal is 2.11 units per acre. This is almost double the amount of the surrounding area. My second reason is Jim Guida, the developer, has intentionally misrepresented the calculation of the density to make his project look similar to the surrounding area. He has left out the 360 acres of dedicated open space within and around the Homestead development. This miscalculation has been pointed out to Mr. Guida many times, but he continues to misrepresent the data. This makes me question what else has been misrepresented to the Planning and Zoning Board. Do the Math: Units Per AcJ:8$ .wAits ~ Heritage Park Proposal 24 11.4 Homestead Filing #1 388 152.0 Homestead Filing #2 156 138.0 Homestead Filing #3 300 60.1 Homestead Open Space 0 . 360.0 Homestead Total 844 710.1 2.11 1.19 What about the issue of the Allen's selling the 2nd access? This should have forever changed the development potential of this parcel. How many ways can they try to fool us? Visit the site to see the real layout and access issues! This is a very important precedent setting decision for the Edwards area. Please follow the guidelines established and relied upon by the current owners. This will have a huge impact on the areas future. DON'T be FOOLED! The proper density for this project is no more than 12 to 14 units of similar size to Homestead homes (2,000 to 2,500 square foot average). Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Please deny this density to protect Edwards property owners and build trust in the County planning process. sLcere'y~ / ~ BJ~~r, C Home and Business Owner in Edwards RECEIVED MAY 1 3 2004 ~]) xc: The Vail Daily Eagle Board of County Commissioners Patrick S. and Carol Horvath 63 Lindsay Trail, P.O. Bo:ll44, Edwards, Colorado 81632 ('70) 926-3533, EmaiI-horvatbps<w.aoI.com March 1 ~ 2004 R c I D Tom Stone Eagle County Commissioner PO Box 850 Eagle~ Colorado 81631 MAR 0 4 2001~ .... ""....m'" "... .~., . i'~'''Y t:.1J,:U~~;:' vvtMld't. Communiiy Development Subject: Heritage Park development Honorable Commissioner Stone: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park Development. As a homeowner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the setter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP, dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that must be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn~t need ~ditio~ ~9mes and ~~e is overwhelming opposition to this project. . . . . . While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, tbis parcel needs to be evaluated on its own-it needs to have its own specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access is poor, the site slope will take away from the beauty of our community, and the site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan. Consideration of these items must mandate denial of the project. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development Thank you for your time and consideration. Sin/jly, ~~.~ J;>>atrick and Carol Horvath . 'I;: .' ;.... . ,- RECEIVED .. . MAR T' ~ 200~ . Eagle Board of 'County CI"rr. r:': :'"'. -: ;oners "-..""...-- Q:~ Katherine C. McKay PO Box 625 Edwards, CO 81632 A I March 3, 2004 MAR 04 2004, , Eagde County Community Deveiopment Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. THUS NEITHER THE COMMUNITY NEED NOR PUBLIC INTEREST CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. The project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homstead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Katherine C. McKay @ From: Mike Haller [mhaller@GallegosCorp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:46 PM To: Michael Gallagher; Arn Menconi; Tom Stone Cc: mikeclaymon@hotmail.com Subject: Heritage Park Eagle County Commissioners I am writing to voice my strong concern of the. Heritage Park development. Please limit the number of homes to be developed in Heritage Park. I do not believe this to be a bad project, just one that will be over built, 24 homes does not work on the proposed small acreage of land. My understanding is that Homestead is one home per acre of land, with an abundance of open space. Heritage Park would blend in with our community with 12-15 homes, not the proposed 24. Thank You Mike Haller 0137 Stonegate Circle Edwards Colorado 81632 Cia F ;,:;, ~f~~"l ~ "" ~~~ Sf I 1= ~ MAR 0 4 200l~ F<el<A-,'!..C!J {"'i:"1' H"~'Y _t\...!l. ,,~-r;.., \,~' ...". ~\-i; 'J l Commun~ty Development From: Todd Oppenheimer (todrit@mountainmax.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:50 PM To: Michael Gallagher; Am Menconi; Tom Stone Cc: Mike Claymon; Hauff, Jeannie; Green, Norman Subject: Heritage Park proposal Dear County Commissioners, .. I '" MAR 0 4 2004 E;;'\)f;-(;~D\ :f't."U ",.',V'I "";;::"- "#,"..""".} Communay Deveiopment I am writing in regards to the upcoming discussion of the Heritage Park proposal. As you know the Eagle County Planning Commission is scheduled to review the proposal by developer Jim Guida tomorrow March 3, 2004. Hopefully they will see the problems associated with density and traffic this proposal brings to the Homestead community and deny the application. The application includes over 20 units on an 11 acre tract, much of which is in excess of 30% slope, with the access from Allen Circle via an intersection with Homestead directly across from the Homestead Court Club driveway. The density proposed is more than double the average density of the Homestead community. The traffic generated by the proposed development will bring that intersection into an unacceptable level of service during the morning hours. I am aware the traffic study provided by the developer claims the roads can handle the traffic. I am also aware traffic engineers can format a study to arrive at whatever outcome is desired. I am hopeful common sense will prevail. The developed density of this tract should not exceed one unit per acre under any circumstance! The County Commissioners will have an opportunity to discuss the Heritage Park proposal and the Planning Commission's decision on March 16,2004. You will hear Mr. Guida argue that a density less than his proposal will make the project financially impossible. Up until a week ago I had been a member of Homestead Homeowner's Association Board of Directors for 9 years. I was present at a meeting where Mr. Guida stated he had to have the proposed density unless the County Commissioners cause him to make it lower. Of course his attorney immediately cut him off but in his abbreviated statement lies the truth behind the proposal. The development can work at a density of one unit per acre or less and be an asset to the existing community rather than a burden. The 800 homeowners of the Homestead community are counting on the Commissioners to make a sound decision regarding the Heritage Park proposal and the future development of other parcels surrounding it. Commissioner Gallagher, in this election year, I especially implore you to support the position of your constituents in Homestead and not approve any development proposal for Heritage Park which exceeds one unit per acre. Thank you for your time and for the work you do for Eagle County. Sincerely, Todd Oppenheimer 781 Homestead Drive Edwards, Colorado @ APR. 26.2004 2:07PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO. 771 P.2 Marcb 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE coUNTY COMMISSIOftE C E IVE D SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT APR 2 6 2004 Dear Ea.gle County Commissioners: Eagle County We, the undersjgned, are residents and property owners in unincorporated Et&&NIJlD.~ we strongly urge yon to deny any further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The developer is asking for a snbstantial zoning ch3l1ge, from reSOllJ'ce or one residence, to residential medium density or 24 residences. This property has severely limited access. Since it's inception, Heritage Parkhas met strong and sustained opposition from the adjoining property owners and the Homestead Owners Association, representing ove!' a thousand residents. The developer has asked for community input and support. The ~ommUDity has always stated, due to the sevuely limited acce$8, lfe C811ll0t support any development that is more than 12 reddences. The developer has and continues to imist on propo5ing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We Ul'ge you to listen to your Eagle County Planning Com:mission AND your constituents and deny Heritage :Park as proposed. ADDRESS \\t~ U l' c.k APR. 26.2004 2:07PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO.771 P.3 March 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK. DEVELOPMENT 00 Deat' Eagle County Commissioners: We, the undersigned, are residents aDd property owners in unincorporated Edwards. As concerned citizens, we strongly urge you to deny any further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The developer is asking for a substantial zoning change, from resouree or one residence, to residential medium density or 24 residences. This property has severely limited access. Since it's inception, Heritage Park has met strong and sustained opposition from the adjoining property owners and the Homestead Owners Association, representing over a thousand residents. The developer has aliked for community input and support. The commUDity has always stated, due to the severely Jimited access, we cannot support any developMent that is more thaJl12 residences. The d.weloper has 8Jld continues to insist on proposing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We nrge you to listen to YOlll' Eagle County pJgnninc CoJD.lllission AND YOlll' constituents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. t:\ APR. 26. 2004 2:08PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO.771 P.4 March 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BJECT: HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT @ Dear Eagle County Commissioners: We~ the nndersigned, are residents and property ownerS in 1U1incorporated Edwards. AB concerned citizens, we strongly urge you to deny any further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The dtWeloper is asking for a substantial zoning change, from resource or one residence, to residential medium density or 24 residences. This property has severely limited access. Since it's inception, Heritage Park has met strong and sustained opposition from the adjoining property owners and the Homestead Owners Association, representing over a thousand residents. The developer has asked for commWlity input and support. The community has always stated, due to the severely limited access, we cannot support any developlD.Cnt that is more than 12 resi.denees. The developer has and continues to insist on proposing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We urge you to listen to your Eagle County Planning Commission AND your constituents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. ADDRESS APR. 26. 2004 2:08PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO. 771 . P.5 March 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS @ SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT Dear Eagle County Connnissioners: We, the undersigned, are ~esidents and property owners in unincorporated Edwards. As conterned citizens, we strongly nrge you to deny my further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The developer is asking for a substantial zoning change, from resource or one residence, to residential medium density or 24 relSidcnces. This property has severely limited access. Since it's inception, Heritage Park has met strong and sustained opposition from the adjoining property owners and the Homestead Owners Association, representing over a thousand residents. The developer has asked for community input and support. The community has always stated, due to the severely lhnited access, we cannot I!iUpport any development that is more than 12 residences. The developer bas and continues to insist on proposing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We urge you to listen to your Eagle County Planning Commission AND your constituents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. RPR.26.2004 2:08PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO.771 P.6 March 9, 2004 PETmON TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BJECT: HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT @ Dear Eagle COllllty CoJDDlissioners: We, the undersigned., are residents and property owners in unincorporated Edwards. As concerned citizens, we strongly urge you to deny any further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The developer is asldng for a substantial zoning change, from resource or one reddence, to residential medio.m density 6r 24 residences. This property has severely limited access. Since it's inception, Heritage Park has lnotstrong and sustained opposition from the adjoiDtngproperty owners and the Homestead Owners As$ociatiOZl, representing over a thoD5and residents. The developer has asked for community input and snpport. The community has always stated., due to the severely Iimlted access, we cannot support any development that is more thuU residences. The developer has and continues to insist on proposing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We urge you to listen to your Eagle County PI~llmlng Commission AND your constituents 8lld deny Heritage :Park as proposed. . IL .. NAME ".. nu IIJ ADDRESS 77i A.1 y- G (./(.1 2/ A II /j t<.. L 11J6 ffJP A/ntf?JA,,^-,J kf lC ))(9Ll J/ltJ(iJ MlJd~:57~ ~Q i:.; J.. A. /A/, c.-k.u. ~ / S-. =3 t".. A _.~ .A. 71- A'ru/A L.I,r'. ~ U-- r?-4 (;.OL-'bhus.- A -::U1; . t..e;4t6 (I It/Jllrv- ~2Jfc:kLD ];v~ (-~!#IJ ~ T - ~\ r~\~~. ~Il AJ~ \~VSin ',Jlwu"'''~~ l>\(.~;2S ~ 1I ~~m7, 1)~~ -l'"'MM\NS ~t.fo 141)/11~et~Jfl :It t.f I~~ 1;~ UJ. w:"'}-. kt-'f\ u:.L \=-. Cof~ (P5 \..;A. ~trra> Lo..M.JL.. b-' ~ f.. ~ . G~ kiZ..,vCJ<4't\H' qg C~~ f~ lf4.. /. Jf{7J.~{.,Od 7 "": _\,.. llvi\\ L,b ~Y'" ._A.'\j -:r:o.:J 1IJIIII.";: _ ~A/~ I I I A ,..A.. L,,, b~t9..... G-~" WtK ~ So^ ~& "~JrA:r 0 rl ,1... W. ~ ~ r~ ' l~ n ~ .A ~,.~ lsu.s\ '"~r' ~ ~~ I',.... ~ J~ a1 ~ 1 .LA 1JI'1 ~~I'-/' () 1 (J~ if) 1J ^ PI I D .. ~ ('. ~ f'l.J~ i#l) J ~~)" {Ie 'll/1 ~ / u:t:=' 11.... . -f..t..7 ~ .~" I Ajl ~uT' I /\ ,,~ V f/ ~ . , J"A A.l . -7//7.A " D k 1/1)1)f).,..r... u/ ~/ratJI , 1";"" 17) .-J V') ~", U -, . lA, I, p~C r/,-~.:.1 . ti)!'6 S- 11 rh j !).,.iVe '(~RPA-K.. Ij). Ai -v..~ ~ n.J 6 J F ~Q",_ ()ii..' 0\ ~S' ::::>~ h .-'it I ~ ."'n. '"I C. ~ ~ ~ ~v~:w~J"]~_ ~I Cf~~-" .v~~ntm~ fW 1~~ftJJ0 rk1Z~~ 4rVi;f1D(J,f)\ \TJ, fIMtj'~WA~J ~ T i,~~ 7I1~~~,~.~ - tl~ ~/~ f'L\ <\~ l"~ [;f_l~~i11 ~ o ( Z.:15) '1 SIGNATURE \ ~/~ 6cA.AI". - ~/~ 4,/Vr--L~ .7C~-~ - APR. 25. 2004 2:58PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2539 NO. 775 P.2 March 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: BERITAGE pARK DEVELOPMENT 8 Dear Eagle County Commissioners: We, the undenligned, are residents and property owners in unineorporated Edwards. As eoncerned citizens, we strongly urge you to deny any furthel' approvals for Heritage park, as proposed. The developer iI asldng for a sllbstantial zoning change, from resource or one residence, to residential medium density or 14 residenea This p:roperty has severely limited acceSS. Since it's inception, Heritage Park has met strOJlg and sustained opposition from fhe adjoining property owners and the Homestead Owners Association, representing over a thousand residents. The developer has asked for commUDity input and support. The community ha5 always stated, due to the severely limited access, we cannot support any developmen.t that is more than 12 residences. The de'feloper bas and continues to insist on proposing 24 residences. TBIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We urge you to listen to your Eagle County PlallDing Commission AND your constituents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. NAME (pRlNT ADDRESS SIGNATURE APR. 26. 2004 2:59PM NEW MEDIA 970 845 2639 NO. 775 P.3 It< March 9, 2004 PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: HERITAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT @ Dear Eagle COUJ1ty Commissioners: We, the undersigned, are residents and property owners in unincorporated Edwards. As coneerDed citizens, we strongly urge you to deny any further approvals for Heritage Park, as proposed. The developer is asking for a substantial zoning change, from resource or one residence, to residential medium density or 24 residences. This property bas severely lilnited access. Since it's Inception, Heritage P ark has met strong and sustained opposition from the adjoining property oWDers and the Homestead Owners As5ociation, representing over a tho.sud residents. The developer has asked for C:OJDDlUDity input and mpport. The community has always stated, due to the severely limited access, we cannot support any development that is more than 12 residences. The developer bu and eontmue$ to insist on proposing 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! We urge you to listen to your Eagle County pJlnmhaf Commission AND your constituents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. ADD:RESS Marcb 9, 2004 PETITION TO UGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECl": BER.lTAGE PARK DEVELOPMENT @ Dear Eagle C01dlty Commissioners: We, the undersiped, are residellts pd property cnfJlersln uineorporated Edwards. M eolleetlled df;Izens, we strongly urge you to deny ..y farther approvals for Hentaae Park, as proposeeL The developer is uldDg for a S1Ibstantlal zoDiD& change, from resoorte or Olle residenee, to rakleJltial mediwo density or 24 reside1lCel. TIaiJ property has severely Umited access. Sbaee it's inception, Heritage Park. has me~strong anel sustained opposition from the adloinlnl property oWllerS and tile Homestead Owners Assodadon, repre5entbL& over a thou,anel resideDu. ne developer has asked for C:ODlDluity input and support. The eotDD11U1it)' has alwa)'s stated, due to the severely Um1teclaeeels, we caDJ10t su.pport B)' dnelopment that is more thau 12 rcsicleDte8. The developer has ud wntiJlues to insist OD. proposiDg 24 residences. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! . We arge YOll to listen to )'our Eagle Canty PJ!l.nning CoJlllDllsiOD AND ,.our conBtltuents and deny Heritage Park as proposed. J . NAME \j(l ADDRESS I SIGNA'l' IRE tv' .er t(.A.~' II 111m PI f JJ, \1' .6;1/11"..1V> . 71/111 wj)-r.M mil ) QJ:J}JW(-eV~-, q Z A-\~ u;& .."\J?7Jl//1~....~ ?\Ac~ \};;c:" .~~ <::17_ -A-Il~ Dek "'. L~ I /'A 11._A- ~~n irr-w-0 r' \6z., Ck!M!1~' a 1H lo;u.e .V JEtJlJ.lf cJull- T ,-.. IW ~ - f.p.i~/ h J -il ", I 'J/jAr/, ^,~~ I'J B ....If: n -; Ih'.A'. ,-. ....~.;;.:'-i',~~..... \ J\~" \1m ~t~ I~"\,,, ~\~ ii;~ ~. r ~ '\ 'Vd NI ~",;"":l.!;; rD '"\0 -IL - L I ~ l!tli ~.........,:r '"0............;..(' ~~\\ (>~<<"". '"3\'"\. ~~\8 ~ '\\.\(~. ( , .- --S~;-.r1 LIm~' ,-.",d -:A 1. ....-:::,;0:1 .,.- -.L; -~ "5--/ ~!:" ~ ~n pi\\A1J "". Il~ ,~ u. ,/~~~9J ~ ~ ~"...r ,; eJl, e-ff /f?O:;"K'<17f-.r,r;>ae ( L. ,-//:;~,:, 'U7l- .h~ (Or:AL.S PZ-UJSorT'L,erte1! .~ L esli L f"l-Pin/ve, ID7L.i.J1S.2f.-r.:.\ e.iv.>MfJ<.7Lt .I.~ '/) 7L /J' . r- iJfmJJtuJu.J2lIll&- -{ f{lD7P ~m7M Ilt.' 7/ ,V' i 'Z~:-1.:' I - I C~r\ {'IV ~ 1 Jr-Ll -AI It", (\ ,l-rJ , Q.A ~ J.~t7.:b.-- 4'f liliU I T V.l I()(J) f......;~. iJ rx -: Iff. 4-~ r7',-r/.J.. ,-d -4.. - rAT~~'",~~ I&~ ~tLt; /)1. ~. ~")-f; ~ 1 Jl.lrRe"/ t, . a~~,w.t.- 114'/ MElj,I'. t..N (I! J! ~J11liil'- .V 7,. v 0j) Marilynn Savalas 0067 Stonegate Circle Edwards, CO 81632 RECEIVED February 25. 2004 FEB 2 6 2UO~. Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) -l Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 __ 970-)2~-~@5 (voic_~) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homest~ I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding .. neigh~rl1Pods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in~ifl~ted br the Edwards M~fer Plan and mapdat~ deniff.l. Ph~ase make the right decision and vote for fJ~flifll pf tn~ prppc,~r4 Herita~e Parf 4~vylqplpen-t.. . .. ' . . . ..:. . . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ &0J5atas ) 0 WY1.O;J at Ho~eoJ @ ",y; e.~-/ I , I I i I I I I ! ! I , I I I RECEIVED February 25, 2004 FEB 262004 Eagle 'County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax:) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an o~er in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined In the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank. you for your time and consideration. Sinc~~~l:y" ", . " \k?!h l/); Q... \......:t'-' i./ '../ c/ 1,.." . , .{ t\.~ . ',.;.-'"\ i \ 0~ RECEIVED February 25, 2004 FE B 2 6 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eagJecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board ofDirectms' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it win stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the smrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. c~ @// RECEIVED February 25, 2004 FER 2 6 200'r Eagle County Community Deveiopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. lbis project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards Master Plan and martdat~ denial. Pkase make the right decision and vote fpr ~~r~l pf ~~ p,fp.p.o~~4 Herita~e Parf q~v€?IQPIl1ef1t. - _ - - - - ' - Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, /~;li .". i} (\ LJC.. ~1!- t I ' tl..,\ J ,_'1.' \ ~.:.-.. " ~. \--' " (~L,YZ}-tA_j!.JI If i )'U'l.N'c'1 WtA--"I~ L:, k' . ~:;L! . /\ ~ 1./, ..~ I ~j_/",_,,'j I..~~ /1_"'''-_ vL.O.,,(_f Co .4~"'i/\... 7.: ."'....--- - /i I 1 ~ /1 U v';) -/j'j (f/w;':; ., '."'lr'. .\ _1-L t;:i,r"._, /' ',,-," /1- ' '<---'-- (.. r~.'r 1 .../....' ~ I __ , I l_...n /L4- .' ", fl' R CEIVED February 25, 2004 FER 26 200ft Eagle County Community Deve!opment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from.all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards Master Plan and mapdat~ denial. Please make the right decision and vote (or H~piF1l pf tlw PfPBq~?4 Herita~e Parl' 4~v~lopmeHt...' . . :.:. " Thank: you for your time and consideration. Sincerely: C~ C~~ ~ t'\~ ~.(6\.l"e0- @ \\6 N.~ U'rG\.-e- r ~, ___~ \.c /" --"' x:\ 1 ~::Z ? R EI I=ED ? f) ?unj~ . D,........ "" H. February 25, 2004 Eagie Ci)Wliy Community Deve!opment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 3 28-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inqi~&teq py the Edwards M~ler Plan and mapdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote fpr 4~fVfl.l pf ~~ pn~pq~74 Herita~e Parf development. . ' " " ' ' .1 ,'" . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, r" '\' ( c' z c . ,J ~")-;:;. ~rt- ~~ ReEl February 25, 2004 ~ E B 2 6 200 ir Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M~ter Plan and mapdat~ denial. Please make the right decision and vote (or HmVfll pf *~ prPPQ~~d Herita~e P8ff development. . ...' . .' ~ ., . I ; . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, .- //"lv J/~ . J ' \ I '.J. \ -, j .:.) I"JI.."^,,,,'~' ~ (~". ..,v. i, \(.. .."?; <;.~ ;....\ ~,t .;>,~~,) ~ ~..",..:.t ,)~'} tt"7- @5) t?l/'?'}~ R eEl ED FER 26 200!: February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv . us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circwnstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M&Sler Plan and mapdat~ deni~. , , Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for H~W;ll pf Uw p,fppq&rd Herita~e Parf d~veloPIPent ' ," Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, - ""'~:{~'}-'t:'f. ,/.....1 ...., /... ~' /, i.. . 1-/(.0,'1 ".: .?7{:<h}'J;~/.') ~0 CEIVED ~ER 2 6 200;~ February 25,2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circwnstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ))I/{.. /h~ ~~ 7l~;' lit?~ ~!t?t> I~~ Afl/h'.;.e /-'f7 FROM FAX NO. Jan. 08 2001 01:51PM Pi ReEl FER 2 6 200i~ February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Dev~!opment Michae.J Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gaIJagher@ea!!lecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglccountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eal!lecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328~8605 (voice) 970-328~8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: \ I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. \ As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors'. position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17.2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle Cmmty Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwurds community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. I I I I I I If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes~ worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead DriVe. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan. this parce.1 needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density i~qi"fated by the Edwards M~fer Plan anq maJlcfat~ deni~. . . PJ~ase make the right ciecision and vote fOT ~~pilll pftlw P.fPpq~~q Herita~e Parf developI)'lent. . . . '. ' . ",' ,. '1, '.. I' . , I I I Thank you for your time and consideration. i. :1.: .:t" : "J!: FEB.26.2004 08:01 9703280576 STAINTON GROUP #2408 P.OOl/OOl EI FER? 6 200i~ February 2$, 2004 E~~'!l> ri"~ . "'!'1'>,,. , -Q ~J ~..... OJ "-;~ '.:.ll.. ~ ~ J Communi1y D8V'8loprnent Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gaJlacl1er@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) , Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 9?0-328-8~5 (voice) '970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inclip~ted by the Edwards Mqsler Pl~ and m~qat~ deni~. '0-: Pkase make the right decision and vote for R~pi~ pf *~ rfp.p<l~q Herita~e Pllff ?fVylopmeIlt., , ",' , ", ,.:, ' ~ *our time aOO consideration. , ~-r(4, ~"a~uu/- ~D I I I I j i I ; I j j j I 2-25-1997 8:21At--1 FROM P. 1 --.,- .__. "-- ---..__._~. -'lJ1 B{)C~. j ~" RECEIVED .' "-"-'..~ FER 2. 6 2004 Eagle County . Community Development February 25, 2004 ',' ",.-- " ~~ '.cn~'(f~ .:- .,. , h''''; Michael Gallagher, Eagle CoUntY Commissioner (michael.gallagher@ea21ecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commkc;ioner (tom.stone@~lecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) '-970-328-8629(faX)' . Honorable cOmmissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opPosition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positio~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land.Use Regulations. Our community dOesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards conununity because it sits on a plateaU higher than all surrounding neighborl100ds and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead~s adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding :neighborh~. . While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master p~ this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken intO consideration. The ac~ site slojX; and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~le4 py the Edwards ~er Phm and Jl]alldate deni~. Pl~ase make the right 4ecision and vote (or $'pial pf~tI rn~pq~ Herita~e'P3ff development. .' . . ". .. . . .. ~. , : . ' . . ," . . Sincerely, c~-=z i ,-~." I~'; .l:~ ;C, F I~;.J~;J~ N 'iO"fO .~l \"oun,'j .....\J'r,\I"~"\o,,e>>.. " ,'" Eagle County Thank you for your time and consideration. FEB 2.;) 2004 RECEIVED ,t?' ". "---'-- , /.-)0 c.c- ' .~ " ----..........,.,- '.'... 'mc-x:e. ~ FER 26 200it ! t--........-- ---', ...--....-.... ...__....... ! .......--. .-.....-....~ ..-..-.-.... EagJe County Community Development I: t ~, ~. . February 25, 2004 C-.:..~-__ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February] 7,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may,be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. '"j F (" T; f 'f,~r 7~\ ......- l'~.,,~Ld. ,,1.,11. ~id 01 CnU'1ly (""nr'l'.r'~nf'r~ ' r:2 ~ /:.-. , ,.,' .r:......;, .~,v\..:. ',l,!~~)h;;.... 't.~/1~/'?'7,-rPG- c:..... .,.," I..B01P \ li)llr)(\: ." , --- .,' ,.'. . F/ /? r7 /-~elY, / ~t::j FEB ~ (.1 ,~, ?i!'t'i.l> ~. ht,. ,I: po ,3o~ /,?6:> 7 ~0vv~LdJ' / 00 ~/& 32 . '-, . . -....r- R CEIVED FER 26 200ft f=: &. ,....,..........-..,. ..._,._.... cc- '7r;i-;;Z: . ..... '::!&<. . .~~ ....-.....---..-...-. February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Development ,. !.,,:.",::>~~ f r't ." .. :- Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP elated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M~ler Phm and n.uU,1dat~ deni~. , . . Please make the right clecision and vote for 4~w~ pf lP~ rfp.po~ Heri~e Parle d~v~lopme~t. . . '. ' ' Thank you for your time and consideration. SincerelY,~o'~ @ ~~~>i..... ,.:': _~r\ ,Y .7~~_~. } ':;')ard Of County CornmissionF.r, i:agld GOlinlV FEB . "',"'.r., . r . 'tJI ;.i'. t:..' ~. ." RECEIVED "---j -- q I t I ~()C.~-" : /. ..., '.'.._- ~~.~~,_. . ~'-.""""""""-'---~ FER 2 6 200ft '.~.._- Eagle County Community Development : r . February 25, 2004 t-...:...~'-.. ' .:.....";;:;r-..y-... I ..~~L-.- Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecoun .us ....-.--..... Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) L---"f' .-..........,....",.-......._,'-..-;..w._.. Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positio~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. Ibis project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. "1' , ;j' '<~-" .,. '1>..' l~" 'r.~ Rr.l l\Jl. ~."1_ Roard r:;rC~i1ty c~;\'r~~!;5SF)IHV~ . Eag\8 C0lifhl} ~o\rk..r~~ ~ FEB 2,') 2.0(l~ ...,-~",. 01/22/2004 17:59 9709251::1355 MNT FLOWER CANDLES PAGE ":':;'.;.: ~;f:~> ;'~<^;;;';~E.;)~-I,;"~v:~~t~'<;,!I.lj.i' ': '~J" :.: . '., . . . . \ai., . . . .. . . "",.;J~ ~- . :":'~' ." .... . . . :..........:....:.;'~'.....<..'~.~...:.:'~.:....:.....:;.:....-. .~.-.:~:.::. ....:..~.:~-..:..:.;!..........:~ .....:.;.::...:_.. ';~,,_;;:~,{,,:,:,~~:'::'~,~,;(~,;,,:,-;:;;~,?'~i'.f~.:~'. :~l;;i/;, . . . ',,[ W'2 A'l1lUI.' J.., .~,::,,;. . . ';'. .... ':':'i}:,'::")G~:;.':" 0: .:..:.:>J.r':....;/~~;1,~~}~:;-.?~;:.~ik ,.::....:.;:.:~:~<...::.~,.;......;.-.:.:.:..:..:.:.....~:_:::...'.. .." . ., ;~'aJ ~\ 'c' ~. ~'iJ.~,:,:. ..~...;:'\;.J~:t:~4t :;'4.~.:..:.:~. . _ . :'. ~. F ;:r:!If." QU~-...~Y.." ..:-:{~: .~, '~'f.{~:;-~' , . CQmn:(unit~~:;:b$v:e.ih:h'me ;~':JI:'~F..~t '))X>:~~..' -,. A'~' . l~'r: X" ~ ~. ~.. ~'~,:;,' '., i~.'~..';"~~::~~;if:l;~t;j~.;,;f_f\f~1'4 .-\tt.~ibnCY'(' ,~~~,.:..,~ :::.f;'r::>"~:;:' ~. ..~. '.' . ...,.' .. ;. . ':.~. ;:. $-~'" .~' . " . ;";~-i};'.~>': ; .. ".:. . .. . .' . . ~. '" ',' . ,.. '. . ., ..... . ., ;i',,- :! ,., :-;. ." .: ..::.......~/;;.' :.::~ Ell ':.'j1t. . -"~.. "'o'c~ '. '.::~~ 'i ~.. ~:~ ..'j: \i ~ER J ~ '~--~i;+~; '/?;~7.~ I '--v._ C1 /?a-Z.~ !. _ ct-. ~7--(.--.,-z:- ,,~ c:J -' ....,..."'"-t- I I February 25, 2004 <:- . ',~ ~(.O. J, C ,. _.,. Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone({V,eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) ~""''''~l''' ""'~'",."'-i'Y' 11'.... ....0; I "'~."'..;O:-. ' ~ . "" ~-:: ....... ...~ ...... .~.. ... -. ;f"-rl,..m,.' rYl".r"l'h.., r'hy.j-{~':f',"'m:"ln.t ~.....I\ ..t'.t..~ aiiil,i Ii~"__'" ~.\'~-~~.. ......:is.., Honomble Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park: development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into considemtion. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards Masler Plan and mapdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for R~rial pf $~ PfPPO~ Heri~e Par~ d~velopment. . . .':. . Thank you for your time and consideration. \ 6 dd Cf")o- ') u,-- fL--;- p. f'A.: l'v"r @ 8~3y i,.,. i.'. ' :.::c.3,r{j .:f . Sincerely, -l~ FE B (' H,lii'i .. . <...._ ;J Pamela T. Timnins P.o. Box 2980 Edwards, m 81 632 ff'~ ~~~~:?:p. ~:;;;;;1l \:''l-~'-''f'-~~ ---I ~- .1 7Jr,:~~"~:~- (J~, t /1 . :'1 .---- ...].. .(~'J~--...-/ ; I L;1';....J- . f 7/~"",~ _.."...._~_.' ... c[' ..t.c:.~..,. ....... '''; t\'l '.. L/ m ~:"...~"J...; ') 1'"1/ ?OOI~" r-~ (..... ... . ~ ~EB February 25, 2004 r;!::,,~'J.'.'!:; f'~n~ !;r,"y _....~4.~ ".. '""_"'"~ ~ . .~~~ "..'. ,* ,~. ~'. : ~_l~ " ..,.,:, ~...... " ,,,,,,o..nmunJV D\:jv~mJ~Ju:~ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagheruv.eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, E.agle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 979-:328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an' owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest .a3criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. ". ." t ' . This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. 'While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ted by the Edwards Master Plan and manc1atc denial. Please make the right decision and vote for 4cnial pf $~ prPpqtt~d Herita~e Parle d~v~loptt.1ent. . . . ' ., . ' .' Thank you for your time and consideration. · ':'j~:,}' '~/f~;u;'}:; ;t~;,,; i~ ~~~~ ('! "-8qle C,junlV . Sincerely, ~'"-'-- ?;.u", ~ @ FEB 2 ;- 2004- 5~f; & .~....., ~ t-:'i.:.(..i:.lb ~J ik'=D ~~a f. . SI'liio."'"2I1",.::. ~ER 2 7 2001~ February 25, 2004 ~;~ Efj;gj\~ (;~~~~!r;:y .:";f'~"!''''''1Yl"{'.!l:-'''~;j, '* ~':-.,.- " ',. ,.h.,;, I",,! I.t',) · ;'i}"\!"'.:"l. t",'tm.~...t " - ~ ~7_ '...-r:-'J v~f Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eagJecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 3 28-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in HOqlestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. . If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~:~E::fS,..~~:t!.:,.!t:J~r'r-.. ''::.<":1Gk, CGLiPt'! Sincerely, FEB '( , 2004 ~.Jo~IJ~ @ v -5SC~9~ "'-'1'1 "''''''''',..~ i(,!. '.'5\ .~t ~C.-:'- ii""'(i, ~~ .~tf ~~~J ti ~ 7""toC ~ tJ ~.:~:i:~ tk.:;.J;i" !:- E PI C) 7 ')lor}.:~ D c. , ... . , February 25,2.004 ES9r~:2l (;f].~..$:2~!(LY COrfsmUn~'~~! t}':1VG~~t:'i)T~l:-;~~t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eagJecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in~f~ Py the Edwards ~r Pl~ and llUW~ d~. Pl~ase make the right qecision and vote (or 4~fPfl1 pf ~~ FfP.p.q~ Heri~e PBff ~v~lQPIl1~t. . ..' .. .. Thank you for your time and consideration. ",,~J i'~~~;l;~~;:;!;~;g" Sincerely, FEB 2; 2004 !F~ f~~~' ~~ ~1 1""/ , ~- . Ii:'''''''.) ''''v "" t.,~ f~,r {::\ '; ~\'~ r&..f'~ !. '.r~.' ~ i('.~ 'Ii ...., .:~_. l>i ,\ Ui (."~~.. '\~, {;: t: t:. 1:-;;..i ~l""i-U.{ ii:, . ;~:.O.;OJ ~... t~.{.lW:; EJ 'iJ !!,.~~~.~;~~~ :&..cI CF..R n. "" 1.0' , .~ I U i, ~, 'L. . February 25, 2004 ccmm~~:~~~ g~;\~f\~;:~~!ln(jnt Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commission~: ~" . 17 A _ /J..hrf . '^- {oe-c:vc----- ~ vr-- I llD1 wrniliice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage PllIk development. As an n, . IImp.~fead> I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined m the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 11, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inQi~~ted py the Edwards M~ Plan and map$~ deni~. . ".,. . . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ~Wfll ~f $~ r.fPpq~ Heri~e Parf develo ment ,. , . .,' T;' ."1';-' f '.<J~'.''j.;' :r;'.'1~I' ,": : .P~ !.~. . . " .~~.1~1'~:_,,~_::..t~..{:,..~_} . . '-)i~.jrj ;j C':''Ui":ij CC:f:lrn:5SkjikF:'";' Eagle r.')unty F F 0:) . "nn4 _ lJ ~. . t. ~ J . Thank you for your time and consideratio Sincerely, B:r: .~; ~.~ .""" .........~.. ".- t;,~ .. . i~ ~> .;:...,j) j: t- f.1 'J?' 'I!JO:~ t.... !O ~.;. ; February 25, 2004 EG~~l7] (>G:~.~~j~'Y IF"I......,<'.mH....("~' '"'!. .,.". t ~~...,diihl ~iJ~;t.3 L~~1:~,(~pm;art Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: f':>/J _ 1J./7) {}... 10 tcJl ,~~ - YL .ting to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 11, 2004. i I I I I I I Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density ~~~ hy the Edwards ~ Pl~ and wapda~ deni~. Pl~ make the right 4ecision and vote (or ~W~ pf f.ll~ p,fP.pq~ Heri~e Pane ~v~lqp:Qle~t. . . ' . , .' :, . ' Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~~1,.i~~~~:,'(:'1T '.~. ~;-,~'If_~.D \);;;',j .~,f ~'~~;"~~~;-i)i~;:i,:;~iC,,'" . . FE B '2 )nn Ii ~~~trE[) ,: E Ot' ') l( ?1I0' I:, n {:.. ,<..\", . February 25, 2004 [:SSrF{J; {:;'L::.~~(';t:/ ,:f",,\,,,,,,~,,U"'" ;-~,' r'!>,,':I';;~ '. F<Yi')"O'1'''n+ V"Jill~;;'.} . 6ll....;; ~....~';I..., ~.1." ~.;;il'.'lU1O alO. Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@ea~lecounty. us) Torn Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density incli~atecl DY the Edwards Mw;ter Plan and ma.pdat~ denial. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~wfll pf $~ PfPp.q~cl Herita~e Par~ d~v~lopme~t. ' , - ," " ,:. ___ _. m_. '- '. , , .. . ". . i::. ....,; \ ./ '.: '.. ~ Thank you for your time and consideration. :;~Jn r;l '.::~ i.j ::;,..: ;~'j t);,'".; t.; :~:;t ;;';.:.'!.:: . '. Ea(ilt>,'Countv Sincerely, $1"/1j,~ J16dctiJ 1'- 30 \ FE B :::: l.OIP, ~F'f.W;,{!i ~:.~.f{ i;(}z~~ iJ t~b6' i\f7 .1ft~1'; ~ 'vI ;\;'=-l 1,) i=E: B 2 7' 2UOI: February 25, 2004 f:43 ~11J; (; .e?~J ~~; t.~f COn1!r!Ura :'~y [';~'v~J~ j '~~;~'}!'i'T: .:;rlt Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi~ Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone~ Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: . ,0 I~ tJ~____ , ,n ~'{ LA ... ~ I am writing to voice my ng opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner' I agree with the Homestead Board ofDirectors~ position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wa1lace~ LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes~ worth oftra:ffic~ the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead~s adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site. slope~ and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density ~~fated by the Edwards ~ Pl~ and lPaPda~ deni~. Thank you for your time and consideration. . . FEB Gf 200~ Q~~ !IP"fu"'m ~, ~ !!' ~ "" '"'='~ ,-~ 1'1 .... f> ,).. t/ /,i'i~. ~ ~ (;;::: ~( ft:; ri .~ ~~:~ a.Jj f:ER <) 7 ')flO'~ . !..~ ~ "- Ut. . February 25, 2004 r::;SfJ.:-2. {:~r~:~.;J::"~,i!~; {C~J~11rr~ U~.z ~1:y .[;~~~~..{;'.~{~:~ ;::j:;~! 111 ::. S1 'fr Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi"ated br the Edwards M'lSter Plan and Inapdate deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~wal pf lP~ rrppo~ Heri~e Parle dcrv~lopment. . . ..'. . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ..~~t~::f~z~P,. ffiMA &11. C~ j: ~... . ^I ' , ... B ( , Inr/!: _". "I . ~ @ ij:~ rc: !r:: ~~ ~ ':f E~ !:~ erR () ~ ",,'10: ,r . ! \ _ _.' 1..- .( .-"., . February 25, 2004 f:8: i~1}:~} f: r;';.:,_:;:"'~;.~~~:/ Cort~rr~t~r~j~!~;l ;C~:~:;\l (:~"~(:~iJrn8nt Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael. gallagher@eaglecounty . us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629( fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M~ler Plan and maIldat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote fpr 4~nial pf tP~ PfPp.<l~ Herita~e P3f~ dc;w~IQpment. . ,'. Thank you for your time and consideration. Si.,~~~rely, r ~ _, r. C.l..~U -'1. .rlt /J . I:.... f ~~ ~ ';;;CJb3 ~-d& '0:..1) (_-/:>/',7. . . . . flLI..J . j:;.'C Ii.);, "c". 1 [.J (,-~. . ltJ(i {! ~r~.\:. fA .!<.. ,. "~ _r:;c,,~.: ft.:" IT! VA ll~"': p~ .. ~:I.....,..tD l}~ \~ ~r ~ :~~~:J r1 ~_J \I d.:..D.~:. fJ ,\V !l:~._:~:::~ fi~..;J.J r.EO ? 7 ')I\O'~ _ fl ~.. I .t...Ui . February 25, 2004 E~~3J'..:) ;CO~11!r~Url :~y t:";f;\j ~~ ::,~~'~~jr:nr.;'~1t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eagleconntv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the sUJTOnnding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from sUITOnnding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank. you for your time and consideration. .",- ;\.:'. "./ C~;':;".Ji;:"'; C?~~ ~ ~~o/~z @ JJ!J/9..?~-3y;a , ~ Ii ,;'. ! t.'uiiJ',~ I _U ._.' . ~'iIllI ~m . '1!?' "' \. ... ,....".,.- ~ ~~m-.J-~~ :.:".~""l . 'r- \, :' i.:::-......... ~.~l."'~ :,~... :.".d. Id .' tI f,'-':l!'" ~ ~~ l~ ~lt~:~~ .';~:./lt!; ij \~Jj t~,~.~~:} !J.! i}) ~E~ 2'"/ 20fh February 25, 2004 ES~J!J<!i {:~f;'~~.G~-'?;-~:Y l;o !ll m!j fE ttj!f ~) f~} 11 ~~~.~::":; C~ rrt r~ ~ t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated hy the Edwards M'tSler Plan and O,1apdat~ denial. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~fli~ pf$~ PfP.p,q~~ Herita~e Par~ d~v~lopment. . .. " : ' . . .' . . Thank you for your time and consideration. . :oi;~t}-~:. _~;;; y:,~:-~:~.;~ ts~ii~; fl ", 'u FFR ' - k" r... ' 2004, SO"\TC- KDJ~, . n \ 4f.^,,,g,, ~.+'" ,t: \1:..1.e 8 ;-bl/l-. t.- 60-' jl1 e r ~-'-jfi-G S L ~ ~~ SJwCt~ ( ()J ;] ~ i( ff~~ ~:~ ~*,........~".. IO'rfl."';l ~.~-~'til hLr; .r~~,\ rj'F.!3 ft"fJ~ iJ ~ ~~~ ~t'm1! r;' ~-1 i"1 t "];;' ~~ ~J i~ t1/l~~~ fJ v;/ ~1~.~;;; rJ.::J,:tI != L R I") r"J ')UfF~ . c.... {..... J .... (:8 {;"'tj..~?: ;~;~J f(~ :r~ tl r~ ~ 1) il ~,r}-r~)l '; ,~:; j~,2 in 8 r~t February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated hy the Edwards M&Ster Plan and IPapdat~ deni~. Please make the right decision and vote for 4~pial pf f.P~ prp.po~4 Herita~e Par~ df;w~lopment. . , ' .' : ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. i:~.i!..:.';" .J' .'.-:' . .~.~, ~: Sincerely, ~,'l";iintv // ,/' . /<' f1, < L/ ;'~,~/~/::/~J;7 L/ I 'I {.J , ,/ \, {I} @ FE B ~:. : 2004 ~:~'i:, ~"1\1mI ,t1o;i".' .......,rJ .~~. . ~.\;\ :.r":'~-, r1 ci. Kc"~ r,_..,\ -~-""n t r:: . ~:. ". 1;'1 1;7,...-<>.... ,t-~ -'_ ,";~'"\i, Ii! d f.'=, '" i it~_i'.~~~ fj ~0' r~ .;;.:;-~ f~~ :~:;;. f7E R 2 7 2UO;~ r:: Z: (:~.:) February 25, 2004 (;~)rr;.~nl~~"'~: r:~f ~ (:~ I.) ~11 ~"~;1 t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (rnichael. gaJlagher@eaglecountv . us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.rnenconi@eaglecountv .us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. " ~ .. , .' ,;. .-, . . - F;"t;i.:/d~':~;I~'i 1/ t: r: q :j, ;"1 ' .. U t;" I (I)! 4 F~ rt~ (~ ~E ~ T~!' B~ [.j I=EB 2 7' 2un,:. February 25, 2004 [:8~S?JCi ::.:;" c:':".) ~r.: i'(~;1 {:;{J f]'~rr~ tfi ~'"~ ; tj/ [] :/..:: \./ (~ : ...:,~ ij) rr2.:;!1 t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gaIIagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. i If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M&Sler Plan and mandat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~ni;u pf $~ Pfppo~4 Herita~e Pa.r~ d~velQpment. . .' . . . Sincerely, ~ {- &1 IZf*t'r, \-6~a..c( \;K-. tr 19 8 ':{(~t.:~~~~l~.)~ ~,.~f:I~ ()drd 01 county Comin:{'r"i....,:\-t< EaQIA CO~~1t\.."..~"l ...;,t;.:; Thank you for your time and consideration. L.r-to GD ~cLr.;J~ FEB ~i (!ii': (0 O{ (0 '3 L FROM :VML RCCOUNTING FAX NO. :970-476-1770 Feb. 26 201214 03: 12PM Pi I '. . '.'...... '1 F~ [:: / IE: ~ \~(l ~~~~~~ II) E;z,...;;k.? }.':::y I I I " I I .1 i I I }: E R ? "'; ')fl(Ji, . /-... ) '-.vt . February 25, 2004 (~~(;rf~ri't.t~r;~~:l [}L:'~i~~~-: -;~'i ~-.i~~~:.'ht Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaebzallagher@eagJecountv.us) Am Menconi" Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eag.lecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 _~70~~_~~::8..@.5_(Y9ic~1......,._.._,...:__,_.. __ .--u" ._, .._._._..___._.__'_.., .. .- --'- 970- 328-8629(fax) j . . ./ '..-':;.-. ____.n. -"'~'r':"- I I I I I I Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated Febrwuy 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn"t need 24 more $800;000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all smrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning If the Allen P31cel was intended for more than a few homes' worth oftra:ffi.c, the access road would have been directly cOlUlected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead~s adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrO\Ulding . neighQQ..rbc;>9ds.. _ _'. _.... . _. ._. M"'., ." -....-..... --- - ..-,.- ~."~.-..._'_...- ..-. .'-. ... -,..- While the proposed density may be consistent with the EdwardS Master Plan. this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in~qted by the Edwards M~ Plan and m~~ deni~. .. . . . . . T-"- I I I ! Pl~ make the right qecision and vote for ~~pifll pf ~ p.TPpq~ Heri~e Pane ~velopIpent. . . .' : .;' . .' . . .'. : . . . . .',! '. . :: . . - : . I I I I I I I Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~f\L ) . G0 RECEIVED L I February 25, 2004 MAR 0 1 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~&ted by the Edwards M~er Plan and QUU,ldat~ deni&l. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for *'~al pf lll~ PfPpq~ Heri~e Pane ~v~lopmeflt. . . ' , .". ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 1 200~ Sincerely, Tala 'f- R(ka ~ @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners R CEIVED MAR 0 1 200't February 25, 2004 Eag1ie Cmmty Community Devek>pment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: ;;'-, I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and WallaCe, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. .,~ \>llI;:, This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Since. . rel~ / ~ tft(;~ ....../ RECEIVED MAR - f 200~ @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners R I February 25, 2004 MAR 0 1 200/~ EagJe County Community Dsvelopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv . us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more ~~~!,OOO homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~&ted hy the Edwards M~ler Plan and nuu.:tdate deni&!. .", . Thank you for your time and consideration. smrerelY~~ ( S~ l1J~k;. \IL~@\ Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ff~fli~ pf tP~ Pfppo~q Heri~e Pane development. . . .... . . '.' , . . ,; . RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 . '~/;j A/~Q)i6arc&~ ' 'J.-It '"7 ~&nUnissioners ) ~~../ R I D MAR 0 1 200!'! Eagle CtH.1nty Community Development February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated hy the Edwards M~ter Plan and maI1da~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote (or H~flifll pf lfw rn)po~d Herita~e Par~ ~v~lopment. . .. .'. . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 Sincerely, f1r-'l L,E: ff2-t Eat- @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ......... _ 1,__ ~ ,. " I A-J,'t- E I "0 MAR 0.1 200't . February 25, 2004 Eag~e County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) . 970-3 28-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: 'W f &~ting to voice ~~trong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead\C'Eagree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in~~fllted br the Edwards M4lSler Plan and Il1llJldat~ denillJ. Please make the right decision and vote for ~~'PJlI pffp~ prpp.<n~~d Herita~e Paf~ dt;v~lqpmept. ' . '. :. . Thank you for your time and considerati . i / Sincerely, ~~ JZ / /:) -- -I ~ -111./~ . tJ5''l5~j)/~ ~~/~' ~/? 3'.2,,-'S\2J RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 .~ l Eag~. ; Board pf County vommlssloners ~ ~ i1AR 0 1. 2mh February 25, 2004 E"""""~;(~ ("t"",:n.hi o ':j"~ ....... ....~ ~/' ".- '" ,-, ~ ) C ~~ ....... '.A, ~" ".. .n'.'" no} .omm'.lnl~'!J ! .tt";\"'l,-",,'k..!,; :,J,., ~a .'t. . ,i' ,,-" ......... "'~'~'~:'-. " Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty .us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homeste~ I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. . While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M~ler Plan and maJldat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ~~pi~ pflll~ PfPF~d Herita~e P8ff q~v~lopment. . . . RECEIVED Thank you for your time and consideration. MAR - 1 2004 Sincerely, A(}, r e-eJ · AlSo ~12-1-AlbeAJ 1"\1 , t",&\' ~ Wi MAR 0 1. 200/~ February 25, 2004 EagJ(:.~ (~{}'~.Arl.i.~v Community Dev01.c;pmant Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zonin.l change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrOlmding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in<li~ated hy the Edwards M'lSler Plan and mapdate deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~w~ pf$~ prppq~ Heri~e P~~ d~v<;:lopment. . , ". '. . . . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, RECEIVED MAR - 1 200~ ".. . . '" _ () 11. 2, ~ @ q.;lt" - 5"3 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~~~D~ ~"\ ~ ~ ~\fI. L." ;,~' !i't tJ ~.. MAR 0 1 20[V~ February 25, 2004 Eagie Community Devaiopmont Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. . As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~&ted DY the Edwards M~er Plan and n.taI1date deni~. Pl~ make the right decision and vote for 4~~fll pf*~ PfPPO~ Heri~e Par~ d~v~lopment. . .. . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 Sincerely, ~~.:li~~Ie.uFiv~~e;r ~ 7'0. I . /1~:r . ( ~~ CUu<- ~ ~ ~ () f?t ~ 7j ()- / Eagle Board of County Commissioners !.f'~ '\\~; J ibl MAR 0 1. 200!} com~~~~~ g~~:~~:~Jm0nt February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.galIagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone(cV,eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This projeCt will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~&ted by the Edwards M~er Plan and Ql8.l1dat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for H~W~ pf lll~ PfPp.q~ Herita~e Par~ development . ..:. . . . ' .~ ; . . : ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 I p/!fy- 3" a 11/1..C> c/ lit::;, ,<... I 0 ~ '2-OCfCf ,,-:, , r_ cI/1.? ~ Eagle Board pf County . CommISSIOners . - .,....,..~.,.." ~- !i f~ 1fJ MAR (I 1 200/; February 25, 2004 i= ~ t'<l.;e _'{Jj~"t:;" ~om.mu""l';" ~." ", '<~." ,..".~, ."~""" ~ i~l).~ IIjli~Y ~;:~~~.stt.;;~~1(.)FJf1~\c:~I{ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gaJlagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone(iV,eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlbed in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road wouid have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indif&ted by the Edwards M~ler Phm and mapdat~ deni&!. Pl~ase make the right qecision and vote for H~Wfll pflll~ Pfpp.o~~d Herita~e Par~ development. ' ' . .' . .' : I . ~;. . Thank: you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 1 2004 Sincerely, c9 ~e-v~ ~c. ",--e--{' /~''--l,,-tj2... I L._ /0 r-v-~~d I2.Q ..i.-1-- I ~ 0 Eagle Board of County Commissioners 02/28/2004 14:10 97092550299 ERIC: GAILROSE: BALDWI PAGE 02 I?, ~, j;'i~ " "" , I I I i I I I I I I 1 February 25, 2004 , p n 1, ?on, .:.~ MA.,.. __lJ Eaq~'8 If'nmm' ''11~'" n'~I;:;:Jk'i':~'O<~' ",,~~;f ~!1V. l!l.'sil \. to '"' ,;I >~",c" "'...' f..,. ~~., ....,,.- t""!~~ ~ ij _.'J'.. ,. f.. Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael. galJalilier@eaglecounty . us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone(@.eaglecounlV.u.s) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(f8X) i I '.. ",' -'- -----,-- I I I Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead~ I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positio~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homesJ worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrOlmding neighborhoods- I .. ". I I , While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from SUITOlmding areas preclude the density indi~ated py the Edwards MtlSter Plan and IllllP.dat~ deni~. . ," . , . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ~"Wa1 pf~~ pwp.o~ Herita~e Pane development. " " :, . ' ',' : ' . j. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ." I-h,;i.n~ 9r;{)---39() ~/9r; ~ad) ~ ;Pd /A )tJdA~ I ~Jl adtJ j) 6 5 z- FROM T NOTTINGHAM CONST PHONE NO. : 9709268079 Feb. 27 2004 03:13PM Pi p'~''''' --- - Th (/ ~4. i~~ :... t~ W \~%~ !::! '\}j' MAR (} 1. 2mh February 25, 2004 Einfti~) (A~e!~Jr~~y ~n~"';.V'jI:'~il~,~~.~ ~-""?~-'V.;;:~".~~:,.,~:":;.,,:~. "t ~~jf-i4<i~li~)jI~ii;;;.:1 t.;~~v,~~;1t.J~..t.'~i,B!1 ' Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher~eag.1ecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County commissioner (am.menconi@eaelecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecoUDtV.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Conunissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $.800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. lbis project will not blend into "the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of-the proposed Heritage Park development. Thankyou for your time and consideration~ . ~ "2.2.. ;::;/tJ~ ~~e: ofhMJh~~!{;(la5I!etJ)A7 ~~JJ, (1~-Huma. J 0Ih~ JC,ry/ffiO'Y7C, /tJT;'Ji?;:;'RP~(c,.Le7,i~Sb ................ Prudential Gore Range Properties. Inc. Beaver Creek Lodge 26 Avondale Lane, PO Box 2467 Beaver Creek. CO 81620 Bus 970 845-8440 Fax 970 845-8632 R E IV iDeRange.com MAR 0 3 200it Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Eagle COt.,m'iy Community Development Honorable Commissioner: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. lfthe Allen Parcel had been intended for mOTe than a few homes' worth oftraffic, the accesS road would have been directly cOIDlected to Homest~a4; prive, Als.Q,. the previous owners ofthe land should not have sold the access route to Lake'Creek Rd., which has resulted in the current access difficulty. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. . While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. ..- ._. --~.- Jim Green. GRI' Broker green@Vail.net Thank you for your time and consideration. www.BeaverCreekProperties.com ~ Prudential Gore Range Properties Inc PO Box 2467. Beaver Creek. CO 81620 Bus 970 845-8440 Res 970 926-3896 Fax 970 845-8632 Toll Free BOO 288-8440 Cell 970 390-4024 -;'-;~'- ~ ~.~.'~,:". ......... . iii AA independently....-.ed and operated member of The Prudential Real Esta1e Affiliates.-;;- Ji Green 37 Castle' Peak. Lane Edwards, CO ,:~" '~"'T1 ," 0] IFlAR - /. L\i'U't Eagle Board of County Commissioners .-,~ iii An independently owned and operated member of The Prudential Real Estate Affiliates. Inc. Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissi P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) EIVED I MAR 0 3 '1LOOl; j.. ': . I 1...__..... I , ; ."-'~~ ~Z~~ ~~ ~' ...~.i _.._...~g-,"';.o_ Eagle County Community Development ..'_..._~___ ___........_ _"0 Honorable Commissioner: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. Ifthe Allen Parcel had been intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Also, the previous owners ofthe land should not have sold the access route to Lake Creek Rd., which has resulted in the current access difficulty. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborh?ods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. "F'" Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~ Brian Blood 470 Homestead Dr. #23 Edwards, CO RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 ~~~ Eagle Board 91 County Commissioners EI D February 25, 2004 MAR 0 3 200ft Eagle County Community Deveiopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax:) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwl:1fds community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the smrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. S~cerely, _ 'j ~(jt2~ .0 ;p() ~ fJ~.#30 ---' ;1 ,I /) /) f/J / ':<:J - RECEIVED MAR - 2 200~ Eagle Board ~f County commIssIoners I MAR 0 3 200it "="",,..,..~- t"~q..,"'v !J:.<tlI::l"l;;1 ''''''l~\\..i!"ti Community Deve~opment February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circwnstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated py the Edwards M~er Plpn and m.apdat~ denial. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for H~Wal pf $~ PfPPO~ Heri~e P8f~ d~v~lopme~t. . . .", ' ' Thank you for your time and consideration. ~~~ Q8 RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 Eagte Board of County ommlssinna.... '" !f.l I ... MAR 03 200ft February 25, 2004 Eacroi'l CtVF1'hr v -,. __ua" Community Deveiopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indtf&ted br the Edwards M4181er Phm and nmpdate denilU. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for fl~~fI.l pf tP~ rrppo~d Herita~e Par~ d~velopment. .. .. . Thank you for your time and consideration. /-j Sincerely, ~~~ Z,1tLlllLVl DYl L t-<~~ V . g ~ 0 Y-t0VVl t 2rfeod [>tr:tf 7- @ {fIJ:p WooDS 06X borg I lJtl,L- Co ~(fo~ ) '" ~ MAR 0:1 200/: February 25, 2004 Ea~l1e C.cf.t..mty Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael. alIa go ~:;'r~~gtfu O:~Jl(;pment Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated py the Edwards M~ler Plan and O,lapda~ deni~. ,", . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~ni~ pf lll~ rfp.~~ Herita~e Par~ d~v~lqpme~t. . ' '. :. . . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 ~f Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~. ~ ari4 MAR O:i 2UOft February 25, 2004 Eagle C. ~.n,. ~ "'- .,,,~,,:,",:,"'~;;:"-:--""I!>("'!>n'{~ .. OmmUni'iY ~",i~}-tf~.?;'j t'?kSi i ~Cii '! ~~ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated hy the Edwards M~ler Plan and ma.pda~ deni~. ., . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ~4'rial pf fP~ rfPp.o&~4 Heri~e Par~ . dt;v\?lopment. . ' " ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 2 200~ See~?v4{ C.<-Avo I A 1<uo~ 4,0 HuM6S'eAD 'OR. -t5 If \:::n,. I ~ {\"' r" ~ If _-;z...., ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~ f!oi Ei1 ~ MAR 0 3 2UOit February 25~ 2004 ElM:'; l! -""" .("''h,....,,, ,:''l~~., ~ , -aglf:;; ',,,,(nh2~)' - Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagber@eagtecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 97~328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 11,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. M 1 G li-I\ ~ L- cLAY /Vi lJN ~~ 4-1 A LU:..}J () R C @ February 25, 2004 E~~S~hs~ #<I""''''ln'''II''''R'i'' ,"",..,"" .,,".' ",.>~ t \.:;-'.:-J~ i1 d l ~~ij l s i ",;, f:J.:;"'~ 'HoC'. ~r;' ~-"'- tiim . ~)f"\. a""'''' .-.,<' "" ....;,"<\,...'~. ~...ia 5 I, i I i I I I i ! M.~R 0 ,'3 2UO,t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@ewecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 8 I 63 I 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and WaI1ace, LLP dated February 17, 2004.. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning chang~ according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density incli~ted by the Edwards ~ Pbm anq QUU,lda~ de~. PJ~ make the right qecision and vote (or ~Wfll pf tJlp PWp.q~ Heri~e Pane developtpent ,". " " :" ' " I . .: ~ ' . I;. . , Thank you for your time and consideration. (5111' (' 4 al{M~ '" () l.,{, (J "~ @ RECEIVED Jon{' C/~mcT} MAR - 2 200lt p. o. !?Ox. / )'5! Eagle Board pf County d (' f) 0/ / CommIssIoners E warth) J o"{ ~ Sincerely, 1'!'~ t~t oj<j February 25, 2004 f1.AR 0 32UO/; Eacro~;: -., ~^~"m.' ~''l;'f'' w;;vViid IlUiljt!~..y Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circwnstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M~er Plan and mapdate deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote f9T H~nia1 pf lP~ PfPl?O~d Herita~e P3.ff d~velopment. . . . .". . . Thank you fOT your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 SincerelY~on t. mWV ~. ~b Eagle Board of County Commissioners Ptt/rzt{l# UJ Ils~ f- u, W ~ OB V~~L La 8(~S9 ( ~ t~ ri ~.:;.j February 25, 2004 MAR 0 3 2ll0') Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner michael. Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner am.menconi ea Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-86QS (voice) . 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrowl<ling neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding n~i.gllbor.lWods... . -------.... .. .. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and.its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated py the Edwards Master Plan and ntaPdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right cfecision and vote for fl~Fal pf ~~ rfp.p<l~4 Herita~e P8f~ Qcrv~lqpIl1e~t . . .. . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED cerely, @) "\.. ~ "3 cJ/~ ~ MAR - 2 2084 Eagle Board of County Commissioners . "<>ia" F"~~ :t'1:.'~.-..n"" .i 'V't~ 13 f~ MAP 0 3 201)1; February 25, 2004 Er.1i(~;~ ."" (~orr~nntir~ ~~Y' Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, vvvl ~ @ ( V t.- f L/lV () (UJ 7ft ) RECEIVED MAR - 2 200~ Eagle Board of C Comm;ss;one~Unty MAR 0 ,3 2UO:; February 25, 2004 E~1gj\Sj ff"-O~",'''';'l11 ""1 \.~"., ~ i h..eU.c::H~~V Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaalecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honomble Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. lbis project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into considemtion. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M~ler Plan and :mapda~ deni~. ,., . . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~wal pf $~ Pfppo~d Herita~e Par~ development. . . .". ' . . .' ~. '. Thank you for your time and considemtion. RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 Sincerely, ~ ~~ /"U"y (!IIE A ;?IA /V) Eagle Board of County Commissioners "'" ~;;f I,;.: l~ ;', i:;;I MAR 0 3 20fh February 25, 2004 E f~ ffJ(j' C""n-.m' H~ ~.:,... . "Vt:C:.i': dWIi:;Ii...\,' ,;:.~ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.galIagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv . us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indj~&ted br the Edwards M~ler Plan and waJlda~ deni&!. Please make the right decision and vote fpr H~W~ pf ~~ PfPPO~ Herita~e Plif~ df:velopment. . . , . ..' : ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 2 2004 Sincerely, G ft-I- ~. :SSG fiJ S(,'M~ - /!oh1~sk~ I~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~ ~';::; '",-- . L~C ; ,". .~~- d i ,:QY\ u~ i I., ,fA yrfAtCll I I J ........__..... Eagle County I I February 25, 2004 Community Development ~__m -- -, --'__I Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.ga1lagher@eaglecounfYj.iSr'~"" ' .' . .q~'1 RECEIV o MAR 0 4 2004 Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indifated hy the Edwards MllSler Plan and mapdat~ deni~. PI~ase make the right decision and vote (or 4~w~ pf lP~ PfPp.Q~ Herita~e ParJc q~v~loPl'Jlent. ' . .", . ' Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2004 ;~ ~, 11. ,~0~ t21)-nJ/V' Eagle Board of County Commissioners R CEIVED February 25, 2004 MAR 0 4 200't Eag4e County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallalilier@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. RECEIVED Thank yoq. for your time and consideration. . MAR- 3.. 2CC4 Sin~ly, ()tw//f ~~. 6) Eagle Board of County Commissioners I MAR 0 4 200't February 25, 2004 EagJe County Community Dovelopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv . us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stonellV,eaglecountv.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) ..,~- Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indifated by the Edwards M~ler Plan and Jllallda~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for fl~pi~ pflfl~ PfPp,Q~ Herita~e P8f~ ~velopment. . . . .". . . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2004 Sincerely, I:t.f~~~ #~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners I MAR 0 4 200lt February 25, 2004 Erig~e Cnunty Communliy Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 . more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M~er Plan and m~dat~ deni~. " . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote fpr 4~nial pf llle prppq~~4 Heri~e Pa.r~ dt;v~lopme~t . '. :. . . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 3 2004 Sincerely, ~~ A Eagle Board of County Commissioners R 1W I M,AR 0 4 200/f February 25, 2004 iT"'" II ^ cagle ~..;{n.mty Communitj/ Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallalilier@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv . us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M&Sler Plan and map~t~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote (or H~pi~ pf ~~ Pfppq~d Herita~e P3f~ dcrvC?lqpQlent. . .. '. ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, k~ \-(~' RECEIVED MAR - 3 2004 I Eagle Board ~f County I, Commissioners r<> Lg f,j MM~ 0 4 20[1i[ February 25, 2004 r:2Jg~l? 'l'''nrnm '. .,-- v'.... m~ lmi'q! Gt:~vek)t:jm~~1~ .. 'Ii ......... ~ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' - worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, rr-() -f ~ ~ 6>\1\1\. ~ \_~_ _ ____ RECEIVED MAR - 3 2004 ~ Eagle Board of County Commisl:;ioners Mar-03-04 12:13P Steve & Sue Soldoff 310 544 4605 P.Ol II Mr. Sttoph.... t.:. Soh!.'" J414 ~ooIht'il1.hts Dr. Jblld.. "310$ "'~t"es. C\ 'Hl275-6 ~11 ~ t," 11:;' M,4R 0 4: 200'~ February 25, 2004 comm~~~; D\SlV(:;;Oi}rn~nt Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (michael.g.aJlacl1cr@C8gJecounlY.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi(cV,eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.sTonc@cagJecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328.8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development As an owner in Homestead. I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positio~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and pubJic interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is oVeTWhelming opposition to this project This project will not blend into the Edwardscommunity because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and ii wilJ stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth oftTaffic, the aceess TOad would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding nei ghbOrhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own. and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope. and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards M~ter Plan and maJldaJ~ denial. ., , Please make the right decision and vote for ~nial pf _no prp~~Q Heri~e Par~ development. .. '.' SJ9uo!ss!w7"::;T3:--- "-; ~unoo 10 pJe08 ';J:;c.~:.:. Thank you for your time and consideration. ~c~z ~ - rJH Ij R CEIV o ..- (~'~:-:::'-f '~dC~ i .._.~.I . '-0v;t;;;. v MAR 04 2004 Eag!e County Community Development February 25, 2004 ~ . . . . !.......-.-,. . _. Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by ~e Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 4 2004 Sincerely, ~,~ ~ {;!;::~f ~ /Oc;o kftlr~ '" ~ u ?~~ (!A ~/' 3~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners RECEI February 25, 2004 MAR 0 4 2004 EagSe County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to- this project. 111is project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, I. j l~~ RECEIVED MAR - ~ 2004 60 Eagle Board of County Commissioners C IV 0 M.4R 0 4 200i~ February 25, 2004 EagJe County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors~ position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M~~er Plan and QUU,14at~ deniQl. Pl~ase make the right cfecision and vote for H4'WIll pf fP~ PfP~~ Herita~e ParJc 4~v~loPIl1e~t. ' ... Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 4 2004 Sincerely, ~m ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~~ ~ "~"',. I;.~ t:~. "',~ MAR 0 4 200ft February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my str~ng opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community.because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances.ta.ken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M~ter Plan and nuU,1da~ deni~. . .',. . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote (or ~~W~ pf Ul~ rfp.p<)~4 Heri~e P8flc ~~v~lqpmel1t. . . , " '. ' Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 4 2004 SincerelY~ 5(},fr..cJ;>rW. ~(,/) II 13ft JJ 1) b 1./ r PPl3 6't Cf ,/fVl) JJ :t W Q7v. q V'. Y' 1 c1 GJ) Y1t2N Eagle Board of County Commissioners 'I I MAR 0 4 200i1 February 25, 2004 Eagqe County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeLgallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits. on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in4if~ted br the Edwards M~ler Pl~ and map.da~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for q4'W~ pf lll~ rfPpQ~ Heri~e Par~ ~v~lopme~t.. . '. :. . . I I. I I Thank you for your time and. consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 4 2004 .~~ . d Lid (o(JC{) {'V:q ...;- r-. . .11 (J J\ <:::. ~ -. @ ?P, Eagle Board of County Commissioners J IVED MAR 0 4 200i~ February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: ! t...-- I I I I I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted by the Edwards M'lSler Pbm and mapdat~ deni~. ,", . Pl~ase make the right 4ecision and vote (or 4~wal pf m~ rrppo~d Herita~e ParJc development. . . :. . . , '.' ~ , . ~ ' . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 4 2004 8 Eagle Board of County Commissioners From: George Christman (mtnlad@vail.net] Sent: Monday, March 01, 20043:32 PM To: Michael Gallagher; Am Menconi; Tom Stone Subject: Opposition To Heritage Park Honorable Commissioners: ~\J MAR 0 4 ZOO't Cornnmnlity Devtiloprnent We strongly oppose the proposed Heritage Park development. As owners in Homestead, we agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community does not need 24 more expensive homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, George & Jean Christman 1000 Homestead Drive Edwards, CO 81632 George & Jean Christman mtnlad@vail.net mtnlass@vail.net 970-926-4715 cell 970-376-1430 fax 970-926-4720 @ . From: Lauren Hill Bullock [lauren.hill@prodigy.net] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2: 15 PM To: Michael Gallagher Subject: Heritage Park opposition Honorable Commissioner- fPj ~ &1 MAR 0 4 200/:- ;:;:~~t..."'i;if"; {'t""""v !k- ti;tI :';1 ~ {"I ...'tff ....,'~ ~--!f ii, it. ;t f"': f'H'.... "", I' "c ~ ih, f'a 'C.I" r" IF',,,,, rr' .-:\."'t ~V~i\4l\.t.ii.t..,s~lllt..:I "',#~\;~~''';'-i...i h,~lii I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and will be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than just a few homes, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the number of homes that will actually be built. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards' Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial of this proposed project. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Lauren Bullock 0100 Arlington Place #16 ******************************* Lauren Hill Bullock LDH Event Management 917.376.0776 (phone) 212.504.2691 (fax) lauren. hill@prodigy.net 0J From: Garrett Fonda [gfonda@vail.net] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:36 AM To: Michael Gallagher; Arn Menconi; Tom Stone Subject: Heritage Park Development I'! fi;1 t-~ B MAP 0 4 2UOi~ Honorable Commissioners: E~~Jfjt~ ",.. -,,' . - \f., 7"> . .-,,' """r '''n.... nt ......Oo1IThlflHy' U'eVcl~;Vsii<;;;l. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that must be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your consideration, Garrett Fonda 640 Imperial Dr. Edwards, CO 81632 C5J From: Dennis Goodspeed [d.goodspeed@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 26,20048:41 PM To: Michael Gallagher Subject: Heritage Park developement at Homestead I am a resident of Homestead and I do not agree with the Board of Directors on this issue. doubt that there is "overwhelming" opposition to this project. The only reason the few Board members don't want any more $800,000 houses in Homestead is because they already have theirs and they don't want any more competition. I stronly urge you to follow the Edwards Master Plan and allow this project to go ahead. Thank you, Dennis Goodspeed 0288 Edwards Village Blvd. #28 MAR 0 4 200!~ Ea~J~:;} Comrm..mi'lty ~ R EI ED . 'Cd"i."\ /- f ~ } \".-'- "':~"7:~' \. .c'(~ " ',",' . f ;\ f' . /#"{ ,,~.~\ /V \ :"/ ;". ..... ( MAR 0 8 ZOOl! Eag~e County Community Development February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner ( am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629( fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~&ted py the Edwards M~ler Plan and mCU,1dat~ deni~. Pkase make the right decision and vote fpr ff~pi~ pf tl1~ pfP.p.q~~d Herita~e P8f~ d~v~lqpI11ent. . . . .' '.:. ' Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,.. ~ adta~ ~ '7J/;,zi50' &J..~ / 0.&3nr~? C.e/~/> ~L./O..;z..d.:2 /' eO './ RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 I i I Eagle Board of County Commissioners fi::: &t~~ ~~ ~Jf !Ii I o MAR 08 200ft February 25, 2004 Eag4e County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv. us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in4if&ted by the Edwards Master Plan and mapdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote fpr fl~Wfll pf *~ PfPM~M Herita~e Pane ?~v~lqpmept.. . . " . '. .:. . Thank: you for your time and consideration. ~&L- DJ~Dl~n.sdt') ().;1..5 ( 6o\d>. \:)~ RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners I I rf;k) f0 , February 25,2004 l"lAR 0 8 200if Eag~e County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv .us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 Sincert?lY,. " . @ .~ '__ :'~ . .' //,-,/' ~. ZS 1_ Eagle Boa.rd 9f Coun c.:)fG~ to t. u....LA-~ ;) I.? Commlsslo S ..............f( Y ;/7'/ " ~," ,f./;i (f?d" . .' . .,~~/ ce//1-tr.>l cj~-(i.-e..!/ ." e ~.- 0, f . . .' ',,::::/ ft.t..1:.-.e./~) .{;...L.il't..iJ<::.::t ..' ,c:_. -~ /~ v , . l/ ,/ ," ".;l' j' . j>'(,,}>, . 'j/ " . t......,. / .~. '.-'J'L' /~#... /.' i Ii w~:/ a Jt'tf;{;2~i. '-Zce l~c,~tl..I!tl-.{/ (l,c.~(Cj &:f,jt-c-c < fl~v'y..,t<. p L,/ t..e't.t'.. e t.'. t' / Ji e.-tL~ [..'vo...e...r-e.-t.... . ~ / ", ,(.-- ......./ ~ ". v --.: " {. t . ,i ,1" ',J ; .' ' .," . '"", c' . ( (lrE'H,., {/tJ1.-r''J!( ,6!/ttf;'7Uct....d.(,> }dt(.je~!r-/;, .1&. ~12f tL./ F . I-v /~ C(,/U", 02 Thank you for your time and consideration. ~ ~ "D'.' ~~ . MA!~ 0 8 200f~ February 25, 2004 Ea,..."lo1J< r'....~, ,n'vu '::$'i'" ~,,-. (oJ.) ~ <( lv Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone(a),eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestea~ I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. , I This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific drcumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indip&ted by the Edwards M~ter Plan and ma.lldat~ deni~. Ph~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~p.ifl.l pf~!3 p,n)po~r4 Heri~e P8f~ ?~velopment. . . . . '.' .' ' Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 si'~7cerel.Y,: ! (;il'/' ( (,. .. _\'?f.n~",.\'i/I i< i,<v/)~:~ \..' {, f " @ Eagle Board of County Commissioners MAR 04,2004 23:52 Hartley D. LeRoy 704-894-0065 Page (:~ EE ~ r'1A- i;> 0 ~ 20('1/' ~ h 1,... . February 25,2004 E~..I'"',l!a.. r,""'>nu !",y'y ~':::% ~,' i,,#..,,.~i;i:,,, Communi~y Otweiopm~nt Michael GaUagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michacl.gallagher@eagl~county.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.1!)9.nconi(iJ),eaglecounly.uS) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (lom.stoncrlUcaglecountv.us) P.O. Box ~5() Eagle, Colorado g 1631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629(fax) IJonorable Commissioners: 1 am writing to voice my strong opposition 10 the proposed Heritage Park deveJopment. As an owner in Home~i:ead, { agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined.in the letter sent to you by Goodman and WalJace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met tor a ~oning change according to the Ragle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. 'Ibis project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from aJJ over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was inl~nded for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. T raving the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods- While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to he evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. 'me access, site slope. and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inqi~ated by the Edwards M~s,er Plan and rnanc!.ate denial. Please make the right dcci~i()n and vote for q~niilI pf f~~ prppo~M Ilerita~e Park development. . '. '. . Thank you for your lime and consideration. Sincerely, -tJm~ G,~ ~1t-t-y b. L.f12i}-ct OWNtR- '1f2A~.l..RJIX.k f--I CJ RECEIVED MAR - 5 2004 t='~nlo 0"'..."'.".., _~ ,,_. _._.a. R eEl r ;';:~"'..; ; 'J) ..,- .\~;'.,:'.::J ')(- ~'" . "! (~'\;:,' \' \'.. I , ).: ,,\ v' ',' ,'-"'1 1 , (I '., I I I I I ! , 'l" MAR 0 8 200t;. February 25, 2004 Eagje Co(,.mty Community Deveiopment Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecbuntv.us)..." Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indif~ted by the Edwards M~ler Plan and mapdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for 4~pi~ pf ~~ prpp.q~4 Heri~e Par~ development. . ". ' . . '.' , . . ::' . . RECEIVED Thank you for your time and consideration. MAR - 8 20D~ ( i ~.( . / f:,agle', m::1.r:d " a,f"Lunt . __< V .1 L ,,(" ~ (-e" c~siOners ,;z::..- .f: (i ~ l. \ ~\.., @) _ ,,/ I 5 56 ~('" (0 ~ ~.. /.''-~;-E'. / L, C '-"L' 0<--.(,:,. S -. __ <,,'; -, 0.... ./ C.,., . c!. +~ I I I Sincerely, >%, v' .r- I L,,--'C. (.(' '/ [i~ ,",~"""'~.'D . l:~. ;;,,,,"~~ ... ..i.e-''; t1AI~ 0 8 200'; fJ:':.'''''I''';.'I!~''''' ("'ni"ni('i.." .....U~..,-i~ \~"..:.'i~~ .:t:.;f Community Development February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indip&ted by tbe Edwards M&Sler PI~ and mapdate deni~. . .,., . . PI~ase make the right decision and vote for ~~Wfll pf l1w Pfp.p,Q~4 Herita~e Plifl' 4~v~lqpl1le~t. . . ' . .' :.:. . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR - 8 2004 Sincerely,~' /. 1 /J2if:,<~<L. ~{~.,~ ~ 7'16 746' -.7~t5.~ ~.J~ . ,././' .// -;-:. I~; CY9~ 41E//-6- /-..a/t..c:'.." /V.6?~~(."-""''-' Eagte Board pf County ommrssroners m "'''','~;(D ~1AI\ 0 8 200/; Ea.~qijf:: February 25, 2004 Community Deveiopmtmt Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeJ.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of Poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards M~ler Pl~ and mapdat~ denial. . .,', . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for H~p.ifl1 pf fPl;t PfPp.q~~ Herita~e P3f~ development. ' ' ' . . :, . . , .1 ~ ' . I J . . . . . Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely;' RECEIVED MAR - 8 2004 .'d.....,...-...' , . '. "';."' 1 \ .' ~.;\ ,l"'~(' .1. .\ \,. ..-.~';':\-)',.'>.. .- ....:... -...,..... SoD Eagle Board of County Commissioners ;:;~'l' .. R IV D MAR 1. 0 200ft Ea~e County Community Development Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positio~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated Febniary 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this-I>~cel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~ated by the Edwards Masler Plan and maJl4at~ denial. . .,..,. . '. . . . . . PI~ase make the right decision and vote fpr ~~piill pfm~ rn~p.q~rq Herita~e P8ff ~v~lqpIpeRt~. . . ,".' :. , Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 ~~~~t~ fllvl)CW Eagle Board 91 Coun1y Commissioners I ED February 25, 2004 MAR 1 0 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.galIagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and consideration. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in4~f&ted p:y the Edwards M~ler Plan ancl m.a.ll4at~ deirl~. I Pl~ase make the right qecision and vote for R~p.i~ pf fP~ pfPfKl~r4 Herita~e Par~ II. dl;v~lqpmept. . '.' , '. : ' RECEIVED I i Sincerely, IJ B ' 1:;;; MAR j 0 2004 ~ C~,~ J /Ct-CJL &.. ~~~ J) Eagle Boa!d pfCoun - - ... f ~ q 1 ~ 6. 0 fJ.. V$'+ Y I. CommISSioners ~~ e-clvJMhi to XI(ps~; 6~/69/2884 14:12 314231G989 I""'\..AI... V"- D<.lN^"'D H. O-OONn' TIMClTY,'lL A}I1l)F;llSQN CLOONEY & AND.ERSON AITORN.EYSATLAW R IVED St.T1T.1l 200 3151 .NoRTH FOURTH S,.. ST.1.0lJlll, MI~sOURJ 63102-t92~ MAR 1... () 200'~. (314) 2~1.5855 . v February 25, 2004 Eagle County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.l!al1wilier@eaeJecounty.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@easdecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.5tone@~lecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(~) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an O\VJ1er in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' positi~ as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wa11a.ce, LLP dated February 17~ 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use RegulatioM. Oux community doesn"t need 24 more S800DOOO homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards comnnnllty because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it wiIl stick out and be seen ftom all over the Edwards area. as an example of poor planning If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth oftraftic.1he access road would have been directly connected to Homestead DriVe. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. "While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master PIBDs this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own. and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density ~~f1teq by the Edwards ~ter Plan and D,l2lldate deni~. Please make the right decision and vote for ~~pial J:!f me P,fl'p.Q~~ Herita~e Parle ~~lqplT1e~t . . . . ,t'.. : ~ Tbank you for your tim.e and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 I I I w~65:90 vOOz-O l-J~~. Sincerely. Q~'iI ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners vZL-~ EOO/EOO'd 685-1 o IH 9Z6 Ol6 ~Jno~ p~9~S9WOH-WOJ~ .,E",I\I 0 1 ~~I w . M.~R 1 0 2004 Eagie County Community Development February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gaUagher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eagIecountv,us) Tom Stone, Eagle County ColJ11llissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) _ ,-, -., .'970:3'2&.:s7i29(fax) -- -- --- .__0_-0" -- ----- Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree \Vi.th the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is oVeIWhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards conununity because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be tbrough Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding _neighborI:"??_~~_ ___ ._. _ _,_ _ __--.-'- - --. ,- - - - -'" - While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances Men into consideration. The access. site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density ~~~ted b! the Edwards M~er Plan and map.dat~ deni~. , ---i I I I I I Please make the right decision and vote fpr d~pW pf Ilw prp.lI'lp~ Herilajle P ,. ! ~~v~lqpIJlep~ ' ' , ". ,:: " RECEIVED ,MAR 1 0 2004 TI1ank you for your time and consideration. tJ4~ @ -~-r /II C a<;1'~e. ~beJ"DS ) Cc crt {,3~, ~(~ f-.e.Cl/A. t&rU- Sincerely, vZl-~ EOO/200-d 68S-! OllY 926 Ol6 lJno~ pe9ls9WoH-WOJ~ we6S:90 vOOZ-OI-Jen I MAR 1 0 2001~ February 25, 2004 Ea~e County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagber@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Taro Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eagJecountv.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our commumty doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. lithe Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, 1he access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. llavm.g the only access be through Homestead;s adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. ., While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated OD its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park. development. ' SinC:ll1 ' ,1./ {WT1~ RECEIVED MAR 1 0 200~ Thank you for your time and consideration. }{ub1 @ N~~~ \~ 0\ (0 M~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners vZl-d EOO/100'd 685-1 o lLV 9Z6 Ol6 _0 llnoJ pe9lS9WOH-WOJd weS5:90 VOOZ-DI-Jen :'. t.", I ilil MAR 1. 0 200/t February 25, 2004 Eagle Counly Community Development Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (mil.:hl.ld.f..!.all:.lgher-(i ~i.ll..d~l.:()lInt\..us) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (:Jrn.ml:'ncllnh;;.t:al..!,l~cl1l1n(\'.lI:-:) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (lom.stnn.: ci ~:Jl!lc~nllm\ .lIs) P.O. Box 850 Eaglet Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-3 28-8629( fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and WaUace, LLP dated February 17,2004. CommWlity need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than. all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic. the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent With the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 Sincerely, . C~~ cd: (/l/--<':J~ /5"3 C^~<<--..Ply 7L... ~ cd<<.>a-.d , (0 8/WsC?- ~ 165-1 OILt 9Z6 OL6 Eagle Board p1 County Commissioners 9ZL-~ 100'd ljnO~ p~elsewoH-woJ~ W~tO:60 tOOZ-Ol-j~~ I MAR 1 0 200t! February 25, 2004 Ej!'Ot.~.a"!: ~~""';''< 1~.~5~"i . C1lV;3~ \"'{}'iJ, d. J v , Community Development Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Conunissioner (mkhncLutlllal.!.hcr'ci ~:.ILdecollnt\'.lIS) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (arn.l11c:ncnnhi\~"gkCl)lIntv.lIs) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (Cl)ll1.stont:.,i e:.h,!.k~()L1nl\'.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 8163] 970-328-8605 (voice) 970- 328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with ~e surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and IlWldate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. smcerel~, 19:)~0":'" RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 llO/ZOO'd 005b 4t.uv tIt/I. r;tl'u~te4/) '" _. /id/~" l69-1 Olly 926 Ol6 C9 Eagle Board of County Commissioners 9Zl-~ lJno~ pe9ls9WoH-WOJ~ weyO:60 Y002-0l-Je~ ~ ~ MAR 1 0 200i~ Febiuary 25, 2004 E?l\r;/.Oo'll (~~,~., 'If''lh. ... ;::i''''''' ..,;> "-"' "Ji __ . Y Community Oeveiopment Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (!1'lkhael.galla~her.ci"~al!kc(lllnt\".us) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menCl)ni:dealj.lecnunt\".~..;) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (rllm.~ton~ ci t:u~kcounl\ .lIS) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328.;8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: J am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree 'With the Homestead Board of Directors' position. as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17.2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards commmrlty because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. lfthe Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with ~e surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope. and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 Sincerely. ~ ~ 4::r }a G~0 Eagle Board of County Commissioners 9ZL-~ IIO/EOO"d l65-l OlLv 926 OL6 ~JnoJ pe9~s9WoH-WOJ~ wevO:60 v002-01-Je~ Ei MAR 1. 0 200/: February 25. 2004 ~; ';.J ~"'1iiijl ~~.",-,>.r.l'..:1 ~" Community Deveiopm0nt Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (l1lich!JS.Lg,i.1llq~Ilt:I"(('ctll.!,kc.:otlnt\ .1I~) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (:.lI"li_mencolli,(l't:~\!;!.[ccnllnl\'.Lls) Torn Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (lom_~tont.' it ca!.!.kcnLll1t\ .us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, 1 agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February] 7,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility fTom surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you tor your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 Sincerely~ dLP~L ~ 1~6 u~~~y~ ~ ~ ~ I IAI'? ,.,/ t / fI'r} /,4 <?.-"'I 9ZI-~ IIO/vOO'd 16S-1 OllV9Z6016 Eagle Board of County Commissioners lJno~ pe8ls8WOH-WOJ~ weSD:6D vODZ-DI-Je~ ,r,o m :~ j;;j;i February 25, 2004 E:~J t~l~l MAR 1. 0 200/: f"O"~1n'! ~"""'/"" ,"" "" ""',, ''',....'''".....t ~_J jljh;;~Uijj~g,}l ij'~j-\z\lti,';~H3Jle~", Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (/l'lkh3el.gallal!;h~f'l{.~~I~d~c(\unt\":lJ:-;) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (..lm,mcnctmi:d'eal.!,lecollnt\'.lIS) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (lom.stone ti ~:':H.!kcmuH\ . LIS) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328.8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: lam writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead. I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated Febrw.uy 17.2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle COWlty Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards conununity because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly cOIUlected to Homestead DriVe. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not comp~tible with the sUITounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. RECEIVED Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage P development. Thank you for your time and cons; Sincerely. 9ZL-~ 110/500' d 16S-L OIL~ 9Z6 OL6 lJno~ P~9lS9WOH-WOJ~ w~SO:60 ~OOZ-Ol-J~~ MAR 1 0 2004 Eagle Board unty 720 e,/;miS 10 :z..j ri / I~~-t- ~4-tL [IV bw~5 {~Ik.J2. ~ f~ MAR 1. C 2m}!: E~1gj~ (;:~)~,at1'~Y Community Dev~!opment February 25.2004 Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (ml(had.~~dl:.1d1f;.:n{'e.lgkcnlIl1L\'.lI:::) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner @.rn.l1l~nct'lni"(I'L'a!.d~cl)llnl\'.lI~) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (lOm.~t()n~:(i'~~u.d~(l)lml\ . LIS) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 8163] 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writi~g to voice roy strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrormding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While lhe prpposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken ;nto consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 Sincerely, lfw#-A \~ 5iD rlmf;kd.- br, t 5 J-- ~i) _ 1 I . (\..... \/ J f ;>"......, IIO/900'd 16S-10W' 926 Ol6 Eagle Board of County Commissioners 92l-~ lJno~ Fe9ls9WoH-WOJ~. weSO:60 tOOZ-Ol-Je~ ~ ~.." ;n ~ MAR 1. 0 2UO!; Eag~t:; February 25. 2004 Community DI~WG;k;,pm~H1t Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (mkh;)el.~nlb!!ht:I"i("l:'~Il.!.kt.:(lul1l\:"lIs) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (urn,1l1~nC()nil{f\~al!.I~~(lLlI11\'.J!\i) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (tllm.slone ll\:a~k(;o.1.l!ll.~..:!t:J P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 8163] 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to, ~s project. This project will not blend into lhe Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic. the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan. this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own., and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 S2L-:l lIO/LOO'd 165-! \I "-1 01<;'0 n ;;2 Lf S Fn-VS 4~k:.. Ct ~ ~~3 ~0 Oll~ SZ6 OL6 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~JnoJ pe9~S9WOH-WOJ:l weSO:60 ~OOZ-O l-Je~ M^R 1 (,"2'00/" "l.!.\', .....; . . February 25, 2004 E:a2f1e ~""""1mu""'~'~ F', . ~~Vli'ti g la~~Y 1.J'e\jC;dC~pnlent Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (mi('hael.e.all~ll.!.h~r:cI ~<Il1.I~L:nul1l\""lIs) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (WJl.l1lli192l1i'(('~a~lc~!~Jll.l!~~._U~) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (tlll1l.qnn~:{i t.:a~kl:nl1m\ .us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land,Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwanis area as an example of poor planning. Ifthe Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly cormected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with ~he surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density maybe consistent with the Edwards MasterPlan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own., and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwm-ds Master Pla~ and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial ofthe proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sip c~re , I . ~ RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 C_c.-J. Sl::..e/L1R.I--r- q '-f '( Co -rIo ~ J<,"'-(1 0'/ DI<... \ ?:> '2J Eagle Board of Cou nty Commissioners . SZl-d IIO/800"d 165-! OllY SZ6 Ol6 ~JnoJ pe&+s&woH-WOJd weSO:60 YOOZ-O I-Jew rt~ ," d tt MAR 1. C 200:~ February 25,2004 C"" !...."'!nr. p'~ '; "',. i",,,.,,." "'. . . . .v. "ViA J~j,~~J ~j 1;.;; ';i.~e'rli,;;~t.jpJi'~e!11 Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (ll1ichQL:"'~tdltlgha'II'~;'I~kl:Olll1l\'.US) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (Jrn,/llt:'ncOl1ht\.',l!lh~l:nLlnl\'.lls) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (lom.~tnne:a'ei.l!!kl:nul)1\ .L1:-:) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 8J 631. 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree witll the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman arid Wallace; LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zonjng change according to the Eagle County Laild Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards conununity because it sits on a plat~au higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic. the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the .surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own. and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 >c of-;f L~ /.~ ~ j(otr'r i'~~d t2-;I--~ -M-( ~ ~~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners 9ZL-~ lIO/500.d p no:) peel sewoH-woJ ~ Wl!90: 50 vOOZ-O l-J l!Vj "" !!' :'1 ;~~ U ~t;~i' MAR 1. 0 200i: February 25, 2004 EZ~S~irJ} C"'n"wn. "~;;;,. ''''Vi. liS' ~ui g~",~:l Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (rnicha~L~all:.l~h~r:'I'eal..dccllunt\".llS) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (~l!Il..mencqDi.',i'~t1gJ~~lli1J.\'.l!~) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (L()Ill,stlllle'a ~agb:olln1\ .lIS) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17, 2004. Community need and public intere~1: are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards conununity because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic. the access Toad would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage P k RECEIVED development. MAR 1 0 2004 ::;:~fOrY2i;~ ~ ~~J 7 @ 58 ~~~;I &v/(( ~ />J'A /7/.-. ~) _PJA ~ ~ 9ZL-~ IIO/OIO'd 165-l OILy 9Z6 OL6 llno:> pl!epeWOH-wol~ Wl!LO:60 vOOZ-O l-ll!Vj [.~1 MAR 1. G 200(~ February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (miLhael.l.!~dlm.!h~r;(l'I~aglec()ullt'l:.lIs) Am Mencom. Eagle County Commissioner (.lrn.Il1t:l1col1i'lI'ff1glecl"\Ul1tv.u;..;) Tom Stone. Eagle County Commissioner (tl1l1l.S1olic:ll'enl.!lcct)1I111\ .us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 8163] 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with !he surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate deniaL Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2004 Sincerely, Cd- Ol~~ ~l{ 9Zl-:! IIO/IIO'd 169-.1. OllY 9Z6 Ol6 ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~Jnoo pe9~s9WoH-WOJ:! welO:60 YOOZ-OI-Jen "'!' t ;"'~-;"'--"---l ~ ...--....-. -_..--~............. I X( . "'.' f'" ..... - ~ lV ~ \ .il'" ~_.ll . ~(c-=~ 1-' ~dJ ,-trf;; \ I r=-/.IV!A.~,(~Ct Lj J I ! f' -..... -t"~"--~~--~-f ~. r ! l ~~......~....--.,."- j ~ f --"'---'1 ~..::'""~~ ~ I ~t.:k.! ~ ,.....,--:-~~~"'~~:--=c._i...~,.f Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagher@ea\rrtc'QunN-:u~ ; Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecoud.~s) -~...~-;: Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) ...,,, - -----..... P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) I MAR 1. 1 2004. February 25,2004 I"" . "... !:.agqe ~ounty Community Development Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. --If-the-AlleD-~~el-was-intended-fef-mere-than-a-f-ew-homegLworth-oftraffi~the aC\;c~~ road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. i . I I While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inqip~ted by the Edwards M'lSler Phm anq mapqat~ deni~. .,'r' ... . . Ph~ase make the right qecision and vote for ff~wfl1 pf *~ p,rpf?q!ffiq Herita~e Par~ development. .' ,,' '.' . .. I., .;. .':: .! ' :. ',; : . . . RECEIVED.' Thank you for your time and consideration. MAR 1 1 2004 Wtf~fi t6'l ~ ~ e ~. frl ~z-, . FROM": M FAX NO. 17753247321 Mar. 11 2004 05:39AM Pi I D MAR 11 200ft February 25, 2004 Eagie County Community Development Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Conunissioner (michaeI.ga11aaher@eaglecountv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounry.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County C;ommissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, ColoradQ 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: 1 am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. . As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. Th~ access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. RECEIVED MAR 1 1 2004 Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely. "' Ie B d of County UV\A Ju.JlA. \QJ - M 1/\ I'P~ m" sione,s L"1.i~Lh vvt,ctiJN..- ~U~ tW1~ s \8 ~/uJt-u-- . . . . Mar-13-2004 03:08pm From-Homestead Court 970 928 4710 T-804 P.D01/DOI F-752 ......:. .._...__......~-.... ..'.-.;._................: , 'J." '. 1 ~"'\ ::-~~-~'-r~ . . . . ......8:>. .". ~..C'.'".....~c:..,."....<c...;. . " . . ;~' ; , R EIV!. MAR 1 6 2004 ......- ~:......-..,~...,........o.-:~_....':__,_:,.,... ._, . ..,....-.........,...-..,.:.. E ~f.' .,..'"." t't, ... agto ~...(h.I, L;1 .... FebruaIy 25, 2004 Community D,,veiopn1el'l'i :' ~~.,~ j _...,,'''_....~,.. '".~.. .. .:;>." .~...._""""""".--_._.".....,.- . Michael Gallagher. Eagle County Commissioner (mi~h<lel.!.wlI~H.!h~r cl ~:.I~.d~cotJJl[\'.lI:-;) Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (um_Il'lcnconi l"~nl.!l~&:nllnt".lI:"i) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (lOI1l.stonc.fi C:~ll..d~C:\)lInt\ .lIS) P.O. Box 850 Eagle. Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the lener sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17. 2004. CommlJJ1ity need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according ro the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800.000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with fhe surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master PJan~ this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the densiry indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2004 Sincerely, '1"'0.&~ ~ We.." ~ 8 I Eagle Board 9f County Commissioners ; ~.,_.:'~;.~.~'.""""'r,r.o...-._..~..."-,."".._....",... '~".~'.". . ,gci'c/i,' ,,~ I I i , I Eagle County I February 25,2004 Community [)f3velopment ", " , ' I: Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (miChael.gallagher@eaglecoUrtty~ Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) ! Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) ~ ED MAR 1 6 200fr Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our commumty doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be tIn:ough Homestead's a.. djacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surroun~~~..I nelghbo~hoods'.dk ..tP~;t-ntY'~:1r; tr..y ~'n..ti!.tJ ([M'~~ L@~,- ,~dt.ie-tthltiffic:.tird.i~-.L/ ;fzr:d<~I''-~Ld-- a'~-rtfd-l11~rtfl-if, While the propOsed'ftensity may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density inqi~ated by the Edwards Masler Plan and maJldat~ deni~. , ",'" . . " . . Pl~ase make the right decision and vote for ff~fli;ll pftP~ rn~pq~~q Herita~e P3f~ development. " , ' " :, ' , . ~~ ~ ' . ~;, . . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2004 Sincerely, '. .) /f;i " 1fJ, 1,;., .. J! t!. J ,I /;f.iu!.JL/ !,' "%/1. " L/J-f..ILI"''-@ , 1-".- - '.:PU /~'S~, . ,'-7 "~ Jf:~- ..' -/1 (fIj'JJ b;.3 ~.," . ZtfUU '-/rtJ~L _D 1:J~.-f~6;i1fc31 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ",~~'::',..c,<;~"." :". ....,..... ...~r...~.",..-,-.....,o-..,....,.____. : j 0, "-". , . .. ..c....-,.,o; _..,. .,.....~ MAR 1 6 200't Eagie County F b 25 2004 Community Development " , , , e ruary , " ,.'"" Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.gallagber@eagl";"un~ P... . Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2004 Sincerely, C . ~ Ii, (.--(' '-7.'-1-", . )< r~t- ,.' . --;-- /1 ') ---, , .J.i- ','/ ' . " . ~ I..., t '/'.JJJ.A.' t',;.,.,-/ ,,- ,/ ~ @ --- L-Vl~'.1 -'-'~", (f::;' ,;)l~;-Z7r- ~i~jl')4,~. ~-.', i.p'L,.....;~ :St3 \ I .. I " v t~ ~ 1 l Eagle Board of County Commi sioners . , ~ Ie (J (), ~n'il.i;;;i!;;~~ JJlA.. , f i /j D..' C==~"'l""'~~-~~- I j '''-,,?,,~C''''''''~~'f''I>!.'~ j j I MAR 1 7 2004- (---...j,----. ! Eagle County C--- ~--- -~ - i C . ~ ..~ ~~--.._~i ommumty Development j tfs-tum Or-fg. 1'0 1 r~~ Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michae1.gallagher@eaglecountv.us) I Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (arn.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) RE EI \ \; ';~\\': ~~i~ "':i.r-::/ February 25, 2004 Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and puplic interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 hOines and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surroundirig neighborhoods and if will stick out mid be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to:Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indicated by the Edwards Master Plan and mandate denial. Please make the right decision and vote for denial of the proposed Heritage Park development. i Thank. you for your.time and consideration.' ,. I " ,"" . ..~;~. .:;.r . " smcerelY'0~ !l<-.. ?~~'Y ow"-'ee.. I~ l-\e~ 3ft/or 1Z{, -/#Or ~-! ,-....'.0.. . .... ".-, . -, ',I ;~:c.~~:,,';,~"'."',~.- ~,_~"',~,,,,~,;::,'_,',_,',~,',\:,',,""_,'.."'; ....:........~.....,~..',.,....',.,.,:.L..~::;.~._'..:........:,:~......,'.,',:-,,'.',.~.:..'......',.:.'.....'.'.'" .~. "'.;". :.",~:...,.\...,:...,..,..,:...,.,:"...,.:...j._,'.:..,'...,.,........._,;...,~....,....,.' ~,..::::...:.'.......'..". ....,.. . '" -, ,,,- ~. ..'. ,.. .. , _'.~. <~,-:~,:- _ ~_ . '_ h <_. ~ ~ N~_'~ <". .... '. .>.,';i,~;.-~;i~~~;f;:,4~~;;..-;;iif:~.':~~.;:;f. I" RECEIVED , MAR 1 6 200~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners MAR-16-04 TUE 12:26 PM SIMBA RUN FAX NO. 9704760888 P. 01 R c I D ......... Fcbru:;iry 25,2004 MAR 1 7 2004 Eagie County Community Development I -~-1 I I, i ' ~----'~: I ,~~--~ I I I Michael GaJlaghcr, Eagle County Commissioner (michaeI.gallagher(iVeagJecountv.us) Am Menconi, Engle County Commissioner (am.mcnc~p.i@eal!lecoun[Y.4~ Tom Slone, Etlglc County Commissioner (tom.stollefa2cagJecollntv.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 9'10-:~28-8605 (voice) 970-328. 8629(1ax) nOJlOTahh:~ Commissioners: I r,m writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in lIomesteatJ. I agrec with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as ouHincd ill the letter sent to you byGoodrnan and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community l1(~cd Md public interest a~ criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change <'lceoe-ding to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn>t need 24 J/lorc $800,000 homes and th.ere is overwhelming opposition to this project. 'l1lis pro}cct will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards mea us an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel wa<; intended for more than a few homes' worth oftraIlie, the aCCess road would h~lve been dircct.ly COIDlccted to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be througII HOJ11<)stcad's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding nci~hborhood$. ; I .. I I I I ! While the p;,oposed density may be consistent witll the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to 00 evaluated on its own. and its sped fie circumstances taken into consideration, lh~ nccess,sil.e slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in<1!c..ltccl t,?, the Edwards Master Plan and mandalQ denil.ll. Plc~~sc make t11c right qccision and vote for Rflnia1 Aff1l~ prpPQ~~~ Herita,ge Paff development. , ' , Th;'lllk you for yotLr time and consideratlOll. RECEIVED MAR 1 6 2004 I I I I I I I I I Sincerely, Don fl ,. LAJ1& <'f/lif)6J~. ~~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners MAR 1 9 2004 ..V-A....). (':"i- .....1-/' .-- ~". ~.. (~,:'~~Vt~);:"{f). ^f.\ 0/\~Czc/ I. ['\0 r rc\ (.9:,'..il i I I I i RECEIVED EAGLE COUNTY 801\t1MHNITV P,EViF,lo.QPM~Nt February 25, 2004 Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.l2:allagher@eal2:lecountY.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecountv.us) Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eal2:lecounty.us) P.O. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629{fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from allover the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. " If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density indi~~ted py the Edwards M~ter Plan and maJldat~ denifll. Pl~ase make the right decision and vote fpr H~fli!ll pf tt.~ rn~pq~~4 Herita~e P3f~ ~~v~lqpment. .. . ,. ' '..:. RECEIVED Thank you for your time and consideratiol!-' ,) r- MAR 1 8 2004 .,' /" / . I .. / '/1' j t Eagl oard of County 1.. Li V L/L/" mmissioners i ,..') i" '.,~ -'j /8;) J I/:~'I d!. ti. .') j' ')/1, I, i l riYrn if; '/! ,f/'c) ...-:;:-/ l (./-f{/ , "/,'.i ' ti /;1 li r':"",\ ' " 1/'(.,1 r.::'~: j) DIJ'-tI./ tl,-5 ;' 1.--", ' Sincerely, _, 'Z 4{, //1 ," .. \~/ \,.,' \ .._---'" i \ j ./ ; . " .t' .1) ./ ... //1 II, ' / / I . <i., ~' Mar-20-2004 11 :50am From-Homestead Court 970 926 4710 T-616 _p.o' OllUO.D ]-~.l::lB,4,,_~_.~ . &c~,..,....I,...: ~~-+ I RECEIVED MAR 2 3 200't -" I, Eagle County Community Development February 25J 2004 ' Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Conunissioner (miChael.gallagher@eaglecountvo""~ Am Menconi. Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eal!lecountv.us). I Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.us) P.o. Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 97~8-8605 (y~ic~)__ ___ _- ----- - -970-32s:8629{fax) Honorable Commissioners: I I ---, ---~-_.-- --,--:---, I I I I I I I I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17. 2004. commUnity need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our conununity doesn't need 24 more $800JOOO homes and there is overwhehning opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards commmrity because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods aDd it will stick out and. be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. ----..-. !fthe Allen Parcel was intended for more than a feW homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding ..n~~ghbor~~~ _,----' o. ------- --,- ----~ f'- While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards Master Plan, this parcel ~I needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circumstances taken into consid;uqipn. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the densfL'l t:: eEl V ~cl~pate4 hy ~e Edwards M~ler Plan and :Q1&pQaW deni~. . ; , . . ' I Pl~ase make the right qecision and vote for ~~Bif11 p'f~f;l p.fP.pq~r.4 Herita~e PBf~ MAR 2 3 200~ 4~v~lqpIp.e~t~ , ' -' '. ' , EAGLE COUN,.l, Thank you for your time and consideration. COMMUNITY Dg,\f..ELdP~. ---RECEIVr'. I I MAR22~ Sincerely, i~aoAL~ US/;L l (;,I",...;,o.--;,,) @ / /J-; 1_ r'^J s ~-f rr a>..; (I H C5we.S't.;)? Eagle Board cf "~:r::, fie,! Commissk '_~: ".. ,_ '17nuh J1 Joei[- / .. - -'1-: RECE. iiV~D. .-CE'~.~rl'.:., MAR 3: 2~04 ' . .. ~Q February 25, 2004 comm~~~~ ~:'~":'t!{~'i~~.mU:m t Michael Gallagher, Eagle County Commissioner (michael.~allagher@eaglec6untv.us) Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioner (am.menconi@eaglecounty.us) i i;: Tom Stone, Eagle County Commissioner (tom.stone@eaglecountv.~:~) ...~ .,. ,.. ., .._.... P.O. Box 850 '. .. '.~.. ." -~".' . Eagle, Colorado 81631 970-328-8605 (voice) 970-328-8629(fax) Honorable Commissioners: I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed Heritage Park development. As an owner in Homestead, I agree with the Homestead Board of Directors' position, as outlined in the letter sent to you by Goodman and Wallace, LLP dated February 17,2004. Community need and public interest are criteria that MUST be met for a zoning change according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Our community doesn't need 24 more $800,~ homes and there is overwhelming opposition to this project. This project will not blend into the Edwards community because it sits on a plateau higher than all surrounding neighborhoods and it will stick out and be seen from all over the Edwards area as an example of poor planning. If the Allen Parcel was intended for more than a few homes' worth of traffic, the access road would have been directly connected to Homestead Drive. Having the only access be through Homestead's adjacent neighborhoods is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. While the proposed density may be consistent with the Edwards MasterPlan, this parcel needs to be evaluated on its own, and its specific circwnstances taken into consideration. The access, site slope, and site visibility from surrounding areas preclude the density in~F~ted br the Edwards M~ler Pl~ and mapdat~ deni~. Pl~ase make the right qecision and vote for R~~~ pf ~~ pfPpq~~4 Herita~e ParJc ~~vC?lQpmef1t.. . .' ." . Thank you for your time and consideration. RECEIVED Sincerely, @ J. C to ?8=> MAR 2 9 20lJ1t I .-1<:1 /}..l-...L ..1 ~ . ,-L.A./ly)-- {. J Eagb"o~:~~ncinty JL- i ( J I^.,i' C I +l~ ')L UJ-,. [(/tl.. /'4.... I v AtCrJ_JO/1. r;.:c./!.~(,_..l ct. '.{ ," . ".' /.J.'1 [, I /\ ,. , ~j) /, tillt) ( __ t...L-~~ , ~.' Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing 15 June 2004 Heritage Park Zone Change PUD Preliminary Plan File Nos. lC-00065 and PDP-00026 1 Background 2002 - PUD Sketch Plan approved. 2003 - Variance from Improvement Standards approved for one ingress/egress to site Heritage Park - Vicinity Homestead Drive 1-70 Edwards Village Blvd Hwy6 2 Allen Circle Heritage Park - Site Edwards Village Blvd Homestead Drive Applicant Request Approval of: Zone Change from R to PUD PUD Preliminary Plan for 24 single family lots Open space tracts 3 " Homestead Drive Site Plan /t:~'i::i~Trr:;;}j/':~ ~:_.=>/t-'\:*::J,;.-;;J:,:'~;/ '''OJ. ~,_.....,.. . ~ ~"'-"'PfIo."" ".7 ,."..~ i&'~'S,;i'}i1[,~:~,:~~,< \,-;:.~,:-,:~ );, ",/ '#o-'-;j,'" '-' ..f__ .. I>~<::;~;rf:~~,:~i! ~:~>~;'~~:":1 tti~j ", i/~~~::fr'~~~~\. tL:~~i 1 ' ~ i,~~-H /{'~fr ':~5~f:;'\ \ f!:~~,)f.J J~f:~A~ '. .... "" . \: -..---.,j i.i..j 7/ I J. " '13> 'I t.!:~~;;,>",,,,\ .~~.~'-":/..~. ,';::~.:~/' i --., A ' ....m._,. "-. .... ' ., "'j' ~(:~-~;~;//"':t::~~ ! ~:~\:~"~'<~~ ~\~:~~:':)K:~ I !J~~~\;::~:/ / '\ Site - from north of 1-70 Site Hwy6 4 Access from Allen Circle Site - Looking Northwest 5 , ' , Site - Looking East Site - Looking Southeast 6 Site Plan Allen Circle - Sidewalk Plan Tract B Proposed Sidewalk ":\,,':, . .' :";'" ',,\/"" :- _\:~",','- i~-~:'-::t;, '; /;t:;>:>, "::) " 7 " \' Allen Circle, - Looking Northeast Allen Circle - Looking Southeast 8 " Findings Zone Change: Staff: Positive Planning Commission: Mixed PUD Preliminary Plan: Staff: Positive Planning Commission: Mixed Recommendations Zone Change: Staff: Approval Planning Commission: Denial PUD Preliminary Plan: Staff: Approval with Conditions Planning Commission: Denial 9 ".-' Outstanding Issue Recommended Condition #1 regarding home occupation 1. The PUD Guide shall be revised to provide that "home occupation", as that use is defined and otherwise regulated in the Land Use Regulations shall be allowed as a use-by-right. . Heritage Park 1041 Permit Application File No. 1041-0053 10 <,' . ,." Heritage Park Public Hearing (cant.) Applicant Presentation Public Comment Applicant Response County Staff Response Deliberation 11 Heritage Park pun Preliminary Plan Proposed Additional Conditions 16. The Applicant shall provide and install traffic control and advisory signs (e.g., "Stop", Caution: Children at Play") as shown on the sign plans submitted with the application materials and/or as required and approved by the County Engineer. 17. A note shall be added to the final plat requiring that homes built on lots requiring individual grinder pumps shall be equipped with sewage storage tanks with a capacity of at least 300 gallons. - --------..ti:I . . SelVlCes, IDC. ~" .- .$J c: June 14,2004 RECEIVED Joe Forinash Senior Planner Eagle County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Heritage Park Preliminary Plan Application JUN 14 200~ Eagfe County Community Development Dear Joe, As a result of not having received a response from the Board of Directors of the Homestead Homeowners Association pertaining to the offer presented by Jim Guida (letter dated April 8th, 2004), an update to my letter to Eagle County of April 26, 2004 is required. The April 26th letter to Eagle County was predicated on a mutual agreement by Homestead. Since an agreement was not reached, we cannot, of course, obligate Homestead to the conditions of the agreement offered. However, in the spirit of cooperation, the applicant is able and willing to make the following unilateral commitments in place of the fll'St six bullets in the above referenced letter. 1. The language contained within the Heritage Park Design Guidelines regarding restrictions on the height of buildings will exactly match the language contained within the Homestead Ranch Architectural Standards for Filing 1. In a similar fashion, the language contained in the Planned Unit Guide for Heritage Park with regard to building height will exactly match those contained in the Homestead Planned Unit Development Guide for Filing 1. ~ box 947 - eagle, co 81631 - 9~,328,6299 _ fax 970,328.6254 kps@J.tU.net ! 2. Maintenance of the open space contained within the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development will be perfonned to the same or to a higher standard than the maintenance of the open space contained within the Homestead Planned Unit Development. . 3. The applicant is willing to work with the Clayman Family to provide benning and additional landscape treatment based on a mutually acceptable program. This effort will be made between Preliminary Plan and Final Plat. Please accept this letter as part of the official record for the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan Application. y, h~ omas M. Boni Cc: Jim Guida @ 2 \. 91anning . ~ selVlces, .$J eS . Inc. RECEIVED June 9, 2004 JUN 10 2004 Eagle County Community Development Joe Forinash Senior Planner Eagle County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Re: Heritage Park Preliminary Plan Application Dear Joe, Please find attached a petition signed by 113 residents of Eagle County stating that they are not opposed to Heritage Park and urging the Board of County Commissioners to suppOrt the application. Also attached are 14 letters of support. Yours truly, ~.a~ Cc: Jim Guida @ box 947 - eagle, co 81631 - 910.328,6299 _ fax 970.328.6254 kps@vail.net April 26, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box8S0 Eagle, Co 8131 RE: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions dming the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about the future growth of Edwards. The Community PIan was revised several times in response to issues aDd concerns raised by the community. When the final pIan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development cmremly proposed for Heritage Park. This is an infill development parcel, aDd while not always welcome by those in close proximity, it is a much more efficient use of our land. Preserving open space aDd preventing urban sprawl is good long range planning. I believe the Heritage Park project is a thoughtful residential development. in an appropriate location. As elected officials, I encourage you to look at the big picture and follow the County Master Plan and the Edwards Area Commullity Plan that were created to serve as a guide to good development in Eagle County. Sincerely, d-.S @ April 19.2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle. CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan. particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted. it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. It appears to me that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their own personal agenda to decide what's right for the community. The fear I have is that special interest groups will heavily influence land use decision that are contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit of the whole community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. Sincerely. 4 @ April 19,2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When. the final plan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. It appears to me that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their own personal agenda to decide what's right for the community. The fear I have is that special interest groups will heavily influence land use decision that are contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit of the whole community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. Sincerely, @ April 19,2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. It appears to me that this is a matter of either fOllowing the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their own personal agenda to decide what's right for the community. The fear I have is that special interest groups will heavily influence land use decision that are contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit of the whole community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. Sincerely, ~ ;;,~~ t f1 ~~~ Gl i ; I April 19.2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle. CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan. particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. It appears to me that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their own personal agenda to decide what's right for the community. The fear I have is that special interest groups will heavily influence land use decision that are contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit of the whole community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. I~ ~~ CD April 19,2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, It identified this parcel 'for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. It appears to me that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their own personal agenda to decide what's right for the community. The fear.I have is that special interest groups will heavily influence land use decision that are .contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit of the whole. community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. Sincerely, ~+ - cu Apri126~ 2004 Eagle County Board of Commissions P.O. Box 850 Eagle~ CO 81631 Dear Chairman: As an Edwards resident, I believe that Jin Guida has acted responsibly in preparing the Heritage Park POO for 24 single-fiunily homes adjacent to Homestead. He bas met on numerous occasions ' with the Homestead Board and the neighboring homeowners and bas modified his plan several times to address their comments. I feel he bas reduced the density to a very acceptable level given the location and pressure on all private land. I also believe the design guidelines for Heritage Park clearly demonstrate a commitment that should give everyone comfort in knowing the homes on this property will be of high quality in both design and construction. This project represents the kind of development that should be encouraged in Eagle County. I agree with the professional staffat Eagle County who supports this application. I encourage you to support this application and follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Community PIan. Thank you for your consideration. @ April 19,2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel , Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Pfan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, it identified this ,parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. ' It appears to m'e that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their ~wn personal agend$ to. decide what's right for the community. The fear. I have Is that specfallnterest groups will heavily influenCe tand, use decision that are contrary to the docum~nts that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit .of' the whole community. Please follow the guidefines adopted In the Edwards Community Plan and approve this development. Since~ely, - 0) 84/27/2884 15:38 9197894981 ~ M I-&RV April 26. 2004 Board of County ~lNni!;tioners P.O. Bos ISO Baa~Co 1131 U~ Allen ,.,.J Oar Otainrwa: I I'CIDmIber me INII)' cS\iculiol1l clvrina the ptepII8f.IoD of the Edwards Atea ("'.4:\mrnuDit)' Plan. pertbll.1y AMut the Il1ture p\wch n' F.dwIrdl.. The Cnmrmm~' PIu WU ~ IeWAl tllDCl in lCapome to illUeslnd ccmccms railed by the colDftUrity. WheD the &.I pia *II adopted, .. ~ this parcel aw the kmd of dn'Clopmonl currencly pr~ b H~. PIIk. This is Aft iaftU devcloproeut .-eel, aM wI1lJe not a1wa~ wtJcome b) tbost ill close PfO'(imity, il is .. mucb mere efftcielll till of OUl land. Prf.trt\~ tII OpeD 5p1Ct .. ~ YfbIn ",~'I Ui '(tod Sona raaac plaMina. I belie'" 'he Heritage Park project is . thouptt\ll residattlal dewlopmeor 1ft an ....._ 100000n AI ~Jeded oftlci&Je. I maouraae JOU to >>Ok .. .... big pic-11lfe aM to,~~ thP. t'Am'Ily Murcr PJan and tbc Bdwudt Atea Co1lJftllUJiy PIIn. thaI were crtalClC! tt' .-vc IS . auk!e to aood ~'llopmlDt ill &ale Couaey. ~ ~... - -2 ClIi 126 @ ?,',l r; .'" r, c ...! .t=t~~ r. .... a "~..".^u""",, _.... ~ PAGE 81 April 26, 2004 Eagle County Board of Commissions P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Dear Chairman: As an Edwards resident, I believe that Jin Guida has acted responsibly in preparing the Heritage Park PUD for 24 single-fiuniJy homes adjacent to Homestead. He has met on numerous occasions with the Homestead Board and the neighboring homeowners and has modified his plan several times to address their comments. I feel he has reduced the density to a very acceptable level given the location and pressure on all private bmd. I also believe the design guidelines for Heritage Park clearly demonstrate a commitment that should give everyone comfort in knowing the homes on this property will be of high quality in both design and construction. This project represents the kind of development that should be encouraged in Eagle County. I agree with the professional staffat Eagle County who supports this application. I encourage you to support this application and follow the directions established for development in the Eagle County Master Plan and Edwards Community Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, .~~ 0) April 26, 2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 8S0 Eagle, Co 8131 RE: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: I remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about the future growth of Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently proposed for Heritage Park. This is an infill development parcel, and while not always welcome by those in close proximity, it is a much more efficient use of our land. Preserving open space and preventing urban sprawl is good long range plannillg. I believe the Heritage Park project is a thoughtful residential development in an appropriate location. As elected officials, I encourage you to look at the big picture and follow the CQunty Master Plan and the Edwards Area Com111lJ.l'lity Plan that were created to serve as a guide to good development in Eagle County. Sincerely, ~~ C!J April 19,2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Allen Parcel Dear Chairman: .1 remember the many discussions during the preparation of the Edwards Area Community Plan, particularly about future growth in Edwards. The Community Plan was revised several times in response to issues and concerns raised by the community. When the final plan was adopted, it identified this parcel for the kind of development currently being proposed as Heritage Park. . It appears to me that this is a matter of either following the Edwards Community Plan or allowing a small vocal group with their 9wn personal agend~ to. decide what's right for the community. The fear I have is that special Interest groups will h&avlly influence land. use decision that are contrary to the documents that provide for and promote reasonable growth for the benefit 'of the whole community. Please follow the guidelines adopted in the Edwards Community Plan and approve this developrnent. Sincerely, @ June 10, 2004 Board of County Commissioners PO Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Heritage Park Dear Commissioners, I am writing to support the Heritage Park project. As a business owner and resident of Eagle County, I think it is important we recognize the need for homes in the Edwards area, since the commercial areas has grown tremendously and is continuing to grow further in the next few years. Heritage Park is a great example of development that should be encouraged. It has all the right characteristics to provide for growth within a community center. I encourage you to support this project. 0) June 8.2004 Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle. CO 81631 Dear Commissioners: As a Homestead resident. I am aware of the Heritage Park project; I am aware of the neighboring issues. and aware of the efforts that Mr. Guida has made. I want to state my support of this development. Mr. Guida's willingness to adopt the Homestead Design Guidelines and be subject to the Homestead DRC will ensure that this development blends with the neighborhood. I believe the density and the homes he is proposing for this parcel are perfectly appropriate and will certainly add value to the Homestead neighborhood and provide a benefit for the community. I encourage you to continue your support of this development. Yours truly. Ci::~::f:;l~~~ 170 Arlington PJ.Address C-I Edwards. CO 81632 @ PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN MAn.ING ADDRESS PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN NAME-<PRlNTI MAILING ADDRESS SIGNA TVRE Pcrr{2jeE.- -~~ ~D. b:>X Q\.JOl,J A~~ ~. _ ~ __ "':',.:.. - ;^;,.' - IJ -- r." &r ~ ,.,.,..~ ~ ~ ,;::..."';' -"~. _ ") /' : { ; t1aK,~L.oI !,q., PI "7/i" C,.J" arJ.<<. !lI. f' (. ~ru-r;_ .____. (l Au fJU2 (~JA. Pn""'.v /'116 ,:f:J -A .;! r {lJ, > ();.n _. y . _lOttl'l (;. H~~"1' /,J rO ~cJl( '~"2.1 V,6..,L, rP- '-' __ ti 11M ~ett · ~-;:.u n", "'STY. !Hi , ....... . ~ ~ 1r.~~ .....,.. I, ( \ ~~ ~ ~ N'I_V L R. D v 17>. o. &'"" (9 0 ~^,.,-"" A.. ""4/ ZI"? ~, _ IIUtSof.J WE" &-L s> ':P.O, &~ ~J() AVo t-.L ;{;d. ~ -_~ Ir. ~ flU!;J GluMk I'J BolC 5"D~ ( 1I1r, I ~.... ()~ C.-I'-- t~ ~ --;). L ; J li~ J& J -:; I) Rj))(" t/on jv~ ), I J J1. ", f Jl' VF.., ~ E-~ ( b/t'IW;,.J p. 0 if...... ts I UGLE I Vk ' ~ '/J ~P';l. · d/..t>.1c !,'r.:7>LL "L 12/.._;:, IK'./flh~ '..t""lt)II,XHP. Ru ......;L Ave" ~,..F;r~7 2 .- . .l1-,l.t... Po A__ ;;;..ii A/ROAJ 'i A.;J" j.f ~b..-- . -:-... r / -;. X-,...:; ~ - 77 I 7_,,_ ,Q....~ A-?_-~_J':lSc:- "Pc ~ I C'''~LJ ~, ).,p ., ~ ~ ~ f7 .t.Lo1l fu~><-~ i:"._l 1/ ,..- ~ 1'11.1' T ~ '" ~ --.....;;;;;:;: 60& ~j,.'fNS~\ tJ).r..~_..d''''~1!l:~ p",Vk\v r ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~"CL ~...Iu1.A- <;:Y-,~" 8/,+2. ~~~._ ~~l:-~ _ l~"'i~ ~/r,J f',d, ~ *7 . Ir<If)F'I.~ 7: ,I S- . ( I~ ,./fA/.} Un' 4> 0 p.-,y fAn Jiil t. l(j~r -1 J ' nn. . ~ KJ:; vJolJ~ 00 ih:- 1~'.:l Atr,.CJ 7 ~ 7 W II I I , . @ PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN @ PEl 'ITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN \ ) U4-27-u4 11: 41AM FROM JIM GUIDA CONST. __n_ . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . .. .. _. '" .. .. .. . .. .. " . .. . .. " .. . .. . . .. " .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . '" . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . POI PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY . COMMISSIONERS We the undeniped RIlSIDBNTS lnd VOTIlRS ofEop County"", NOT OPPOSllD to Heril8p PlIrI< IIIId ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPQPRT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY AND THE RECENTLy ADOPTED BOW ARDS COMMUNITY PLAN l\ PETITION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS We the undersigned RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED EDWARDS COMMUNITY PLAN 'Knight Planning Services 407 Broadway Eagle, CO 81631 (970) 328- 6299 Fax: (970) 328-6254 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: June 14, 2004 To: Joe Forinash RECEIVED 328-7185 JUN 1 4 20M Subject: Guida Eagle County Sender: Tom Boni Community Development YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 7_PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (970) 328- 6299. Please find attached: 1. Direct mail response to our flyer mailed to Homeowners within Homestead. 2. Additional Petition in favor C9 06-14-04 11:26AM FRCM JIM GUIDA CONS!. POI PEtITION TO EAGLE COUNTY t COMMISSIONERS ' We the undersil11ecl RESIDENTS and VOTERS of Eagle County are NOT OPPOSED to the Heritage Park neighborhood development and ENCOURAGB YOU TO SUPPORT: SMART GROWTH IN EAGLE COUNTY THAT COMPLIES WITII THE, EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN AND THE RECENTLY ADOPTED BDW ARDS COMMUNITY PLAN U6-14-04 12:56PM FROM JIM GUIDA CONS!. PO? NOT OPPOSED Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Information, I am not oPposed to thIs project. t . Signed: c:-. ~ c-- -- ~.~~ fD_Jm 'lWCO IlfIl-J77I ~ ... .,. ........-... '. '" Board'"tlf caeunty Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and r.I.,.... !. 11-.11' ..tion, I am not opposed to this project. Signed: ~'l $i-~ . YM e'u-r t6J"h1.IUU~~ nur t'l-/4t4?-e. 1I'J:.A?1l1'\ 1/;,' <<>""'tIJII VfJ'CY. ~tt:J u..;COIJIJl-/JII "b"O 3J/Ji' . a". 'I I 'I1-_J__~ ' '<lv c t,..... ~ t.U k.LJJ~ tuU5.t81- J: 6,~ lz' ~ IJ-e.;:: /11.. IW r!jfMd:a <Fl t. tJA,d.. ~ ~) J _. 'l.~. tl.~ ~/J..il.Up/l'Ut~ @ 06-14-04 12:56PM FROM JIM GUIDA CONS!. NOT OPPOSED Board of County Commi,,'onera: . . . After revIewing the Heritage Park development plan and related information, I am not opposed to thl. project. ~pd:~i f...~_~ 110 ~ZIGt u..... co ItfSJ-ZIOI '~ Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Information, I am not opposed to this project. Signed: k~' SCMfAS ,1I:fK"-f: <<) e.c.JZlI tWtco 'tuum ~ ~ @ -. , . I :. J PQ2 06-14-04 12:56PM FR~M JIM GUIDA CONST. POE NOT OPPOSED Board of County Commissioners: ..' After revIewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Information, I am not OPPosed to this project. Slgned~~ ;r.~~ l.Au:rU'Y~ 'V.'1!Ill.ftN . 1111....,... J4W6tJJCHJI11Uf14 ~~ ""cn"'a~"a D Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and refated Information. I am not opposed to this project. Signed: ~ ~ .A- f'1l6r. lZJ:.~lDI" ~",. JIJ16-lSJ4 ~ "'".HI,IHaoe @ 06-:4-04 12:56FM FReM'JIM GUIDA CONST. POS NOT OPPOSED Board of County Commissioners: ~.. .,~,c!'_.. Aft.r r.vl.wlng the Heritage Park development plan !~.~- related Information. I am not opposed to this project,. MJ 6~7 Signed: ~ . '., ""J:.1fI'U f/O"OIC"13I ......CO'l..n' ~ NIID"IOa"GOD ..:" BOJrd of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related information. I am not opposed to this project. ~~ Signed: o.-..~ 10 Ie 7!24 A_ co IIf1D.nU .~ ............ @ - 06-14-04 12:56PM FROM JIM GUIDA CONST. , PG3 NOT OPPOSED Board of 'County Commissioners: - , After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Information, I am not opposed to ,thIs project. Signed: ~~M ....la...~."cHa.. Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the .rltage Park development plan and relatea InT am not 0 sed to this project. ~~ "'IG~'OI"OOO @ 06-14-04 12:56?M FRCM JIM GUIDA CONST. P/'l4 . \; NOT OPPOSED Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Information, I am not opposed to this project. " ---... S~ed:~ .Uh11- (.iJ. fIAJ ?J) ~C-- t'OlktlG1 .A- co 'ZGtUJSOI ~I~"" ....O".O&"""if'"Ie Board of County Commissioners: After reviewing the Heritage Park development plan and related Inforrnallon, I am not opposed to this project. - - ) . Signed: . . ,...... 10_101 .AfIf1II co ,1GNlDl ~~ "'110.'0""001 @ Q6-14-04 12:56PM FROM JIM GUIDA CONS!. PO: OPPOSED "'-. """'.tWur fO~101 ~CO'/IJUJDl ~ "'IG"loa"OOD 1'-.. .... ~~ County CommiSSioners: . . , . A':": J~v~ewlng the Heritage Park development plan and re a e n ormation, '--........... thIs prorect' ~~y~ . ' . Signed: _ _ tJlJj~ l l) .... "" tl'" !J.vI f! Y . · m__f421 It./I {J 'fWCO'IU'-IOl1 (fv ~ €l Mr. Tome Stone, Chairman Mr. Michael Gallagher Mr. Am Menconi Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 RECEIVE .FR May 6, 2004 JUN 1 4 2004 Eagle County Community Development Dear Commissioners, As an Eagle County resident and developer I am writing to express my opinion and concerns regarding Heritage Park. . It is my understanding that the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development confonns to the Eagle County Master Plan and recently adopted Edwards Community Plan. Additionally, I understand the development received Staff Approval from the Eagle County Planning Department and received Sketch Plan Approval from the Eagle County Planning Commission. Our county government and local communities have spent exhaustive resources to outline future growth parameters for Edwards. As a resident of Edwards, I feel it is now important that future growth follows the established vision and goals of the Community Plan. In my opinion any decision other than approval of this application would be in direct conflict with that plan. I place trust in the established rules, guidelines, approval processes, and the individuals that administer them. Denial of this application would certainly send a troubling message to those who created, support and uphold the Master Plan of Eagle County and Edwards. I trust you will uphold our county plans and processes by approving the Heritage Park Planned Unit Development application. Thank you for your consideration. ~~ RECEIVED J:JN j 4 2004 dy Wallace, CEO Frontier Communities, LLC ~ Eagle Board of County Commissioners m.uling p.o. Box 653. Edwards. co 81632 .hipping 20 EagI~ Ro.d, Building #1, Avon, CO 81620 phanr 970.845.8300 (ax 970.845.8001 ww\\.frontler-commllllitia.com Commissioner Menconi Commissioner Stone Commissioner Gallagbcr P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 ~~I :--"-,. r ~- -"-' i ~O~ ;=..~~ j I~~ I .j-----.. I i---'-' L-. __._..._..___ I ! iR~Q June 4, 2004 Dear Commissionen: Sometimes it's hard to remember that development isn't just about houses, density, ttaftic, and views. It's about planning for the people who want to live here, and aating a vision that benefits all. I'm not sure who decides what is right or what is to be taken seriously, but it was my understanding that this was, and is, the purpose of Master Plans and Community Plans. How can we guide our future when these very documents arc subject to the whims of whoever thinks difFerendy? I'm an advocate for the environment and love open space. It is stupid to think growth will stop or that we can "zone away the people. If we truly want to protect the things that arc most important to us, we need to stan making smart decisions with our land. In-fill development is such a critical component to smarr land use decisions. What better place to give appropriate density than to a parcel that is dose to the center of the community. What better way to help reduce the presaure of sprawl and our daily dependency on vehides? What better way to provide for growth and benefit to the entire community? Please make the right decision and approve Heritage Park. Sincerely, Craig and Jessica Kiskcr 31 Rowel Drive Edwards Co. 81632 926-0624 ReceIVED JUN 1 4 2004 Eagle County CommunIty Development RECEIVED JUN f 4 2004 Eagle Board of County Commissioners ~ '.'t'., .. . .,' . '" ":i ,J :.~~.. :"J~ ... ' :.' .~~. OJ" '.":. ~. : ~ : ~ ' : '". of :"'.: ~' r'I'.'::: !'':. . !:'.. .. f~>> : "\., '~ ' """I( ~'.:I . ~~;' .;.:, ',; . r.~, ,: . ;.1' ':l "j- .' .~ ..... . -:1 -"I , T: David' Jeannine Despeaux PO lox 1331, Edwardl, Colando 11632 470 Homestead Drlve.s, Edwardl, Colorado 11632 r"'-""C",--" ..--.,......: I . ',/'). I ' 1./ - ':::'- ' i .,-,..LQ~ I - I ~ ,. . ._-"---~ ~ i~~ RECE --.- .f.:jt.~. IVED -'''''' ;-..-.------.~ June 10, 2004 EqIe County Commilliooen PO Box "0 500 BroIdway Baal, Colorado 11631 Fax: (970) 328-1629 8e: .,pert ..... Heritaae Park Dear CommiulOftlJ'l GaUIper. Stone. and Meneoai: 1__. ......-...-. JUN 1 4 2004 .-.......... Eagle County. _'___..._ '. "_. .. Community Development _ 'ii::'(;:.~~ -:.' M rllidentllftd homeownen ill HOIMIteId IUbdiviIion. my wile ancIllUpport the propoMd HeritIp Park development. IDftU development withia the Edward. CXHIII!IUDity center It COIIIiItent with the EI8I' County Muter PIa and the Edwardl Ar. Community Plan. and it illimply . aoocI idea to utilize inflll parcel.. The Edward. Area Community PIa, which was prepared by I'IIideatI oftbe Bdw..... ..... indlldiDl Homeateld, calli for betweOD 2 aad 2.5 units per .. OIllhialpeClSc parcel. Mr. Guida propoM12.1 unitt per acre. the low end of the '''JPIlId density raup. We undataacI that Mr. Guida bu attempted to work with the IIomtItIId Owner'. Auoei&tiOll, whicb Wou1cI brina HerItIp PIrk unci<< the umbrella of the dub. open apace llllintenlnce. Ifchiteclurll auidellnet. IIId the HomeIteId daip-revIew proceu. It wiD be f'air impIementatiOD or public policy. it will reII*1 the recommendation. otthe EIa1e County Muter Plan IRd the Edward. Area Conmanity PIa, IDd it will therefore fIIptICt iDdividual property riahta In proper balance with the public sood. for the commltlionen to IppI'OVe Heritap Park. You IDlY be aware that my enaineerina firm bu provided seMcea for the Heritlp Park developmeat, but In thillett... we are apeaIdDa Itrlcdy II reaiclent.1IIcI homeowners in Homettead Iftd II citimu ofEasJe County. We ltfonSIy IUpport Hen. 'ark becau.. it ,"peets the Baal' County Mat. PIa and the EdwardI ArIa CoIIIDIMy Plan. Sincerely, ~~ ,.~~ ' '::>!:' ~ DividD- Jeanni De.paux f"-- - ~,r- Homettead Homeownen . RECEIVED JUN 1 4 ~. ")04 @ Eag'e Board '::~ County Cc.~, '-E: 'r..,.s -: RTP I Resort Technology Partners FAX ~OE. po RJJlAtt;B I'Nm: ~~ Fa: '321~-ll g!5 - ~l~~ ....., cc: 8rDakIIde CenW T t70 477 4tOD C ligInt 0...... __ c ......~ 87347H1ghwayI,.'10 F 870 477 4140 CFarRNlw 0......___ P.O.8ClDc8880 " 170 477 4820 Avan, CO'112O G H(Jr<..~ PA~-e.5 ~F p~nT?~azs (Cf.'2- 'Ble,fJAltJR-E:..3J 1i--VAtV ks) -to ReceIveD JUN 1 4 2004 Eagle County Community Development . Onffne. On Location. @ Mada 9, 2004 P.lUIUON TO BAGLI C01JNTY COMMIISlONBU . 8'1JJ1DCTaIlElllrAGE PARK DBVELOPMJ:NT .... .... Coaay ,.............: We, *' 1UUlenIped, are r-f..... ad pr... '1 ...... ---...,orated EdnnII. AI........ ddIIaI, we ....., .. ,.. fa ..., .., ~ ."...,... tor IIriIp ....... U pr........ ftI...,.. II .... for & , ..................... ha I"IIDU'C8 or............ Ie ........ ......... .....24 ......... TIdIpnpercr........,lh.cftd ~ ..1t'........IIriIpPark.........u.d.......op....,. "........q....,....,.n,...... a4daelleJultead OnmAa............Oftr&................. .,.. .....,.. ...... fir _II11II.._..,.... npport. 11uI__..,.....,....... elM CD" ......, I~ Ift-. ".aaotRJlPOl'lU)'-.........6at....re6aU ndd__. n.............collflntlf tD ....... pro..... 24~.. TBIS II tJNA.Ct ~ABLII:I. w. .....,.. CD ..... Ie ,....... Coaay ....." e>>-....n AND JHI' eoudaa.........,:a.ttaae Park . ,...,...... ADDR1B8 SIGNATVU '_.JJ. ~ ~.__ '_ ~.~ .lit... -'&..#/ ,,~ ~~.--- ~~fi'~ ~'ua tF60 ~ -:I::7 ~~ ~~A~ ~I/ ~ ~I 0--'1 r./ ~ 1 LJII'~ +/. U .... D...h I 1. ~, -~1I'l ~jO!!u,rir:i-~riA1 :IFf? '~~J~-~'~,""~.I--J 6(0 ~~,~. ,,/71 L / r I.~(;?).-&d.:~ ~~.J ~ ~--I lqu. (~IJ ~ ~'La..J l"fx-t ~1..A. _ ~Jt irsl-h "t"o! "': -- ~A. ~\L ~ \,r' n.. .r-n'(--- _r1 ~ 1:) n ..T T "..III.J~ J ro. "'" , (o~&,q"i/4~rCLlI lW _ r;"'" t I I.. A~ - I~/~ t:..- 1& ~ ( ~_ .1J,.1': J-. I'~~~.l loS ~L (L..l. -'~S-~A-S . r?;,,,:; U~;". It,u~ !Is ~t"~... ... /L,h'/ ~L J 1) , ' ~f 4./ J 1.2 ~tI~J .:.r~1 J /t~~ 71-- ('~fI..,__ r'/h ,. L rJ V ~ro- ~~ t\ I( l1\\. ; t\~ (~~ T,WJ ~ \..~ \QI'lL .- ':.. /; I ~ltj, I ~ 1JfI)'-- . ~ (J ~f}A ~~" - r 'uAlJ'7 ~m'L (\~. '''IJJ ~, ~;l~ 'rlt> P. . f", .vJ1", ~ J~,:.~ ,. . ~/li~ M.:f....l...._. ..LAu Rg()~""",j~.. '.M" I~ ~~. ~)~"::Z".I..L ,:, ' ~{ v, , V U ' . NAMB a ~ ~,,~~ ~ ~!~J' J),l^~ VIl\ll~CtUja ~J}h ~...~A~A ~ {,~ f. L,-.~/v7 ~/rr..,.":" .p .LY-\. ~~ltJl~ ~ 4~ r .- -U&- \ ~ ~-'1 ':211. J?1fJJ J')ln~~ L-uvllJ l~lA r J,// T,/~ ,t . Mmrh J. 2004 ."-IUION TO EAGLE COUNTY COMMIISIOlUBB 1tJBDCT, BD1TAGE PAU DEVEl.OPM:INT DIII'.... CoutJ' c.--~...: We. tile ............ .. ......... ad ,NpeI1J ..... fa uIacorpanted BdwanI& At............... w. ...~ ...,.. .. .., .., tartUr.......... ......, II..... II ......... De......,. II .... lor a ......... -.... u......,............ _ ....... .. ftIItI..tIaI......... ...... 24 ,...,... . TldlpI'OpIIiJ.....,...,........... ..w..............PlI'k.......................op,.... tawa......o.............................. OwunAiMdafIo..npr.'.tr.Oftr.................. .,.......,........ tw ..........,....1It ad 1IppOrt. TIle ~.. ...caw, d.... .. ......, .~ uc.... .......RppOdIllJ-................ U~ TIle ....,.........ce...... to ....... ,........:u ...At_CII. T.BIS IS tJNACCl:PTAIL2f W...... fOIl fa IIItea .. JIB':IIaIe ~ 1'1--, 0......... AND,... COIIINP'_..ad _ &.lap Park . prop..e... , . MIrcIl'.2004 fV'\ \ ~Y\ ,e...\ .~ Q. \ \~~ ",,~ ..., I'RrmlINTO aAGUC comI'1Y COMMIISI01'IBII JLo.~ k t 1lV. ,,~~. , I IUlUECl'z BDlTAGZPAJlKDBVELOPMDIT \ ..J ....1Cqle c..ty Ct...........: , \ c) ~ . "S""T 0 t"I"~ , 0-.1(" f'I'. ~ -L IV c... ~ IV' We, dI. ........... are ....11 ... JlIpII"tJ ...... ....eorponted IdnrdL AI...... ~.. we ....", ... ,.. .. .., .., ....... appnnII for ...... Part, .. "..... fte""'" It ..... fer . ~..... ...... fna rIIft1'Ca Dr _......... tI rIIIIdedaI........ "MIait)' or U fllldfHIIII .... . 11IIIpropertJ.... __.............. ........~IL._....k......................op,.... 1roaI.....JohdaIPropll1J.........dleJJ-.._Ona~I'tpI'.....Ltt-I.................- .,.. ......... ...,... ........1...,. ad ..,pon. TU ......It)'.. ...,. ~ ....... ....., ......... MCH" w.....lllppol1D7...................12.......... n........._ _..tbmII te ..... aJl pro,... 24 red4a_. TBIB 1I1JNACCEPl'.4 '8lZI . W. .....,.. to IIItID tD,......... c--tJ......... 0-.... AND,...""""'aad dear IIdIp IUk . .-.,...& \ \ UmIa '.2004 \ ~J \ ' f"I&&I~TO BAGU: COtJNTY COJIUQI8[~ IIJJIDC'n IlDUTAGlPARKDDm.ona:Nr C D.r.... Caatt c...lle . -.-. W., .. ....~ ............ ... ,...,."........ fa ....~.... ...... Aa T~.,.... '-"1&.. WI .~ .... ,.. .. ..., .., ..... .......... ,.. .... ... . Jl41J .... 'De ....... II ...... fir . ......... ............,.... ..........~ ..,...... ...",.. "-.... J4 r-U~... . . TMI,...,...,....................... ...tt..........JL......Pat...........IIIII........JlI.~ ............,...v..........--..Ow_.A_~....r...............,..,rrr ,..... n.......,........,.. ~--dtJ..... ...~ .,.. ....._It).... ..,........... ....... I 'I:I:~ . ..,.--... ........D7...,..tht..........UNl..~7tL 11Ie............. --tt"'lI(. ,...... - pro...... 24 r-I._~ TBIS JllJllU~rAm.BI . w..... JR .. .... .. J'IIII'....,............... n....... .~. AND,.... ~ ........ ad..., .......I'd . fIllIP"'. . NAMB IIGIfATIIRB ,... ~2. I MImb '. 2004 Ru"nON TO 1tAGI.Z COtJNTY COMNISltOJrmRS . SUBDCTslIDITAGB PARK DEVELOI'MI:NT D.r laP c..tr CO-........r W., tie ............ .. ndd..ad pup. e, ..... Ja -"corpolate4 J:dwvdI. AI....... ...._ WI .... ...,.. fa .., ..,....... ....... lor ~ Pan. .. prDll..... 'ftt.-.,.. II ..... ,.. . .-....1..............,..,..... ......"".................... 1._.. Z4 rtIIrJ- TIIIIpnpll't)'''' ......,......,.. --_ .eelt'.......Btrttaphlt... ....................1ppOIICIn rna.IAIJ....'N...awun.........d OnInAaoddoa,npI.....D1W................... n.......... ... .... fer ........ltJ.... ad ..,pon. TIIa co---..,... ..,. ........ fa..........,. ......, &C( T .........."ort..,...........tkt.. ..re.... 12 1'IIIda-. TIle ........ ad........ ualuUt.. propolJag 24 .......... 'l'Bll1I1JMACCIPl'~t . w....,.. to ..... to,... BI&Ie c..., ......~I Co............ AND JD1II" lDIIJIIftIafI ad _...... Park .pnpoted. NAMB :r c.. f"lo,.'. ~-!:- ADDRDS 5la 'o\d. SlGNATVU MaIoIa ,. 2004 f'51U:ION'TO EAGLE comrrY COMMISSIO~ .iUBDcT: BDlTAG& PAIlKDEVELOftIINI' .... ~ CeatJ c.---....: We, tIae ............ arelllldfllU .. JII'IlMI1J""". .......... EdnrdI. AI...... ..... WI ......." ... ,.. to ..., .., fartltr IIppI'OftII far ....... rut, u p...p.... ne...... II __ 18r a abICIIaGIl..~r.....traa 1'tIOUU.... .......... .1'IIIdeaCIaI....... d-..1tJ or 24"""'_.., 'RII"..............,Ihnhwl..., ..1t'.~.......Park.............lUClludop...... ,.,....adJ....propertJ..........~O"'.Auo~.npr.I...OYII'.............. ..........,.. ...... tor .......19.... ad ..,port. n. .1It.....,.. alwaJIltIdId, dato tMlI'ftnIJ ........ __~ w.auatnpport..,..,.,....aau.._re....12 ~ ".................... to I8IIt oa pJ'OlMlllDl J4 ,......... THIS IS tJNAl..UIirl'ABLKI . w. .....,.. to .... to JOIII'..... c...,. ........ eo....... AND ,... CDJIIIIItaatIa4..., IIII'ItIp laI'k ...op.... ...... ....... -....... "'-..,;,& p..1 /)1ol7day rne- I~r-A_ /fH.77.'~oe ~;11~ X'e": 9"/a:s'; nor; zt, /ld'/~ ~K ~vdr/'7&7t- ~ -h1Iotr'rJy fa eV;t:1t4er- )~ .#L9n::dhnzs h&~of ~~_ r;;w~ r.rv-~ h ~~ /'arK bevl!'"~~ Ci/lK f/~ ~ 'y?'a/' ~i:tttY;t /0/1 I . RECEIVED JUN 1 4 200~ Eagle County Community Development ~ "..,,., 13 04 01r08" --- ---- -. - - -- . "'--..- iJ ....'.2OCN ran101fl'O~COUNnr~ ~1IIarr4~'AItk~ ......... c..., ~- l Tr..... ..... .....~ ~........ .... ....~..l)' -. ~ -, J._....... AI ....._ ........ WI .,. - ,.. .. .., .. ...... -..... ...... - r.tr,;.. ""'1_'" ... ..r ......... .. I ....-. ... ---...... .... .....-...... .... ....1 .. ~I'-......, or If..... 'o.. .......-%..-..........- ........... '-.......r.t..._.......--..,..... _ ................... "'-........ ''''-o.......~......... - "_"'" '..... ~fl... no.. 4- .........." ...,......_.. "-,, _ I~ .......-. ......_.., .....-...-,.................II_...U-~ _ "-..... lor" ........._ II..... ....... .... .. Z4~..Jl..,--.. 1111111 ~AILII . . "" -,....... ..-.....c....,. - '..^'- I .....----.., _ ....,.......r.t. -nU'& @ ,..... P.1 ".. From: John Tedstrom [tedstrom@centurytel.netJ Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 9:02 PM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: Heritage Park OPPosition Mr. Forinash _ I am not going to be able to attend the meeting this week on Heritage Park because I will be out of town on business. I wanted to reiterate Our oPposition to the development as planned because it will create too much additional traffic, especially on Homestead Drive, which will immediately impact the quality of my families' life. The planned development also sets a precedent for future developments with access through Homestead. I urge you to listen to your constituents and vote against the development as planned. Thank you. Sincerely, John Tedstrom 926-0935 Q From: mclaymon@vail.net Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:56 PM To: Joseph Forinash Subject: FW: Original Message: From: rdeclark@comcast.net Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:46:08 +0000 To: mclaymon@vai1.net Subject: Mi ke, Sorry I am out of town and can not make the Heritage Park Hearing. Please let the County Commissioners know my feelings on this file. I feel that 11 or 12 units would be appropriate for this site and that the Homestead owners have been very open minded allowing that number of units. Otherwise the site is zoned for 1 unit and that the commissioners should only allow the 1 unit if the developer can't live with 11 or 12 units. Thank you, Richard De Clark -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . @ " Dear Commissioner Gallagher, This envelope contains critical information in opposition of the proposed Heritage Park development. We wanted you to have an advanced copy. If at all possible, please read this material before the preliminary plan and zone change hearing scheduled for Tuesday, June I S at 9:00am. We would very much appreciate it if you would please keep this infonnation confidential until the hearing. Thank you for your time and consideration, Michael Clayman Scott Wirth RECEIVED JUN 14 2004 Eagle County Community Development @ en c: o en CO CD 0:: 0)0 c:1- .- - - CD a. E o U CD C) c: c: CO CO - ..c c.. U ~ g> ~ CD .- -c .- ..c c: c: E ...... o <C :.:: ""0 N CD~ Q) ~ ..c c.. ...., 0 ~ ::J 55 c.. o ......, C CD E a. o - CD -c > CD CD 000 o~ a..... o CO c::c.. CD 0) CO +-' .- I.- CD :c @ ~ ~ o N .. It) ..- CD c: ::J ..., .. .s:: 1:: ~ 8 C/J " c: C'O c: o E ~ C'O (3 CD co ..c: u .- ~ . ~ .0 ! co 0. ~ a. 0)...... c: 0) -2 ~ o c: NO) <( 0) ....CD 01- LLO jgz c: 0) ~ ~ ~J: -- CD :JO) .0- 0) c: o:::ca .r:. O)t) .r:. I- . . ..... c: Q) E e. o G) > Q) "0 "0 Q) o o e. e Q. Q) .r:. ...- C'\I UJ (I) E ::1 UJ UJ CO "0 .! o (I) C) 0) ::1 t(J ~ -- UJ C Q) "0 Q) .c I- - T- L.~ S"2 o 0 CO E_!Q Q) ~ =Q) .c::5 .., -- "C ~ c: "'CO c:: 0 SUJ o CD -- (,) o (,) 6 co (,)'0 ....UJ 0..... z _5 UJ 0 -0. - - -i en Q)'E -cu .g ~ O.c: c..... Q) c: =~ <(It: c__ o c: C) u-- EUJ gi ~8. """0 -c: o CO Q) ..' UJ'" ::1 c: CD C-U .- IE "0 CD c: C ::1._ ga)' ::1n; 00 .r:.C: "'::1 -i _!Q Q) 0 :QUJ "- Q) .....u tau E CO 8~ ...-1- O. Z{ en-c - ....., ~ co "O~ (1).2 C-c 0_ NO .2)0 -- "C C c: :::Jm o~ 8.2 c: 0 asS "..... CQ) .5~ as as c: E as Q) ~:5 as c CD 0 ... Q) ~ .cQ) ....~ ."0 "0_ Q) 0 CD 0 . c~~ .- C -c CQ)e. ::1UO') E ~ c: E0:i2 o Q) 0 UECU =OCD !EJ:=:i .2+oic: ....=CU O~.c .c....., Z.....rn en 0 rn CDC:~ 0"5.., C.c..Q L. -- CD .. .r:. UJ . .., == ~ ~ o CD .c CUo ~'" "0"0 ~ ~ -=-c as c: ~,::J . l:.c.c: CO ~.Q) 0.Q.c: CD c: 0 -c 0 0 0>:;::;..... 1:: -- '" CO ~-_ (.) Q. 13 IS Q. CO" mOe. ~L.E ..... -- Q)-- L. _ o ~ ca -~ -- ::J as c: UJ :E ~_> · 0 Q) U)~.c e",1- Sea. c.c: UJ -- (.) ! (.):: ... ._.Q -' - ..... .Q::1ca ::1c.c: 0') Q)-- Q).c UJ 5...-"C C c: "- ~ cu .....- u) OU~ ZCOQ) 0.= !!l~.!e N I..- Q) ...., en co ~ Q) .c I- .c ....... ~c ...., co c:- Q)Cl. ...., en -en c o t) I- o Z (/) - ~ mm 0- m,^ o ~ V~ CD 0) <C Cts .s::. C 8. tI) co...., o_ M >~ c: CD ... Q) t;"t:~OOtl).c CDQ)m=Ctl)~ Co Q. ~ .men 0- fj 0_ Cl)e~::J uti) :c c.w C>> en m ~ ......tI)CDeU)....."C i~=~~~~ ~ '- ~ C c:s 0_ ...., m2c::Jcuotl) ~~Cts8oc.Cts Co~. C ~ _ >< .- CD tJ) - CDtI)CO~~~~ C-+::iC_;:> tJ) CD 0.. 0_ C CD~~ '-.c 8.0 en CD~ aCts ..c CD 1i.) ~ N C .. E t: ctJ "0 CD'S; ~ CD .:!: CD.: is.!'! E .... ~ c: ::l =.... . '-1# .....- r:r co ~ CD 5'E c: E e "0 CD 10 00 co ::J CD CD ~ oc en CD 0 CD en...., .s::. Co Oe- .s::. (.) -c 6 i ... 0 C CD .- s.;. ~ ~ e co - CI) as O)..c Co C>>co_ c. 8c.m~::JC:-oco W O)CDs... C)~CD5CDCDeno cco ~~.cCDC 0- c:5 0.. CD "" a"" C 0_ ,^ c: e ~ V~ Cts C).- co = .Q ~ ~.s::. ::J-c Q.CD-oCI-CD""CD -~CD::J (J~"" co Co... E . C 0_ 0 '-CDCO ""COUJc. CD (J E.- 0- c:: 0 >==So~mQ)~ Q)... c:: () JJ > "C c- en cuo_ @ ('t) ~:2 .us os C.c CDO -0...., Q)...., .s::. .s::.. ......0) oc .s ....as .cCD 0)> 01: as CD.c .c~ ....CD CD.c . >1-0) co C .c .-2 I-~O QQ)N Z a'" aC ""::J~ CD""... .gc5 ....mCD ca..s::. CD ... e'-c So g.",,-o -coCD gz::E UJ CD~ctI -oc.Q "C::::J:t::: CDOC:: "" U ::J OCDe>> 0._ C o 0)= '-ca- ~w~ -- Q)"C ~=~ en Q) Q) _ CJ) .0:::) .- +-' mC) 0.'.5 E-O o C U::::J e I- L- a :J. zen . .c. (f)+-, - .- s 0- cO CD -- c: '0-- en lU c~ CD ~~c 5Jg E-c-cCC CD E: Q. .co "0 :; olJ 0 ::J "'0 CD 0 I" ca U) ~ _: ~..." =c' CD 0 CD "C UJ ca.c Q. ..... c ~ Q) I- U) CD -- a UJ -- CUCDEca=o -:5 5.cS Q.~ ~o ..v (I) Q) -= -- =>iCDUJCc "" ,.. _ t/) CD C CD ~ .." - ......... E ca"D ... .c <c ..... -, .... o '~0Q.::J" e:2 CD ~:I: ....0 . :::::I .c ", o. .. . L..O"'L&..cOQ) J2 ~. L.. __ C) c..c ;>O--::J ...., ii CD.~.O ~ i ."0 o-~o"'.2 m CD' C"'c ""'0.0 CD UJ CD CD -- ...., 1:UJ"C~.o-Co -- Q) ca ca U) _s. 'c . UJ 8 CD....I U) ~~ ~ ca 0, E 2ra:s ;>Q)CDO(.)Eo CD.c E.:= CO -- .c: u .... 0 in ~ U) U) ... e,jJ: UJ - UJ UJ ca~ 0 Q) C:'C-c Q.q;;.....(.)ooo c: ~ "C (.) CD 0 0 Q)....CDCU.c:€€ =.........,CD....OO <c 0 (.).c C).Q.Q .cCD....c:.t:.c: CD 1: c:...., -- C) C) .c: 0 c: Co ~ -- -- :: ~ 0 CD-p- CD CD -;>(.)~..L.c:c: ..... o - ',.. -c ........ cu CD.!! s ~< E~ ~ -C:::JoE ~OC:~ ;; ::>0 c:i~.!J: as .... +:i U c: CJ ca r'ft I;. -- q:: "" ~Ito_...., -2 ~:a(.) CD a(.)ccG) -- CD ::J CD-= UJ.Q 8= UJ . as-c <( CD CD -......... .."0 ::> :::I.:::::' UJ -- as 0 Q.-c U) .c: ~. E s;;.....r ... -- e UJ "'CcuUJ;> CD as~ ~....= .!+:i.QCDCU . tb.(.) "O.c E CD IS CD '0 en E~ocQ) 0.....55-:5 :I:CD"O ....., c: :5 -- CIJ ::J -- ~ (D.Q -m fi CD ~ US CD5.QU)Q) b u c CD-ti) UJ IE co UJ ::J CDnsUCD.Q "'CJ J:i _~:; Q) -- .J:. 0,o.J:.c:..... L.. J- 0 CD ~~~~8E O~eE = 0 -- 0 CD <C>U.t:.Q @ . '0 6 E :w ~::J CJC\'J-- Q)~_E ~~E s~o c: 'I'" "C __ VI c: .c::Jo 1:.0 0 oCUeu CQ)L.. CDES = 8 >.....; .. CD ~ C\1 b ;>.c -- ~ CD'" -- ... C\1 :: _::: 0 G)~L.;"" .... . '"C-o C\1~C\1CD UJ -c C) c: CDc &:: C) E -- -us 8iB~ CD s ~...., '.QUJ~o oQ).;>&:: IS E cD~ mOcL.. J:iJ:o~ .....,o.r:.- o c::t::: 0 CD cu ~_~ ECDC~ :::::1-0 - e-- - 0-- t) >< >t) CD~ -~ C ~ EO. J::CDCD .....-.....0 -c: ~ <( -- (.) C- eo ~ ...... eo - a. - Q) (.) L- eo a. t: Q) - - <C en -- - - o J: &t) @ . C- eo ~ ....... eo - o..c -- Q)"'C ~ Q) eo E 0..0 c: 0 Q)N - - <( en -- - - o J: co @ CJ) Q) Q) en :5:::J -- 1ii~ 0.,__ E- -C o 5 () 0 r-t:: O:J ZOO CI)= -~ . - - -i CD - e (3' c CD - ;( c: o (J IE m ... . +JQ) CDo. .J: - c: I-+J E Q).. · 0, .r::. CD CD en ... ..... _ _ -. ""..c ~o ~ en c: CDe en C).s __ u:: .- 0 CD CD ~ c:: 0 q;; o5J=,gE_eoc::g c:: cb <( 0 == ..c II::: CD C) ~'nON..c ~::.!!=<( c: <T ~_....."" :;:; -:::; c ~ cu c -~ 'E 't-o en .. 0 O.c c CD ....::1 _-x CD -- 0 E "'C ..... c: ~ N ~ '0 +:l Q. >''0 0 CD >.U)g,m~o:Oc:::e~ CUCU..c~CUQ)SCUo_ '0 U)~ CI) >.Qm Q.C) ~ c:: 0'- "it CD ~ c:: Q)t..- 0 C CD N "C 0 t) .c = .- - ~ Q. > "0 CD ~ CD .~ -g f! 0 .t: CD c:: ..c '- ..c ..c ~ ~ c:: _ C::ll-Ol-..... - ...... @ en <J) ~ - .c::J -- +-'0) co c c. __ E-c o c: Os r-t: O::J zen 00:5 - -- S co ... 0 Q)0 en 0 Q) "C Q) .- · .r::. ._~ ..... ~ .... ~ .- E U .~ 0 ... .a co Q) L.. 0... .~ .... .r:. ..... .- C) 0 CO U ..... Q) ..... 0.1;. cnCO:1:5Q) .- Q) 0 Q) g .!a c: ~~:2 0= ! O;;:a. Q) ... ... ..... "C c:Q)CO =5C:CD~.c .r::.....COa,;;.:t:i..... U Q).c '"C 0 C) L..c:....="Cc: :1 0 .- .c C:.- · O~~UCO~UJ 'to- t..- ..... 0 Q) O Q) ~.- CD.c UJ >-Q)a,;;.UJ~ ~CD~=~ "0) ~ CD -;;; C) C'".~ c: - ~ v, c: 0.c .- ~ CD CD .- ... ..... "C v, .r::. > == CD c: CD :::...- CD :::s .., ~ ;::....-OCOO S""'"CQ)""":.C:E o i ~ m ~.E ~ e.= 0.0~:: UJ ca02lDUCDQ) L;, ..., '" 0 - .c ~ CD a. ~ .,.. = ..... .... .- ..... .... ~ .c O~ .0~ ..., C'" c: ..., co U-- Q)II'IQ)C:~U::~ E ,,, ~ CD 0. ~ Q) :1 0'"C = ..~- - .- = ,,, en ~ .a o Q) .c a. L.;, +:J >-U Q)Q)CO ~... .0:5 0. 0._._ CIJ 0 E -- CD .... C) :;U.r::.Q)Uc:O .r::. c: ..., 0. 0 :: U ..., CD '"C "'C "'C c...., -- = c: c: c: .C: 0 ~<(COCOCOf-c: @ -c Q) Q) z ~ ..... -- c: :J E E o t) CD . en ~"'C. CDS l)COc ...c ,c -= S CD ~ ,,, en E Q)O.s5CDECD"", .c: ~ ~ ~.- E .... .....Q)1:::>co>< 0 ~C)C)U)eneoC6 .c co.e =2 ~ Co:!: > "C Co CD ::] e: Co e: ~ ::] <C.- ~ ~Q):5o ~en CO CD 0 0 ..-._ "",rn,cooen::].c .... ......... ~ .. ~ we .c ..... ~ S ~ ~ '('I) ~ CD L. Q.e:"'C~ ~~..Q~ .~ ~ ~ ~s"'C.si ~~ 0 CD CO W .., CD 10 CO N.c: E.5-6,e: e: Q. ~.... .x .., .E: ~ <C CD"'C · 0 = ._ "" as ~ ::] CD e: ~..... eD +,.. a..Q,c ::] c: CJ) ~ e: Co .., E ::> - 10 ::] <C CD..t: . C!) 0 ..Q+3E ~""O ~ U · o.i 0 =e:asCD~:::""OO Dc co tJ) a Q..c Q) 0 ~""'~caOC)e:e: C e: c W !.e 0 en CD::] .... CD N.- ~ Eojo.c~! co Q. 0 ... 0 "'""0 CD L.OO!o.cca.c CQ)~oa6~!'" CD > ~ Q.(\,) ~;;; -= .J::. CD L. ,,, ,,, "'Cl~o~ieD:5 .s ~S g S e: m 0 "'"ca.- ca 0 => C).- E e: E N rn ::> ce: ~ ...0 .- ::].- .x ~.2.c E E ~.5 0 i ::] rn 8 E s..~ a Q) 0 .!!l o 0 a. ~ o.~ 0 ~ <CUco.ccoca~r- - - -- '+- - :J LL. I- o Z en Q) o Cl @ 0) .c: e ca.!Q ~C) e: CD.- .c e: . "'0'" CNe: .- CD CD "'C.c:E CD ... Co ...., "0 o 0.- ~::]~ tT "'C CD cn="'C ; .s .!Q .. -= .c ........, CDBL. c:~~ faCD"'C -Q.CD 0.0 Q) ~ It) c: C:'" ~ ::J co~" OeDe: u..~ ::] CD~ E all E CUC)8 We: .. -- 0 we~e: ~co(/) cu 0._ e: ~ I'" 0- ~ CD-- - -'COCD c.c: co_I- 0.- o CO · CD > ~ .c ~ CD:S CD I'WI'CO.c u.N..... en -- en ~ - co c <( ....... -- c ::) 0) c -- -. - Q) ~ o ~ I . ..If mIl ., ~ f ~ I . .ICI .. ......... tel ....... ,...... .. ............ . ;:! V (Y) ... '0 I .!<<J m! 0<( e-cn o'E ~~ :Jw - ..... .............& III o .... II , "'.;0 · . J -'; . .... ~ ! . ~ . t ,! . I . I . . I' I' ! I I: . / I . ,1 ; Ii ~ i I I J . J -c Q) Q) z ~ ....., -- c: :::J E E o U .,.. .,.. - - -- \I- - ~ en CD "^ 0 ._ '"'"" CJ ,. , - .r:. ~ C\I .i: or- CD ... N """ 0. ('1).0 Is "'CDen~"..... .g 0).- 0 CO "C "C CO= &~ CD CD c. C C\I CD CD CD .- ~ ex) c: C:CD:2~E09-~ ~.!!!, 0 m '0 .- .- en c: c: en c: CD :::s :::s .(jj ~ CO C) E E~cu""f!E Eco.r:.SCD8 OCm...> omCl)CDmo ms~~cc: "C S en ".m ~ .~ Scn'EECUlD mCDCOCD"C~ ~(ij~=o~ C ~ "C c: en .... O"'WO"Cen E~CDlDC:~ CDO:5~~.c -0 .C:~enen ..-. en .- .r:. en o CD en en c ._ ZECDCDO.c OEEE.... 0.c00 . "m~.c.r:.N CD .r::. 0 It) CD ;:: .~ ....; "'O('t)enl~C: c: ex) CD 0 .... CD B Eo9- a; .c: """ 0) E =o.c..-....c:c. 0.__ .0:;;..2 0. ~ fe CD .~._ CD COO;>C)VI_> Q)OOC~~Q) .r::.CD.r::.m-c...-c l-69-en... ::l LL I- o Z en Q) o o @ -&s """"""""""""""""", ~ liPiPN8~IPIIIGI.~~~al~ftIPI~~GPP~lftl ,t: . .. . ~ . ~... ... .~..~. . "A. P N i~ ~ I 111!lllliIII1888888888a888811888!88 i .'I~G~.3~f:B~gg.8og0NO~.i.g.G8G.iio ~ ~. ~ P P ~N ~ ft NN ft N " ~ ~lli~~ 1~1~~I~~~lli~~ ~1~~.:i~l~ ;I . . ...... ... ... ... .. I 8111111111811811111111!111111111111 . Eii!!~I~!(I!llil!~!liil!fEI!t5iIElt en J . ... ... . .. ... ... ... .. ~l ~~~~~l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~~l~l~~~~~~~ -- en S 8 J=.il=.II=.llalli.2111.a~~II.~i!~G' ~~ ~~I~~pl~ p il~118.~~1 ~I ~I~ ~ .. .. ..~ . ~.. . .... . ... s . . - s 1=1:~!N~':I!I!iS'ia~s~R~~~I~~.aI18~ ! CO I U P ~ P N. ~. ~PNpNpp ..~ ~. c: s <( ! IIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII , I ~ Q) " ~~~~~ ~ ~ PPPPPP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~p~~pg ...., .5 a P ppp .rp. CO l! IIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII', i- s ...., 8 I en c 8 1 W . J . P PPp S '8 888!!8!!8!!!!!!!!!!8!88f!88!88!!!!! - ~. b IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~~~~~~ CO N8 0 iii oCi co S co SOOOOCCo oc JJ~JJ~ Q) !! ww wwwwww wwwww wwww~ww wwww SSw SSw c::: ~I 'f'Jil"f"",.,,"'jj)ll',.;,l)}.) 2a. I!!, s= I p p · 'P 'PSP!'S' "pp'pp' !,!!' pI 11 it. .%%i%ui i8u U%%%i.%ii%%8%8 % i% "l: oj " l!. " ,,0 """i ~ ~ ,,0 "CO~~ ~ if I 00 oi" 0 01000 " " 10"0 "oow"""o" " It, ~~w~"OZUZ~!,,~ ~ u w" 0" B,~~,,~ r; ~~,!~!,fi!iflfiiil:I:I~I~:lli~!'fif ij' > " =,>- Oi g~g zo ee 0e0 j jz gzz ~.~--B- I_.D . =~g~~:~~3~~'l'~'~:~:~l~~~~gfg~~~~g~ >r, ! ~~a " J i"O~g~~%p~.~~OGP~o..!~~~. =~I~. ~ 00 0"0 .0~N.G.GJ...~og P"~.O. .~i; 1&.( .PNPPPPPPP~...G pp~p. PPP...pp~PP P 0 Cf) ~ . 0 ~ c CD I'- ~+J .19.- .- CD s::. I .- 0 .- 0 .....-o-enc +-' 'Om 0 ccCDCen (J) ~ c. m .- co.r:. CD._ ~~~ ~ +J"'C Q) (1)0 0 i~ CDQ) i!: 5:!~~ c c: cu '- .- c~.2:5a. Q) -o~.....o c CD ~ m:t:: CD U)a;OCX) m Eo..... E 0) +-' .- ~~ .. EOC:=S c: UJ en 0 ~ ~ 0"0 8s ~.s.5i a; ~co c .- - (J 'c .... tV tV s::. CD g. ~ J: (.) cu~m~ c. ~ (Je- ... -- ~... 0 cca~c~ - ._ CU 0 ~ ... CU .... .c (J;=CU.... .- O::~~"5~ ~~~ CD ::J .J: .!:: cu"'C't:'2 ~ -0- ..... ccuS C) coCDC:~O C- .- 0 co c: . m~ CU._ N ~o:: E .- ..... .~-o~s CD -OU) Q) ~ ~'-'x CD~ s::. - .- ~ .c: ~0 ..... .J:ca~o Bs C c:o ..r::. 0);=0.... .- ~ CD Co C) '-.r:. en 0. Xc "C "'0 c..E J- .c: 0) Co CD'- S=="Co~ cu .- ~ tV ~~ J9 :I CD CD 0J: ~ Q) "0- o 10 tJ).c: ~ c: .- 0 cu ... cu~ ~ .J:CU....(J ..q-o~ca ~o. CD.....G)CDC......; - ....0"'00 - C ~... >- U) CD C\I W .~ CUCD .s = g cu....; CD J- 0.1::. .... (/) co._.c: c C6 ~ 0).- "0..... co Os:::. (J '- c '5 CD ,CD C 0 Q. (/)..... co cu.E <C "0 Co · eo 0)= o~ E.- c: c:~~ c co~ 0.0 Z o.CU 0) CDC 0> CUI: 0= 9<!) CD > 0rn 'ii).c: c: : 15 .Q co ~.c:;; CD.- t/J ....,.- ~ > ~ en E 0 .- ..... (J .l::.C) 'E co eo! 0 CD C. o (J .. CD ""'c N C:'C "0 Q) - ~~i~~ .t::. .- E ~ E 'E "'C .J:: ~c ~~ o ooc"" I-Z(,)Z~ ()~ (,) (,) co.5 cg) en -- en ~ - co c: <( ~ +-' -- CJ sl ro a. g~ co ~,j U ul ,~ ~ fl!l 'a.f co ;t ~ ju H f .t::. ~J: C) I -- .:c (!) 0 U S z "Ilt ~ .. '~,'~:'~: , .-" "". ..':' ,'," '. ... / ' ,~ ~ ClI .,..... . .....:.' , , ,. i ./ .' ' ' .::/......:.:: . .. . " " .., .. ',,' ,'''.. . .' . ", ""., .: ..; '..' :. .' /"J.:'~"" '.. '. r .'" . ::-'J! ~ .. ..-", I' ,.' ........ ....J... ,.... cr I : ._ ,.. w................. I / fl,'" ,-' ;"}~ //.;:~..........:....; ;';"'>'<"" . --, ...... .,' .........;.~.( / :,..~ .... ":..":.> .. .,',":,:/. ~~/> '.' ~" - ......... ""., //,' ',.:." ,v...,'....,.',,:.. ~'.:,,', . ..~;.' ..i-...1~~...,.:~..~..~..:,',~. /,/, I I, 1.'.:1r-,.....' ",". ........ /''/''" ...... ',I/l" . J",,! ....:. " J l '-']1.'" ,..~......:t. ....../ / " ' " .", ~ I; -.... t :r;:........~". ". ",'~~I,.,.~::.~.::...~..'~.,..,....i~.\....;.!,./, ",:. /1 &f~~;'I~f~>:...<. ~,:. <[" ,.": g.:~...~!..j,.:<~.,~:~... 12:.:; .<./Lj....:.~>.. ~).,. / )..... ". / i, ....'.. ',' .I i: /,'~ f !..~-! f.. . r r-L_.__,... ~,' .,.... / .. .... ~ \ .If __.r......~_.,..:....,._..'_ 'W' ----~-~ .~.-, --~._'~:" -;=-~~7'" :. '. /' _ _ ,L--_/ ,! ' t,.. , ( _~. l ::::;. _ /~".""" r-':}-f ~1"'" .,..~~" J i .?.....;,,' / :=!_';>;;~..~_ '..\ / /~.., '-.'( )I--;-~b'. .....~_:~; ,/ /~/l ....-"'i' , i.-:;....J.:r-:~ ~ / // ,.; '. />7/ ).., ..... ._,' , ,."!. / ,.' . '" '.., " ~ '. , .Ii /" ;,' '. , ..I>-.-;;.1!'"-1 .... \. /.... '}f I: I / ... / : ' " ',,~ .J...../ r"---:" '....:; ..1 t'/.-;. J.' _: i \ \... . '...;;"" , . -;;;,' : ,_i (...:. . ..1-' r ;--' 1-:::'--.:..__ ,. < I;!;' -, I- /J..... ......---: ,-.:::--': :. -', I. ~ 7'\ '-11" i I~ ~ If~!.5J; '\. 1..~~~1~..''':-''~l ~I '" w"''''. ,...--..-____..... .... ."" ,. .' .~ _. ._-.......,~,.._.-,"" r.-_..___ M .___ l 'II '.jj:fi:r// ?'~.," \..~~.\.\':.._.~':~. ;",//).. ~I ""I . ; ''''f;;l.::, '.,r..../,'.~\'1J,..., ,.~.....;._ . _':;:~~' . ", j . I.~ I: ,,,.'~'.''. '. .~., i. r-'. . .)< ". . .... i fI.IIJ....... ., '..1(.' ",:,,.It, \ '~'4 _-..;...-""" ".. ,-; . d ?'i fJ i i'-':,':.;:,'rl. I ~~~:.::~..:...:.?....x,;.\! ~ I '-':of -'-', ..,..~ ,,',;::.; ", "_..",,~. '(,'.".. "/ . "--': '. f..,\, I ,I.......... ... L....,: .. , .. // !f" i . ::-,:,,'f.:...T :---.._-,-;....... . ......:::::;:. '-.'. , : i I, ''J.'" ..yk.....:y: ~ . Ii .":' Il"', ",'" i ," : il !,C:::-t"::,: L,"\,,- V,-,.,. ......-1"',.... ::-"1' / 'I /:~~,S' ".i'::,\'. !./. '.' ~ :.::~:, , " . 0,.... \" .,' ~ I"'f =' "~ <~ 1"'. ... . : / . ~ --;:r '/.l ,.J.~: . ~ r.-,. '" ;1,..-".y .i:." ,.... , r:..::::Y'!:<l ,." . ~'?~_.1.~::..::~..i.._.., ~ ,. , .:;'l{' \ .~! ~ .~~ ~;t:::::....:::::::::-::::::::..--'-. ---....J..-f ,1 -;--,' Y I " " '; ","':~(.-;i.""t~.. ',:"..:::~ : :__......~..\ ", / . ~ '.1.'Z't. . ..,." ...._. ...., " I.\'\'::'~.""II." ':,/0': "':."',"y~ :_~.. ....~; '. ' ..,.--. "v 1(." '.' .., f---r:::>~'~ "-,'" ;::: _. , .....: " I ;. ,,,':~. ~:.. ,~.~.....~. ..._... ... /' I ,'.~. "..-r:.=...- .. t ' . '----'\ :-- - J .. ~ l..-.i.__. \ L_ r--.. _---==:..____.~--_ ! --'-::;:::..-:..:=--=::=::::::--=~-......, :..,.......:::~..::~::~:.~~~:-. ,. , " ": ...... ,..... 0" .......:.... -'-- ..'-...........\ \ \: i; " , , '-:-- '" .Z<~;d:~~.::~ '. ......... .......' " I lit.", . ~ .... . 'i.~~! . j , .. i ~ - I , .' @ en 0 CD cro~ cno- .r:. ll) ~.., en CQ)C: .., ~ - ,r, -- ~.~ .~ C ctJ c: .- U) ::J c: ~ 0 0 0 .- .- '- en Oc: .., - -'= m "C.- CUO-Q)O 0 ..,0). ..,- +-' U'JC'- '+- 0. Q) c: (I) o..c.- e en O.-s O.c:~ ...O....,:!: en E"'" m e ...., en .- CI) .!Q ~ C (.).- 0 Q) oS 0 ts ->< 0'" en c. "'C e "'C c. .- Q) '- =Q)"'C ~~Q)en .- c. (I) ~Q)(I) enenQ.Q) ~Ej9 .~ CI) e "'C>(I) 0Q)0> .. cu._ c: Q. +-' eCOc Co.c: Q) CO "'C;o-Eo c: as .c .., Q...... Q..C ctJ ...Q c: en U'J..... m oe .- SS::J(ij .c - ~=.c C .- CO ..92 ..... ::I..... .- 0 N C. enoenE .., (.) 0.0 en "'OCX)~O Q)::JC: ctJ c....,~ Q)~ 0 (I) E 0"(1)0- ..c , (l)c -- ~Oc == ..Q)Q. 0- .- .., -, CDe~ .- en J:"'O.cE en ..c EJ!lcu~ ~ c: ~ CD .c .- c: _CQ)en :J ~.c 6 c.c ctJ - as :>.- ~::JQ. co .. co CD .c enNcE c.. CD-cE o C).C i;. en >~-c c:..... as ~ .....c CD ~ Q) '+- Q. C ..... .- ~ .c: "'t: CD 0"'0 C ~ ...., CI) U'JNctJ .8;~ co ctJ ~ .. ctJ (.)en~~ Q) mJB= - .- 0 (.) .t::. Q).- ctJ a:e (I) C- E.- ~ >enc 0 c J- c ctJ c.- 1:) Q.BUJQ. ~::Jc) .c:CDEQ) co Q)::J 0 .- .cc U) "'0 = .~ Q) ctJ:5 UJ ..... o Q).- .- , ~ctJeetS - ~ c: I,;..c c....; :5 Co co c.:: 0 en ~ C)Q.Q.Q) .- E Co - moNe Q) c (I) en.~ ,b'.- (1).- Q. en = ~s - .- .c.- 0 ctJc:C: 0 J- t= .c I,;. C E O.E .-<(.- c LO 0 .......... Q. 0) ~ en .- o c..C C) U) Q)-cZ Q) c: 0 - .mu (t) - c.- .- Q.G)CI)= ~ Q.ll) .- .c U) C II I,;. E. 0......0 ::J 0..... en ca 0 CD ...., Z ::J::Jo::J m0~oo ctJ o..c: (6UJ en :;.E c.. .. 0. ~cQ)"'" .c~ .... '+- ~ -g "'C c.. C C).~C/) ~S S CD ~~ 0)(;) e.- en ._ ctJ ffi 0.2 .So~ CDC co.r:. CD.., )(1:) C~ >.- - ~....... =.....UJc , cCUc e (I) ~:8 8 co E.- 0 o.~ .....- ~.- 0..0' co +:3 0. E(I)S..... CD 15 ::SCDOO ~ .....c: (I) 0. -'=00 .c::J O.c..,c c.c.c.o <(........z f-Q. ijJ ...... en ~ CD ...... c:: - CJ -- - ..c :J C- O) .t::. l- e: - I- o z (JJ - L.. .~ ~ s o 0 =ac: as c:: 0 -- -- E"C..... c: c: e~(I)E ~O c: t:: c: m~..m 0-Cl. - (l)as~ .c c.- "CasC C ~ ::::s as ..... E "$50E 0= ~coO (.) > as :;:;~Q) 0(1)'" =c:< .- -- UJ ~L.."'C .....CD... C ~ ca' EQ) .~ ~ .c'"C Q.(/,)W o .- CD ....: Q):t::~C6 >CDI-~ ~~ .(/,) .J0CO "C~"C...., CD CD 0 (.) t/)..c 0 CO o s::. Co Q.(/,)L..E o "'C .cO ._ L;. a;. Q.cas::.- ~aca (1) ~._ ~ J: W CD .- .... c> r-- ..... 0 .s CD en .- c: - CD ~ .- ..0 - ...-- C.- m ~ '0 CD .fa :J c. E~>0 C') S CD.> CD ;:: e ..Q CD (I) ....CD_> ~ca"Cm=S:;:; ..r.c: ::>(\1 ! ~ CO (/,) .... C) ca~OCDUCD EO" E.~ c .s:::. 10P....C C0-.r;- CD0E"C~~ CD C. 0 CD ._ q:: UJ ca ~ tn :5 .2 ~E 55 8.0.9 c:CDCD e.... 0 ~~(/,)C.8ca C-~ CD CD E ~ !I-~=....ca LL "i = '0 co .c' CD O\J ~ ..... == . :5 () Q) "51: ~ ca, E :> ~ .- CD "'C ! >~CD'"Cc:CO e z "'C .c .> co 0 .... ~ c: CD CD tn "'C c:.c~:5tn"Em ~"Cec:CDca~ .s::.CDO>CDE~"'C (/,)~ca.s::.8LHW ~CD""'~CD....CD i c: ~ ...0 (1)= ~~ECO::~c: (.) .-..-. C. ~...., _ 0 tnCX)O~C:ca"'" .- ..... - ;> ~ 0 .~ "C ~,"5 8 E ~ s::. c: CD .- 0 0 E I- co "C J: co .c ._ CD ~ o en -0 ~ - co c <( c: Q) Q) en ~ o c: Q) :J c- ~ u.. C) o () S z " ~ II . @ en -- en ~ - co c: <( c: Q) Q) c: C/)- '~\J (.) Q) c: E Q) 0 :::J 0 O"N ~ LL (!) o o S z co ~ ------..-. .~....__.._.---- -...- @ ~ o C- O) 0::: ~ CO ....... en 'as C "'C .. CUCDCU I: C- (/) C) ~ (/).-.2 Sfn.c. ~-8~ .....8.9 C CD = (/) .- CU-c (,) ~ E.l:.cu W:~ .. .... .t::. Je.5 C) mOc:: (fJ c.'N :I (/)._ s 8J.~ ~ 8.5 CD cuE ..... ~ .. ~.m~ . 1:::: ::s 0 I: O(J=~ .- u..... c..t::. u::: cu 0) 0) q;; ... n::: > as .. 1;.;;.0) tt::m""- m c..c u ~ .-.... >- ,^ (.) 0 U v,/ c:: 0'- 0) 'e: E .0 :551-(/)0 ~.......c:: ocuocu 00 .c ..... .- ~""G).b (/) -c (/) 0) CD'- CD C).... > "C caSeG) Q.(/)Q.C. . ccmG)UJci: 13 -= .I:. ~ O. ~ cuc....cu...= '-CI)C)=:=.(/)E I-uc--CS Eu'S;.9 cJ!! OCUmCDC~ 4::)(--o~E UJCI)~~ 'a ~ ~ cu C)~ C ~....OQ.~cu (,)0 CD CD as.., · CD CD E c:: ~.., C ~.- cu (/) 0 - C 1:) ~"O cu ~ CD (I)~G5C:C:> .5: CD-- Q. ~ ~ 0) "0> O(/)~ UJ.- ~ 'a C 0 .- ...... 0 .. ~ "O:s 0).- 0) Ift~ C:~C) 'v ... .- "0 co ~E~Ec:'" > ..... 8 0 cu ._ 0 0 (,) C) ~~~.8 ~~ E' .t::.-o.." C)~ = c:: ~ -c.5 ~ ~ (/) eo c::~c....-c~ ca(,)ocC::CD eo._ CD co > CD .c ~ E .- - ~ ~... e &.: CD Q. (,) "'Q .- eo f1} 0.- ~ U(,)~-cE ~.e ~- jE.5CDcDS - c"C_c:: <( .5 eo"C ~.- e: CD..... CD -- CD O..cO~u;g CD = ....c c.. c (/) > .- -- 0 CD- =~o....== - - Q. c.<C ~ @ u IE ~ .... :; o o E en CD "C -- ' > e 0. .... o c: - - 'i .. ..... . 53-e ,- as ~~ CD.c c:.... -- c: ~B cuq:: (/)-- c:C ~ -g> Q)UJ .ceo =(/) .- CD ~(/) UJO UJQ. B"C ue: cuas .. CD~ .&:.0 ....c;:: 0) "'0 (/) ~ ~UJ -- CD ~o .....u en eo c::.... 8~ -- CDU SIE :I CD en .. cu~ enCU en en Q)Q) 8 > · ftllctJ(/) '"v.c (/) Q) CD .cJ3g .... ~ co .90"0 en 1:) CD "'(1)'- C "0 -- as ~~, 1;..... ~A 't:= c: c 8.88 CDUJas n::: .- -- ~==> m .en ~5--e cnUeo CD~N .c....ca ....CD-c ..... "'0 P"ft o -- ~# o ~_E ("t) 0 .~ ~.e .~ ~~-E ('0. '0 0 c'" N "'C ~O 0 - .. m CO c: =CD~'"OQ) S CD t/J ~O CD0.cc:mU'J 0 ...~'"O....::s.s::s 0.c 0.- .... c: -... C CD..... 0 CD ~ ....,... U) CD U) C) · 5 as g'.c CD.c: :J U) CD R :C::S ._ O::J...J~.!elJ en ....e...., c: ~ t/J CU.- CD a. J: E · co o.~ o t/J as.c ~ 0 C) caiQ.B+J +:; en ~ 0_:1: c: -0 ~ ...., ~ CD c: i J!!B~.a~ .! .... (,).- C) ~ CD CD :JUU --.CI) C) CO:C C) co ~ (,) CO o~ES ........ .... I- E.c.sa as U) CD c: ~.5 Do c: 0 CD OJ 0 CD U).s::. CD --. CI) '"0 ::S..., c C:()J:._~ E -c:e-d'8.CDoq--c ... .- 0 = 0 co CDOCNe en ~ C)~.e ~ cDJ: CD U) == r.;;. O.c.- 0) ~.~:~ (1)~~~ 1i)~ ca c.N~ 5- CDCDo..0~~Q) E CU ~ CD E CD.-I- Ea. ._~_~ -g~~.Bi~C'- o 0....::s80 0 J:-gcaio--.= CDco~Eencoca :c CU c: C)~ CD oce C ca.- > () ... = L.. B C.e a.> - 0. 0 (.) CO 0 "Ce CI.) :::l L.. CD 0)'" ~ ~ c:; ~- CO CD c. a. 00.- c.G)1- .- (J cu CD L.. C C. c: .c 0..-. "C:ca..~.eoco .r::. "Coicaca~c ~ CD C-c en N CD .... cu;:; (1)""""0:: 0 q:: >.! 0 en 1U CD CDO.....:J0 C) c: .....6t/JQ.::sc: CDL..<:C~+:;~ o CD E C)oC "C~CDI-(,)CE -- ~ CI) E 0 .- s.. en c: .... ~ t/J ~ .!a .!a .c . CO ~ E OOOS;:;CD cD tOm -; g'E.(j) 0 -- :I: oJ: c cO 0 (I) CD ~CD ~ O)"C-g~ ........ E.- e e () al Co) 0 c~ ~ :5fij:5...1UmJ!!E mm~O cu ,= L;. CD N cc L.. CD .... c: ..~c.c1i)CDE ..... .... 0.- 0 .- CI).c ~~ CD:5 0 't-....:5 B (,)~ ~ oco....~~ena:: ~ .~ g"'C = . E CD () m.- CD 2-ai 0 ~ CD.c co ::s I- UJ . m>a. J:> 0; C)~~ ~ em I- ..._ocu.... 20) ::s CD.6 CD 0 (,) .2>0 (J ::J c. (J CD c..> Cl)jC--CDCUtIJcu ~ C) a. CD ~..c: c. CD .J::. 0 "00CD~ J-~co:5l-l-caa:: J- 0 N.~ ::S... C I- ~ .." :JJ ",. .. ". - ~ - ~ . - .= ~ tI: ... ~.- .. .. ;.. ." .. .. - ... ~~~.: = wi._ a..c ~ ... .. ~ ~ .0 'W=-:J-- e #fA ... .. .. '.I'. ". ~ .c ~ ,. = ~ -= ~, . Ii." , ,.. 6 < : ... .... ~ :JJ <tIN ,. N ,.. .... · ~.~ e - ~ - .. -, ,.. -- . ., - ,.. ....... ,.. .. - ,. .. ." ,~~ .. -- - :; t..c .~ ... ,.. = ~ <III '-Ie. ...., u CO a. E . . c.-r. ... ... ~ - :/'; - .r::. u :] ~ o o r- I -c Q) Q) Z o Z i fJ c: . - d! ,.. , - - :: ~ .- .j ... .. ." ." - ~5- ... ~ ~~ ~ ~ ..., ,.. :; . - .. .., '- :J .., - . - ~ .- ... .. .,. :: ~ ,. - '- . . - == . ... ~ &... ".J ". ,.. - ,.. ,. ... ,.. .,,; :) @ ~ - J .. -'* ..1 ~ .. - .., - -' ..... = , , . . - ~ N . ". ,.. - .- J ,.. - ~ ~ ~ ~j ,.. - 0) CD C) co c. ~ o c. 'CD 0:: c: o '0 :> ,.. - ,. "" C tIf/IItI ." ... ... :: .' u .- - .. c: co a:: ~ .- c: ::J E E o () co ~ <( tn E co ~ -c W ,.. - ~ ,.. ... '.1 c: tn ~ co 0 .e 0 O)~ ...., 0 0 .. -- - .. en cctn -- c: -- tn 0 .e So en "'cm ...., . Q)+:; -c:- I'- I'-Q) -- C.CU'- -c co~' E ~-o "'C "'CCfJ ....,i.;.Q) Q)! coQ).c CO a. tn 0) · ~:21- _ E c:~~ ""'Q) 00. ~~ tn W -- c: >c Olc -u EC::s 0 -- ::s N c.t: ectJ C:Se: -0 00. 00. :: .Q~ U !t)~ -- -- u- tn tnc ,~~ Q) ~ ;:, c.CDm _~ CO C) Q)-.c Eo.. -- ctJ -0' (1) 0 .. .c C) ...., Ee ...i,;.c:-J c: ....,cu...., E.t: E-e a.B8~ cw- o.s -- ~ 0-- tn... z c: ()Q) U! -- CI) z~~_ :5=~w c: ~ <C....,CD~ C)(J) 0) 0. "'C <( -- C CO t: e Q) C) .... ~o =:; CD --CD -- Q) t:.c C.c -- ~ 0 0 - -- ......., c. -c -~ 0... ... COo c"'" c:...., ::s 0 ~"'C co Q).c i,;. co"'" co"'" Q) .c...., c. -co -co ...., c. - CD Q) .r::.E"'CUJ o.~ o.~ UJQ)C:"'" -os;. 00 .t::. c: Q) Q)-- ~m ~... c: IS::: CD > JgEm= c:o. c:CU C\'Jco.c)- ..... ::so.. ...., ...., c. ~..... '- ::SCD "'Ctn.....(f) ~ 00 00) 00> CDQ)C\'J...J .t::.(I)C..... ()O) .c 0>0(1) ()CO S ~ .c. -c ::::> CD (I) -- ..... O)~ (I)-- a>...., Q) 0 rncu - I.- - I.- -- > - ~ .. rn -c: 0)0) O)Q) > 0>__ ~ CO en CD -- C. COJ: CUJ: ~c:t:- -- Q).5 ~ 0 w~ w~ =ccoz c: .c.... .... ~::] ~<( .....,cuoc. Q)c Q)C: ~O(l)Z Q) C Q) () c. .cQ) ..t:Q) -.r:. co 1--0 1--0 I-c.c::> 0 - - ...., G) 0)....., c 0) -2 ~ o c NO) <(0) ,-CO 01- u..o $Z C Q) Q) > E CO Q):I: L. -- Q) :JC) C"c Q) CO a::r;. O)() .t::. J- - - ....., c CD E c. o 15 > CD "C "C CD ~ Q. e Q. Q) .r:. t- N en Q) E ::J en en co "C .! en Q) C) C) ::J rn ~ -0 c:: Q) "C Q) .J::. I- - c:: co - - ~ s...~ Sc Ydo E.!a Q)~ =0) .J::.~ ..... -- '"0 ;= c .....co c: tn Stn .S!l ~ mo c:cu 8'5 t-m 0..... Z .5 mO _a. cu "'C'- Q).2 = c:: -c .i ui 2 (5 Q)"E S tn e ~ .2 -g .- co ::J cu O..c: c:: ...., '0 ~ Q)c 0)0 ~~ go c: .- co .s oc "C..... o -2>> 5 Q) Ern 15~ ~ ~ co co +"tn cE ~8. coQ) I- "C ~ :5 - c:: co c:: tnco CDO CD.. 1,;.,0) CD m ...., i;. ::J 55 .c. Q) 1-;= "..-(3 ... u:: -"C =c """"CD "C - c: c:: CD 0 :] -- Q) rn _ O c~Q) I,;., ai += (.) :; m .- c::.c UJrn CQ)c. ".. c ::J (0) en =::1 E...c:: -- E tn:2 ~.!a 0 Q) tn ~~ oeetJ .- 0) = 0 0) ....., 0 !E J: :5 COo ... ,.,# -".. Eco 'tI-......... I-=(\'S 00) O::J..c: o ..c: .c ...., ........ Zol8 00) ~c~ Zc. 0-:;...., tn -c 0 .Q .2 -~ ... .i .. .r:::.U) . ....., - ~.~ o CD .Q COo ~tn "'C-c m e .:-c co c: ..,:::::J . l:J::.c: co~c) tn~:2 .i c: 0 ... 0 0 CD:t:a..... 1::.- UJ co ~.- (.) 0- ts eo-co coO a. ~ '- E ...... -- s... Q).- O...r::- -~~ co co c: :::::J ::E ~.~ · 0 (I) 1i)~.c ~UJI- .! co . C J:: rn -- 0 ~ o = ... .- '" ,.,# - ... ..... .Q::JetJ ::Jc.c: C) (1).- O).J::. UJ SI--c c: c: .- ~ ca J- .- u) oOt..,;. z ~~ .!!1~~ (W) N ~ -c Q) c: ~co m~ E=: c: Q) ::J en E m E -0 ClO · L- a> :::::J E 0 .- L- ...... L-~ :::J c: . ~o-' .- <C L..UJ_ 0.0 Z ~Q)W :J-cO o ~..... s... ~ "5~ c: .t: CD roQ)...... .t:..co 1-.....> " ~ ), ~l . ; Y /JV c~ ' CommissioDer '- ~ ''/lJl' ) moved adoptJoD of tile foOowiDl ResolutJOD: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 059 APPROVAL OF A PETITION TO GRANT A V ARIANa FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN SECI'ION 4-tt20.J OF THE EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULADONS FOR HERITAGE PARK POO SUBDMSION File Number VIS-0020 WHEREAS, Jim Guida, (hereinafter "Applicant"), submitted to the Eagle County Department of Community Development a petition for a variance from the requirements of Section 4-620.J.l.h of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (the "LUR If) for the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has identified the requirement for a secondary emergency point of ingress and egress in Section 4-620.J.l.h of the LUR as the requirement for which a variance is requested; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("the Board"), conducted a public hearing on April 22, 2003 to consider the Applicant's petition; and WHEREAS, the Board, has considered all the evidence, exhibits and arguments presented at and prior to the hearings; and WHEREAS, based upon the evidence presented the Board FINDS: 1. THAT, the Applicant's petition meets the intent of Section 5-260.0 which governs the granting of a variance permit from the Improvements Standards of the LUR. 2. THAT, the Applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in confonnance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR. 3. THAT, the petition has been properly advertised for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 4. THAT, Applicant will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the requirement for a second emergency access. , 1II1IIIIIIII ~~~t.. 9 Teall J SjlllOllton E..la, CO 3" " .... D .... 5. THAT, the property on which the Heritage Park PUD was approved is encumbered by a topographic or other physical condition that prevents the Applicant from providing a second point of access. 6. TBA T, the Applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer if there is strict adherence to the requirement for a second emergency access. 7. THAT, the Applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO THAT, based upon the foregoing findings the Board hereby approves the Applicant's petition for a Variance Permit from the requirement for a secondary emergency point of ingress and egress in Section 4-620J.l.h of the LOR subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is valid only for a Preliminary Plan, Final Plat or other land use application which will conform with the Sketch Plan submitted and approved with File PDS-00031 by Resolution 2002-100. 2. The approval of this variance by Eagle County is not an endorsement of the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision beyond what was approved as a Sketch Plan. 3. The 36-foot wide clear and unobstructed area proposed as part of this variance application must be incorporated into the roadway design for a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision. The Applicant shall include within its Homeowners Association Covenants a requirement that the Heritage Park Homeowners Association remove snow from and maintain the 6 foot wide clear areas on each side of the pavement on Tract B. Further the Subdivider of Heritage Park shall remove snow and maintain the entire 36 foot wide area on Tract B until accepted for maintenance. 4. Except as otherwise modified by this applicatio~ all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 5. The Applicant shall complete preliminary design of a 4 foot sidewalk within the right-of-way for the entire length of the outside of Allen Circle for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant shall install the sidewalks prior to 2 1IIIIIIII1II ~~~~~I:'" @ Teek J SillOnton Ea,le, co 37. R .... 0 .... any ground work on the site. In addition, the Applicant shall be responsible for providing any appropriate pedestrian markings in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 6. The Applicant shall obtain all permits for construction within the public way. 7. The Applicant shall provide a designated traffic control representative for the pwpose of receiving complaints, directing and coordi11ating traffic during con- struction times. Further, the Applicant shall limit the hours of large vebicle access to the property for a time period acceptable to the Board of County Commission- ers. The proposed hours for large vehicle access shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. . 8. At the commencement of constnJction, an assessment of overall condition index of that portion of Allen Circle used by construction traffic, will be determined. Upon completion of the two year warranty of the roads contained within Heritage Park, the condition of Allen Circle will be reassessed. All necessary repairs will be made by the Applicant in conformance with Eagle County Road Standards in an effort to return the road to the baseline standards. THAT, the Board of County Commissioners directs the Department of Community Development to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Applicant. THAT, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Eagle County. MOVED, READ AND ADOPl'ED by the Board of County CO~ioners of the C~fBap, smm ofColondo, at ill JeSUIar meeting held the ~ day of r .2003. } ""I""JIII ~;?tt2M 3 G COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, by and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: Teak 1. Simonton Cleric to the Board of County Commissioners ~.~ Tom~~ -- C . . er I' ~':"""'" \ ". .d Commissioner Commissioner ~ ~ A. seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. .The roll having been call the vote was as follows: Commissioner, Michael L. Gallagher Commissioner, Tom C, Stone Commissioner, Am M. Menconi ~ , This Resolution passed by ~/ 4. ) vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 1II1III1IIII ~~~t... T..k J SillCll'lton E..l.. co 37' R .,.. D..... 4 @ ""0 ...., CD "'C Q) ...., CD a. 0- '< s: -. (") ::J'" Q) CD () Q) '< 3 o :::J Q) :::J a. (J) (") o ..... ..... ~ ;:::1. ::J'" ~ c.... c: :::J CD .....Jo. (]1 ~ I'V o o ~ ~ :r: CD ..., -- r-+ Q) ce CD -0-0 Q) ""0 -h ..., 0 ,,-C ..., O~s: CD CD CD < 0- CD - o -c 3 CD ::J r-+ -0 C o -0 ..., CD =-=)> 3 :::J -- 0- :::J Q) ~ -0 - Q) :::J o CD :J '< r-+ ::T CD N o ::J -- :J ce () ::T Q) :J ce CD () o 3 -c CD - - -- -1::J ace ;0 CD Q) en o :::J en '" -(")- $2.wen r-ot-"'O Z ~wo 00 Q. -I ... r-ot- n'\ "< _. WJ. ~ :J o.-ISt en ::r CD -. CD (0 :J "'0 e weo- r-ot-P""'C""_ c: \oJ -. ..., == (") CD 0 _. en ::r :J . W CD -100..., ::rOO CD CD::r~ O. ~.:E ~ e :J w 0) r-ot- '--. -::r0 -. CD ..., 3 ::;. ~ "'Oow 0) "'0 ::R U"'O 0 -. 0 w en ~. ::1. r-ot-O:CD 00..., o :J co. :::To-oo (0."< w :::T::r"" . e CD :J W 0.::::;- ..., CD CD W 0.0. 00,,< o W ---+'0- CD 0 3 < w CD -. - r-ot- 00 ::r CD ..., -0-0 5a.eo r-ot- CD:JCD en 0 (J) enr-ot-Z Stgo w=.:-I :Jr-ot----+, . e r-ot-:c- ::r :::!"! CD 0 = w 3 (") en CD 0 c:en3 :J CD 3 (Ooe "OCD:J ::::::!.:J r-ot- o = ~ "< :J en CD o CD - 0. 0.. :E -I CD ::r CD CD ..., o CD :J W r-ot- ..., :::TCD CD w 3 :J 0) OJ ..., 0- ="e $2.:J r-ot-o. o w o :J -0 o CD ~~ w e ::J ::J 0.;::;: en en o N -0 o.:J Q'CD ..., 0. W r-ot- - ::::::!. 00 ~z ~O -1-1 ::rO CD 0 w 3 o w o 0: CD 0- 00 _ 00 CD en. :E e ;::;: ::J ::r 00 00 w e ct=1 ... 0 -. e :J ::J ~& -. :J o -. CD C ;a 00 ... CD w 00 :J. 0.-1 "'O:J'" o CD 00 r-ot- CD Q) 00 ~ 00 -. -. 0 cg 0 31:J ~ ~ :J CD r-ot-:J ~() N -. W (1 ..., - 0. CD ~ :E -. - - "'0 - o C/) -. z ;3.0 00 -I ~o w 0 o :J o ~. CD 00 00 r-ot- 00 CD w~ :J :E 0. _. r-ot-r-ot- ::r::r CD r-ot- ..., ::r CD CD en. 3 o w :J ~ -CD "< ..., ~ W :J -I ::r CD a. CD :J C/) ;:+ "< 00 e (0 (0 CD 00 r-ot- CD 0. 0) 00 00 c: 3 CD 00 ~ -I ::r CD -0 ..., o -0 o 00 CD a. 0. CD < CD - o "'0 3 CD :J r-ot- . . () ::r Q) ~ CO CD I Q) < CD Z o -f OJ CD CD ~ s: CD ~ -f ::r CD ;C CD ..c c -- ..., CD 3 CD ::J ~ CJ) " o ..., )> N o ~ -- ~ CO ~ ~r-+--; ::r::r 0. co _. :E m en COw"C - , ==co 0 ::J - "C coCOO C () en ::JOCO -.C 0. r-+- c-ao. W '< CO en s: < COWCO 0. en 0 o r-+- "C ::Jco3 , r-+--nCO ::r V::J cowr-+- (")::Jo. C en 0 '_co '-en ~~ Z r-+-coO Nen-; Or-+- ::J~::r 5. -; W co < . ::r co COr-+- '<::r ::rCO W ::!. <co CO::r w::: ,0 -. co r-+- ::r::r r-+-CO r-+-o. OCD C-::J C en -- -- - r-+- 0.,< , w -.Wen "C 0. < c- ()::J r-+- CO 'COWWOo.r-+-< O , en 3 -.::r ::J -. -. (") CD "Cenwen3Wco, o ;:+::J . r-+- "C W en,<(") cco,- COenCO-;::Jo.CO""Q. o.c::r::r;:+c-==W ~.co W CO '< '< 3 ::J en co en en -n r-+- -. ::J CO V::r::J_. ::Jmc-'Q)cow::J or-+-COCD::J ~co r-+- CD CO co m (") wo.::Jc:Ew"Co "'C 0" co iil III <Q.. iil 3 "C,<,~enCD::J3 ' wOo. o g:::J ::J CO ()::r _. ~CD-C/l-OCD~ -. en CD CO c W _. ~ CD 0. CD ' ::J ~. 0 CD W.n ~. r-+-::J ::J . ""Q. = C ::J '< cp 3 W 0 -. s: ::J :E CD ~ ^' -; co3 en -. WI ::r .. ::J "':E ~ CO c- W co "C ;::::;: CO CD enoo::r,o., :E ::J ::J. r-+- \J CD en ~.:< Iii ffi III ~. ~ - ~ 0 (") ::J r-+- "C W "C ....., 0 W '< , enowc::JQ'co r-+- - . (") ::J 0., en ::r::J""r-+- en CD ,.........., '< g::T CD o CO CO _. 0. o......,enCD enr-+- ~ W ~ co m"C ~ engen~o.aen ;:+ CD -. W :E"O "0 '<en::J~wcoco c-..en @ g a.;4. en ~. ,....... en en '< "C ::J ::r W W)> CD COCD en' ~ CO _. W W < CD - CJ) Z o --I () o ~ CJ) -- CJ) r-+ -0 CD -~ Q) r-+ ::J :E -- r-+ ::T --I ::T CD s:: Q) CJ) r-+ CD .., (") s - )> :::;; o-::J"()<)> ::J::JI^("):E:::;; Or-+-=r-+- co 0 :::;- 0 = COCOQ)COOOr-+- 3~~~ 83Q..co -- -. -O::J ::J" CO CO :5 _ r-+-::J ;:+. CO -0 en en 3m~3:f ::J"::J"::Jr-+-co::J" coCO 0< CO COco 0- o-co ::J" (") 0 )> >< $4:::;- 0 00 r-+-COr-+-.....,= . -- n - r-+-g-lO; -, -, ::J" Q) CO r-+- CO :E o _c ::J" ::J" ....., __ 55co(")a.Q)::J ;:+::Jco3 CO :f 00- ~ a. ooo(")o~-o oo-:E Q) CO o-co(")Q)co a. a.::J CO n- Q) -- - --::J 0 C en Q) 3en en en ~ ~ I... -, r-+ CJ) Q..:fa......, enco::J(")~ en en or-+-(") =r cooI~ ar ~ 0- st ~ ::J" - - tu ~ 3 ::J" ~ Q)::J0Q) ~CDCOtur-+- 03gocoCO:E en Z -, ~ ~ CO 3 -- ... ::J en ~_:'Q. CO 3 ~ ~ Q) 0 ::J:ECD(") 0- ~ ~ r-+--- a. '< en r CD (") en C C en --::T::J Otueno- r-+-_ a. CO I ::J s- en tu tu CD -- r-+-,< CD CO r-+- CO Oa.o-^a.en;3. ..., -f o..o-tu(") ::T-::Jr-+-o r-+- -- CO CO 0 en CD ..., CO CD 0.. 0 CO::J(")Q) 3 o-(")r-+-()-,-,::J 0 en -- 3 en sa.~3CD CD tu::T -- 0 0.. () --::J 0 tu(i)aCD~~CD coco-,co 3::J" (") ~ C ::J --en tu CD 0- r-+- CO -'encCD 0.. 0 coQ.)<Q.) = -, '< ::J'" Q) :f-c co ^ Q =E 0' ::J 0.. CD m:Een~o.. coO::J'";Or-+-O-, 3 0..:E-' C- O' ::!. CD ...r-+- Q 3-:E ::r o-QIo~~3 < ::.: Q) -, -- en 0.. -0 0 tu C-o 0 Q) 0..0 -- -0 r-+-CDo-;:::+ ~...en~~~ a.-30..)>::J"-' ::J ::J":Eco'< CDQ)CD"-"'=tuco Q) Q) Q) ... CO )> (") 0.. Q) ::Jenenco<r-+- (C r-+- (")r-+- -'<O::J" en = 0 0- en ::J ~ _ r-+- CD ::J CD ::J" r-+ 0'3 CD r-+- CD c CD __ o ::J CD CD....., Q) -- -'::J::J co """co tu -0 tu O-::J C C- -,CD::J ~()~Q::J :f- D:tu3~tu Q)Q)O ::J CD -- -- -I en co -- CJ) - (")0-;::::1. r-+- - -co ....., en CD~::J& CD -- -, Q) n- o ::J" ::J(")r-+-r-+-Q) -0 ::r Q) en :E 0..:E CD ::J C -- Iro~~;3. o CD 0.. -- o..en::J o en 05- 01 0 CD :::r en o'<(i) ~~::Jo~ -,c(")S(o~$4o 3 ~-, len c::J- -0 ~ CD 0)0..-3 S-:E co m~3)>0 or 0 ;3.';-"'::J" '< co --Q) (") r-+-o..o--:E ::JC tu en C,< ~ co CD CD co ::J::J < 3 0 Q) -,::J-' -- 0.. CD ::J -- ::J ?- 0 co::J 0 ......, _ co ....., ..J:=o. 01 I o - - -- en )> - - CD :J -u Q) ..., () CD - -u - Q) r-+ s: 0) -c Q') I o - - -- en )> - - NCD o ::J o ""U 3 Q) CD -, o.@ -- :J ""U - Q) r-+ ~ Q) -0 --h - .-+-10-lC::J - - -l c ~ ~ -- ~ :J Cll ~ ~ :J -- ~ ~ Cll n < -- 0 iii a. en Cll n _ -g, a $1 0 a. I'-) CD 5 0- _ ~ :J ~ C Cll .j:>. -- :J '< COl:lIDO-<Qlens:ena. -On.mClla.c QlQl ~ ::\. .... 0 en l:l en '< CD -. ::J C. a. CD 0 o a. -< l:l -: a. ::\. I'-) ::;; CD ::J .-+ C. 3 0 __ n Cll xoc CD:JO"'o .. 00- - ~ ::::!. :J Ql '< :J ~ )> .-t: :J < _ _ ...... '_ :J~CD~:E~I'-)ag-CD co Cll ;:I!~=o~)> I :J <=r:JO~-30=~() Ql () :J g Cll 3 Cll n ::;' =I: -. - co en Cll :J en n c=rn 0 ~ =ren '_ -.-+ O. CD CD ::T 3 .. CD .-+-1 :::!. ::T "'Q.CD CD .-+ . Ql 3; n o ::J ~ - CD ::J o -. ..., Q. CD :E -. - - ~- ;:+W :::rZ 000 ~ -i ..., O() C 0 5.3 -- -C :::1 Q) CO,...... -- CS;[ en CD CD en ---1WW~~~ ~ :::S:::S~-r-+- o ~. 0. 0. 0. CD ::T r-+- "'0 r-+- :::s r-+- o == en -0 ::T 0 ::T o :::s 0 CD CD _. _. 3 to 0 r-+- -. ., en en ., 0 "0 :f~. 0-< W CD ::TCDQ. r-+- CD ., "'U -. _. c ~r-+-enOlc:en3 \oJ .,.. ., '])Ol-oCDCOWCO :E~iil~?-gO -. ~ en . -tot r-+-.......... _ ::T ~. ::T ct "'U $B. ~ -=OCDCDCIl~ ::rCD CD 0 - 0 r-+- _. -"en-o.,o en -3. CD Wco - co .. '< --tot co r-+- C -... co 0. r-+- ::T =l ~ 0' - ~. :E co ~-C:~<::TCIl _CD.,~cocow ~ -., -n o.r-+-en~encoco -. ;!.o co 0" r-+- :::SenCr-+-~CD,< cc- Q)::T< < 0 cen.,CD,,<"CD-tot en ::r co :::;... ~ 0 CD 0 W 0 :E 0 c en :E :::s ::T -. :::s ., . . r-+- . - 0. =-::T co 0 :::s 0. ::T to 0 ., W " _. r-+-Stco:::s:::sc: ::rCO:::SCDO., Ol -., ~ CD r-+- I -. '< <: :::s r-+-en 0. co en :! ~ CD 0 CD w. enco:fcww -0 m. co r-+- (") r-+- ., -. -tot ::T ., o co ., 0 0 ;'i\. ~. W 0'" ., r-+- '1# co 3 -. " ::T ?' (") " -. co r-+-cocoo.., -. en en en en. ex> ~- -- ,...pC/) =rZ cno ~ --i -, Oc) c 0 ~3 -- -c :J Q) CC,...p -- CQ: C/) CD CD C/) stN;t) CD~CD .., :::r e- CD:;: < CD . Ol ("') _.("') --I-Ol ::rOr CDOl .., _.CD CD '< 0 -'en ::J enOl~ ::J '< a. o -.'" ::J ("')(Om o ~ Ol 3 ~(O 3~m C ..,'" () ::J.CD 0 ~Olc r-+-::J ::J CJ1 ~ m 0"0 0."0 - CDOl ~..,::J ..,("')::J r-+-CDCD ::r ::J ",'" _. r-+- en e-:E o.cOl CD == en < 0..0 CDCC o'!=' 0 "0 r-+- r-+- 3 ::r CD CDo. CD -. ::J N ::J r+0r-+- ::J::r :i' CD (os: -'Ol en.., ("') ::r CD ~~~Ole-Ol())> _. 0 ..,"0 C"O 0 ,.... en CD "0 == "0 ~ " Ol'" r-+-.., 3("') en cO.o -. 0 0 ::r ~. '--' >< ::J >< 3 .., Or-+-........ -. a. en N 3 c 3-' C -. :E ::J::J ::J en Ol 0 Ol -. Ol ;:+(0 .., ::J r-+-::J r-+- '--' r-+- CD CD CD ("') CD ........ r-+- ::r - 00 Ol Ol a. '< 0 '-<" r-+- r-+- :;- :E c..v -a ~ CD ::r ~ CD -. CJ1 0 ro.... CD< CD ...J Ol r-+- '" ..,...- CDo.::rOOlOOO CD.., '--' r-+- 0 r-+- 0"0 .., --. ::r 0 CD 0 Ol _. N CD a. 3;:::p eno..,"O CCD ::J ::J -. CD m::J ::J 0 OCD(OOOl;:+r-+-:E ("')o.;3:"'Q.CQ.enOlCD o < or-+- CD CD Ol ::J == < . ..,0.::J 3 ~ e- )> b' CD (;)(0 3 r-+-CD"O C ~-c C ::r e-"O ::J .., en::J ::J CD C .., 0' CD -. ;:+ _. 0 ........ Ol 0 r-+- '< :::!.;::+ ><' a. CD )> ::J (0 -. 3-' --I '<"0 ::J CD ::r::J -- N Ol Ol r-+- Ol...J ..,- CD r-+ m r-+- CD 0 r-+- '< 0.00.CDen::J3en ~ e- :E '-<" CD CD CD en' QCDOlc..v~o.::J"O r-+- C" a.. '" ro.... ",~:E c;; .., ::r ...- -. CD _. C en 0 0 ~....-.~ en == . O...J en \oJ r-+- Oor-+-CDOl a. -. )> C ::r CD .., CD::J"O::JCCD CD < I"O _.::J "0 a. CD .., r-+- ;:+ ::J. Ol e- oooenen(O(O,< "0 3 ~. ~ :E ;3: CD r-+- 3CD3CD==r-+~::r CD ~Ol -ooCD ::JCD(j) ::re-'::-'" r-+- Ol _ 0 CD . 0.'< C . en CD o o CD en Z o -i " c - -h -- - - () o 3 3 c :J -- ~ '< Z CD CD a. ~ o ~ I ~ ~ % me a.::s ~ sr 0>0 ""'0 a..., (J)u )>0 .., ...., m~ o>m a. fM w ~ -.....I ~ i 'w- ~ m g I ~ '" I iJ ';1 n e: Ii III ! i OJ i"; .. -I 41.. Il' I .c (1) TollllUI'lItU,~l>v Zonlf!9 (Z) lfatll!l4led UlIIts Bllllt j ? '" 11 l."J (3) Potenlial for DeveltlpllWlt o ~ CD - - -- ::J CO C ::J -- r-+ )> :J Q) - '< en -- en -sen-f:fl-l a.sta.tu::rcn::T COcotu:Joaco < '< co ~ a 1\\ co-enco<-r-WoI -. .. en ~ "'C - en . ...... "'C 0d:0 q:o_ "'C :J -s -I ..J _. 3(0 ->':J'"~~@ CO"'C <?co Wa:J :J :::::!. ~ en CJ1 a ...... ;+- (') ---- co ~ ::r CON::T::r tu .300::ren -I03co303Z ::r:JCO 0 -. ...... en en co en::r -. en -I enen=E:J. a. ::r" co o tu -Sco st 0 co3 =E:J co c ena.O m"" 0 r-+en:Ja.CD~ ::Tor-+~tur-+ CO-::T<_..., -sa.COtucoo> COtu a.en(i) -. r-+ 3 en r-+ a. en tu tu tu :J:J~~rotu o tu co co tu (') (')<r-+tu:Jo ocoO'::Ttu3 3Q3""Ql<<3 3 COco tu C6 ~. c C :J en:J :Jotuen..-..;::t: -. -h < 0 en '< ~-ER(l)C:~::J :J ex:> OJ -. co co N co :J "'C co coo'co......tua. a. ex:> ~ COo ~ ~--...Jaenco..., Q 0- (J.)"'C ->. N r-+ co ~ :::::!. N ~ ::T - '.'\ (') ___ -. 0 ...,., co en =E o o CD (J) Z o -I T1 C - ~ - - - ~ ~ () o 3 3 c :J -- ,....... '< Z CD CD C. ~ I\J ~w~~~~~~mm~~~oom~~~~w~~oo~~~~~~~~~~~oo m~wmmmooo~w~~o~o~mmmoo~~~oo~~o~mowowoo ~~~~m~~Imr~oooo~mor~~o~~~~~I~~~~OWOO~ ~or~~mo~>G)z~ooo~O~~z~>^^^O^~>Coo~O~O~~or>m m mm~ru,<o < u'IOm mrmmmIm-<z_~u, u' 0000 ~Z~~G)co~r~zzo>z~~~O~ZZZ>zz~ozmo>ozooo zG)zzrrorooO>ooG)r~Oz>z ~~~~~OOooC/lG)~rrrG)oc G)IG)G)mOOrO~rroOOG)~G) zzzoz5r>r~OoOI~~ ~o~~ooomc~O~o~~~~~~G)G)G)~G)<m~~~o~oo~m O~OO~~C>CIl~~~C-OO~OO~~~-~<>~~~C C~rO ZZZZrn~OO~~r mCllOO zrz~OOOOOO~~~m CIl C/lZ ~ ~~~~~G)~~O ~m~Q ~ ~ ZZZQZO~rm~~ ~~ ~O~~~m~O~ O~~~ ~ ~ OOO~O 0 ~~~ ~O r rrOO 0 r r ~~~ ~ 0 ~ IC/lIIrOIOIICIlCllIC/lOOIIIOOOOOOOOOOICIlIIOOIC/lICIl O~OOmOOOOO~~O~~OOOOOOO~O~OO~OO~O~O~ 3~33~a3a33~~3~~333aaaa~a~a3~33~3~3~ rorororo =ro=rorororororororororo====ro=ro=rororororororororo ~~~~nm~i~~~~~~~~~~mmmm~m~m~~a~~~~~~ ro ro ro ro m @ ro @ ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro @ @ @ @ ro @ ro @ ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ~ro~~~ ~ ~~roro~roro~~~ ro ro ~ro~~ro~ro~ro mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 00000000000000000000000000000000000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000 C/lCllC/lCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCllCll 00 00 OOCll OOCll OOCll 00 00 CIlCll -,: < CD ~ lQ CD -J. -J....l -J. m~ ~~~ ~ ~o~ m~w~~ oo~oo 0 ~m~woo~oo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NN~NN~~W~~~~~~NN~~e~ ow~w~moo~~om~moo~~~w~~~m~oo~~~WW~~WOOO~ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 W~WWW~~~WWW~~~~~~OO~~~~~~O~~~O~O~~O > 0. 0. .., ro l/l l/l OO>~ 0-'" ;:l.;0 ro -, 3 o.eE < ~ro~ a.iii'< !l!.3~ ro=ro l/l'<,< o::rm 0:00 , 3 m ro .., l/l 0. ~, g, S~ l/l ro ro m =;:; 5' Q ~ l/l -g~ -, r ~CIl :r~ o ro 3 0' *~ mow o~ 00 - 0 g~ o .... o * (JJ o .0 o o o l/l o 0: :J m 0. :E m .., 0. l/l .... .., o 3 ~ ... ~ w ... o ~ .... o ~ ... ~ w ... o ~ ...l-J....l...l ...l-J....l ...l ~~oo~mm ~ m ~~~ ~~~~~~omm 0000 ~~~~~ ""o"mm'~'m"'-J."'-J.-J.-J."'W"~"'" N~...l-J.,-J.-J."...l,-J.,-J.~-J.,N~N",NW-J.,N-J.,-J....lW-J.~ (JJo~om~o~~m~m~~m~mw~o(JJ(JJ~(JJOO~W~~~~O~(JJ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t.l .. t.l w ~w~~ ~~~~~~wmmw ~ ~wm~ ~m ~~~~ ~oomm~w~~oo(JJ~(JJw~o~~m~om~wwoom~oo~~~mmoom w~moo~oommoo~m~~~woo~~woommmoowm~~~~wwmm * * *********************~***~********* ~OO~~(JJoo~wm~~(JJ(JJmm~oooooo(JJ(JJ~m~m~~~m~~oo~~oo ~w~~w~mww~~~~OO~~~~~W(JJ~~W(JJ~W~~~W~~~(JJ m~mo~~~~mw~om~m~owm~momm~~mmm~mm~~o ooooOOOOOONO~oooooooooo~ooooooooooo oooooooooo~oooooooooooooooooooooooo 00000000000000000000000000000000000 > m Jl) o ;:;: '< r ~ o m ro C/l o 0: o III .... ro ~O Ill~ ~l/l ro 0 ....:J o ~ ::l, ::l,~ or ro _, l/l .... r iii' .... ~ .., 0' ro CIl o 0: ~ .., 0' ro rOO -, 0 l/l _ ....0. ~~ o 0 ro .... *********************************** ~m~mmoo~~m~m~oommm~~~moooom~moo~~m~~~mm~ ~m~mw~~wm~wm~~~w~~WWOO(JJ~W(JJww~~~ww~m~ m~mm~~m~mmmmm~mw~~~mwmmm~mwomom~m~~ oooooooooowo~oowooooooo~oooooooowoo oooooooooo~oooo~ooooooooooooooooooo 00000000000000000000000000000000000 ~ **{fl{fl***{fl*{fl**{fl***{fl*{fl**~*{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl*{fl*{fl{fl** m ~m~mmoo~~m~m~~mmm~~~m~~m~m(JJ~~mmm~mm~ w ~mw~wo~~~wmw~~~~o~om~~~~~owo~w~mm~w w oomm~o~~o~o~~o~o~om~oo~o~o~~w~~woo~ ~ oo~ooooooooo~ooooooooooooomooooNoOO ~ oowooooooooooooooooooooooo~oooooooo N OOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ (10 N . (10 m(lO ~h~ ~ W(JJwoo~ww~wwwoowmww(JJoooo~(JJmwmm~wwommwmmoo mw~~~~~ww~~mww~o~ww~~~~~m~mwo~~o~o~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;c CD Q) - m en r-+ Q) r-+ CD )> ::J Q) - '< en -- en -.0) (") (") s: () N:E roZ@Z-t :J:JOO r-+-0.""'30)0 o _. ~ ~-g :Effi :Jr-+- - :::T :::!. '< 3 -. :::T CD a. a. -0 '" 3 :Jr-+- CD" (") () 3 en CDO- CO::r (") r-+ -.0 -0 < ...., 0) Q:) -. r-+::rr-+ Q) C . -. r-+ 00 -.CD <:. CD '< (;)-0 Z 0" ~ : :J:::T ~. 0000 ==0 ::0) <0 :JCD ~(")O). 0 (") -0 0" 0) :J 0...., '< 0) 5.)>:J 0 -. 3 :E 0 :..: CD 1"+0 . -0 0) 1"+ 00 -0 3-CD CD S.O"'" -.0) :Jo. (") ::r 0 0) -I CD :J :::T -. 0) Cf) 1"+00 -. CD -hCO 1"+ ""'1"+ :J 1"+ :::T -. '" CD CD. 0) :..: 0 coO) CDm oo_<~'<:J - ooo.o~ - ~:JCDCDI"+CD -0"'" 0)~8~ :::J (") r-+ 0) ~ 00 cCD 0"0) ...., w" - . ...., ::r 00 CD ...., I 00 CDCDCOI"+Q) -a. -I ~Oo.;:;ro 0.'< 0) g. -. Q) -.CD -0 co:::T -.-0 a. ~ a. :Jx -0 Cf):::T -. :::T ~ -0 CD 0 -. r-+(") ....,-o~co O:Jc:J ~co OcO):::T CD 1"+;::1.00 co CD ~. ...., '< ~ ::r -. - :::T CD C 1"+ 0. -. 000. 3 ;C (j)~ ::J '< 00 1"+ -. -0 N;:j:O)CTOJ . ::J Q) 0 -. co I"+O):J(") 0'< :J CD 0) r-+- ~o.mO) C :J ...., 0. W -. -- -- .., :::T '< ~ a. -0 :J co a. 00 ;C CD ~ ~O) C- co :::T CD :::T ...., '" 0) Q. .....,1"+<wO) (0000)1"+ - (") -- o:JCD3:J 0) o 0) ...., '< C1 ...., 0 - (") ~r-+g.0) I~OCD::r -0 -01"+ W 0) ~ :J ~1"+308 (") :JO)~~ - -. 0.00),< :J _.0 CD r-+- r-+ -3 '< ~ c1< 00 ~. O)~:Jo .. ,-+ C031"+03 0) 00 0)00 CD CD ;:j: 0) =" CD :J 001"+0. -h ~ -ostog3- -. ~_. 0 ..., :J o 1"+ ~ :J wCD:J(")O) (") 00 ~ CD CD ...., co =" ~ ...., (")~ ="0.1"+ co 0) 0 0" en -. co ::r 0) -. 0) -00'< OO:JCD:J:J 00 O)-h ,-+ :Joo 0.1"+ CD (");:j: 0;:j:1 ::r ;:j:OO 1"+,< -.....J CD :J '< 0 . ~ w Ii I~. & ~ 2$~~~~5" '/ ~' ~ ~~ f [ ~ ~8~U\NS ~ 8,.o~~~~::t:~ 'j: " ' ~ . i:' ." 5, ,;r ~ +:=-. :I: .... (J'Q ~~ ~ ~ (')g ~ S ~(J'Q ("l (D .... 0 ~I-+a r:r~ '< ~ ~ :I:S .... ("l ~< ~ 0 ~ S" {fJ8 (D (D (J'Q ~ 8 0 (D ~ ~ z ~ () o G) I -- CC ::J ~ Q) '< () Q) -0 Q) C1 -- ,...... '< )> :J Q) - '< en -- en -0-1 Zest)> 0-0-0-0 )> ::J"""O"O c::r o ,..... co 3 -0 co ::r a -c oOco Q:co """::r3 -c ~ 0) ........-c ,..... ~ -. ~ n'O o -. 0) o ~ en CO .., :;' 0) ::J ~ ::J en -. enOcooO -.< ,..... - ,..... ,..... - --c 0 :;' ;::::+ :J ,..... X ,..... CO ::r 0) (J) ::JCO '<.., (Q -. 0) 0) -. ::r..,co""" co~ -'0 en 00:J::J3 CO' CO en co'cO' ~ ::J -0 0. 0. 0) -h .., "'::r o -c ,..... -0 5" S. en Z ~co sto:JO) o .... en CO Cocc ,..... - CO ~ 0) en ~en~c~ 0""''''''0 0 . 3 .., :::::J en ::r -. -c ==COCO"O -. CO zo.co -. ::J "0 W o 0)' - ::J en (Q -. -. en '< (Q 3033- ::Joo ::J :;.)>_. -i "0 :T""";:+ (Jl ,..... - en 0 S':J 0) 0- .., ::r _. _ CO(Q - "0 -. co ~'< ~ 00' co :J co CDNs'O) - -0 30-, CO' -c "0 (Q ::t en 0 ,..... "0 ::J 0 0) -h::J :T o"''''O)co ~::J ::r'" en ~stO)co ~oco .., -.co 0 ...... - 0. en ,..... CO 3' CO ::r ::J 0- -i 0 ccoOO) (QC- "0 en O)-C $l -.:J 0) :Jco ::J "0 co .., "0 . ::J en < ~ ;:+3 :::r 0 0.- 0) ;:+ CO ::cnO) - o (") -. s:~ '< 0" CD CO ;:4.O)cn(") O)Ncn 0) .. .., 0) Q) Q) "0 0 CO 0.0 co :::l. ,..... 0. '< :J :J _-hco '< :::r en _.,..... ':< 0) ....:J 0.:J< -c CO :J,..... 3 ~co en .., ::r(Q 0 3 ::J I\.) en ::r co Q)" Q) o o-~ C Q) "0 r:: r:: 0 -. < Q) - ::r::JO" "'co ~ enco::J- ~Q);:+3 CO ,.....::J c- en 3 0-0. I en en _. c::Jco - co -0 -c CO" ::t :JO~ -- ,..... ~: co..a 3 ::r co' .... CO ;::::;:"""::J 0 Q) 3:JCCO 0....CX>0. en 0" 0 ,..... Q)enE.~ -c I\.) 0 -. """c:E ,..... CD cx> :;' ::J ::r -. - ::r -ccoco Q) ;::;. en :J -. :J 0-" Q) ::r"O ,..... 0 en """::rQ) -0 03'--:0. Q) CO ::r"O ::JO)::J ,....... ::J -. 0) .., < o CO "0 co<o. CD .., I""" CO CO "0 en 0 ~. oco3en _ en COCO~ ..., co "0 a. -. enco~;::+: o.co=: 0 "0 ,.....:J g. -c co-. :EX- CD en ,..... 0 ,..... o -. 0 :J -'3 000:J 0) en en en ,..... ~(Q ::r """"""0 en -. ,..... 0 ,..... CO:J 0 CO -. :J ~ ::r "0 en :J CO -c -h ..,::Jen ,....... 0 o CO "0 Q) 0.-,..... . (Q,..... -. Q)::r -1"'== ,..... ::J(")oen ::J Q) ::J Cir . ~ -. " :J o en _. ::rCO CO ~ CCO::J -- ::r - 01 ,..... ::J Q..CO en ,..... '< ::r ~ _.en co en . ~ (j) -. =r Ol I c. Ol -I 3 0 0 -. co ::J ::r "0 3 0 cg. < c. (i)" Ol 0 CO.... o Ol C :E 5" ex> w- 1"'"+-=;a.Ol"O'-'o OO"''<3CO- ::J<;::+o> COCO I"'"+-CO . CO_Ol ::r 0" ::J--, CO-,CO <I"'"+-CO,-<" mo<Ol-' ma.O::rl"'"+-aen C.:E3COCOCOg- :EOlCO::Jaa.:E ~a.enstcg:J a. en CO CO ::J ......... -h en Ol :5. ::r a. Z a Ol::Ja.COCi)<3 -, a. co -. < < m:E;a.cg.~O:T . -. I"'"+- I"'"+- 0 co =::ro:EG) ::r Ol -h ==. 11 I"'"+- I"'"+- - -, ~ 3 ::r0"-I~ COOCOCO:=Tc: OlC/)"Oen~co 1"'"+--' co ::J ~.o 0 co co 0 co -h -g ::J 3 '< ~- :T en =r Ol (f) =:!'! -. co 0 "0 co oena.3enco Ol "O:=T en::J ::J-, - I"'"+-OO~:=T3 ::J co' 3 0 ~ Ol COoco <:"0 co I"'"+- en Ol I"'"+- en a:EOl:J:::T,-.. -- == -, 0. Q) en <-CO-hl"'"+-co coo-I"'"+-a:::co :5. CO ~ 3 W"O ~ :5_ CO 0 Q) Q) ~. ::J ::: ~ 0- ::J ~ en COI"'"+- en.... o ........ <::Jm-l -. co c. ::r ~ cO' :E CO Q) :::T Q) "0 -~-,-, -- "'" a. 0 3Qen"O "0 ::r 0- 0 Ol 0 CO en o 0 0 co I"'"+-a.Ola. Ol~c:a. en en co :E -I co < CO ::r -. CO CO 1"'"+-- = -- 0 men"O 0.~3 :E co CO Ol ::r ::J -'COI"'"+- a.-':E CFJ -- __ )>::J= -, co en co-I"'"+- co -. Ol < (") OQ)7\' o ~ 0 3 0 C ::J I"'"+- 3 I"'"+- Ol c: ::r ::J ::JOla. ;::+::Jo- '<OlCO - :g~~ Q) C CD ::J -, ::J 3a-h CO c a ::J ::J 3 I"'"+-a. -- -- o ::J Q) ::J co = en I"'"+- ::r -- en o < co -, - en Z o -I - ::J -I ::T CD -U c c- - -- n - :J ,.... CD ..., CD en ,.... ~ """"" z :E () o G) -n ..., CD .0 C CD :::J ~ (J) CD CD :::J )> ::J Q) - '< en -- en ~ ex> z ~ () o G) -n 1 NCD 0.0 o C 3 ~ CD n 0.'< -en :::J CD CD ::J )> :::J Q) - '< en -- en 301ll -- 0 tu ~- Cf~ __ 0 ,.., N'-"'''''''' S-~ 0 CO --0 o..-h ::TCO.-... tu.-...::T N 03 co tu(')(J) "".-....-... 0.. :: t'\ .. (J)- W.I <~~ or ur ~ (')(')"0 000 ::J::J::+ (J) .-... ..., .-......,,,,, ..., tu \ 101 ~_ 0.. ~ ::J -- \101 co Sl (jJ 0..0.-... tu ~ 0 (').-...'-'" (')O::T co co (J) ::T tu (J)tu(') - < (') COco (J)(J) tu(J) CD'tu ,. (J) co ~ ~.-... __ ::T (')CO -- CO(') ::JO '-"'::J tu(J) (').-... (')03 co -- (J)::J (J)CO 0.. ~ CD :::::b-l O::T ~co ""wtu ::J(') o..@ "O(J) 0(J) (J)~ co -- (J)= tuo- (J)co --c CO::J ~_(J) :::ntu (')CD' Q) ,. ::J __ '-"'::J ::TCO Q)=+: N -- (') tu -- ...,CD O-::J - .-... ~ ~ )>"0 "0 -- -- -..., 0 < == = CD 0 -- s_ < (J) ::J "0 ;a = co 5::(')~Oo-o co -- co -h CD ::J -- n 0.. Q) S-)> -- ::J - --coo.. - o - CD -- 3 CD < ::J '< ::J 3::;~~(')() '< -- 0 (J) Q) 0.. (') "0 CD ~..., n ..., '< 3 (') - - - tu .-... 0" CD ~ ::J co c5" tu tu ~ o..;a::J ~::J Q) (J) =E =E S- 0.. '< ::J -- --co 3 ,. 0=S:0'< ~~ g~s.Q- co (') (') 0 0 <- tu 00 (')-hco ...,::J3Q)3< Q) 0.. -- .., < co --::J '< tu .-... .-... ~ co --co .., 0.. ......... ,. 0 ..;::; -..., _ _ o ::J 0.. \oJ - - (J) ..., ,.(J) 0 (J) C6 C. "" ~ "'C < -- \ 101 Q) co < ..., <::J::J"'Q)co ~ '< Q) 0.. '< $l o (J) Q) --~ 3 ::J .-... '< ::J co co - 0'-'" tu co co (') tu ~-o os:a ::J g- co 0> co (J) 0.. Q3enco(J) 3@o..coxa '<::JcoO>~3 -h::J.-...<ro+ 0>3 sa. ~ ::i" (') -I < co co .., == ~ Q) ::J Q) ~oa.S:~$l "OC/)co~OJ ~ -- - - ::J o .-... "0 ..., o < -- 0- co (J) 3 o o .-... ::T .-... .., tu 31 (') "O"O(J)ll co..,ro+tu 0- ~ ~co co __co co (J) 0.. (J) ro+CO,.-+o.~ ::J - ::T ex:> 0> Cf tu ::J..,ro+a o (J) ~,.-+o. "'3ll::T 0- 0 ::J_ co 0- 0 g (J) '< ro+ - - ,.-+0. (') ::T "0 0> CD~~~ ro+O><;O Q) 31 co co =R (') ::T "0 -- -h 0- 0 ('):: 5" c ::+ - ~ or.., ,. .., co ...., 3Q)co --(') en ::J(') --CD ro+ 3(J)0 N- (J) ~ -- "0 (J) ::JoQ) co -- CD' ::T a,. Q)(J)m N(J)=+: ~ ::T 0- 0.. Q) -- (J) = co ,.-+o.o-a oco)> < 0.. (') COco(') ~(J)CO (') --(J) c co (J) _:::J ::: tuCOtu ,."" c. ::J 00.. en ,-+ Q) I : ;0 CD -C o ;:+ -Ior-+C urN en-l ;;otu-l-lSttu(i3-1 ..., co 0 en '" 0 or::::T co -0 ::::T 03 co -0 (Q 03 --i Q)entuco...,:Jr-+CO <-0 co -oc o -. 0 0 co S. co -. ..., 0 tu..., 0 r-+(Q 0 -h en co en C co 0 :c r-+-o 0 or r-+ ....., OJ:J CD -10 r-+~ ~~O~"'Q.~~OJ Q) . en C tu ::::T () r-+ 3 (5" c. g (i)" ;;0 en 03"" r-+Q) 0 () co""""oor-+r-+-h o ::::T co ~ tu o-en -. :5. 0 r-+ co ::::T -i-i 3 co ~::::T:J '< '" :J ,-.+0. CO""OJNCO...,..., - co tu r-+ tu r-+ OJ ~ tu 0 ~~ tu 3tutur-+~St:J:J" -h:J3 0 -.:J c. co tu CD '< CD () CD a -. r-+ r-+ ::=c. o ~.3~ ~ OJ OJ CD en o:J:J:co:c -- CDoCD~uroOO en 3 c. . :J" 00. -. . Q)en~r-+3~3 cotu CD en 3::10-1 0'0.. "Q.cC.3 0 CD c:r CD -- -. r-+ 0 :J")> ::1::1c-oenc~ :::J ::= -. CD -" -..., m, co encr-+OCD CD ~ en en CD < S" o;;or-+r-+CD~tu ,-.+0. CD NenC.:JCDCD :J~tuQ)~oc. :::T tuoO'~-o~c. -i -.-0 0- :J-o CD -0 :J ..., CD tu 0 -. CD -0 -. 0 0 -0 co tu -..., ~:J 03 ~ ..., co CD ..., c a c. 0 0 tu r-+ $l()~ ~~"oro :r: < -0 CD -0 ~ ..., :J" oCD (Q:JQ) Q)Q)en3~Q)CD ~3~~:Jg.:J 0 - ..., CD :J:c -.0 0 :J tu c. 3:J"g;;ooC. 3 enCDCr-+en 0 ..., - (3 -"-0 -0 3 -i -" co 3 CD tu tu :J" r-+ r-+ < -0 0 CD~CDen_CDCD co co:J" co co. -" 0 CD .c -. -0 tu c. en CD :Jo C St N r-+ CD r-+ :c~ :::o~co a. en ::;. 0 a r-+ en CD CD I\.):J -0 ~ c:r tu o ~~:c()0 S. ,-.+0. c.~CD 0'" a)"c. 3 encoo:Jco CD r-+ e c. en ~ :J ..., CO :J" -...., 3 -I Q) o :J -0 S.::::T CO en 0> en;::::;: r-+ r-+r-+ 0>3030 o ;:::;: 0> (Q -. 0> co CD CD 0> co -.0 r-+ C. :J"en"" OOe . 0 r-+::::T 0 - O>:Joco::=r-+::::T 0> coO cotu C. r-+ @ CD OJ CD -0 :JI-o~en~ -" -0 CD co 0 ~ :J"Q) en 0 o~-o Q). 3 I CO 3 -. Q) en -h:J ffi3wx-rco C r-+ r-+ 0 en -. e Q: ~ CD en 3 :J" co :J" c5 Q) ..., . CDen...J.CD:Jr-+- co en CO en -t r-+ CD 0 r-+ c.::::Tr-+ :J r-+ -. en 0- en CCDCr-+enCD Q'g en CD CD enO>:J::::Tr-+ :JoQ) tu CDC.;:::;:CO== '" o '< c. '" 0 r-+:J 0 -h "" : m a. :E Q) a. C/'J )> ...., CD Q) () o 3 3 c :::::s ;::+ '< -0 Q) :::::s ~ < C/'J o :::::s ;0 CD "'C o ::4- - "'C Q) co CD <0 11 t ... z o Z CD CD a. I --I o o s: c C1 :T " '* t :I - 3 -c Q) C1 .-+ I\,) ~ C :f S. --i ZCDO=r )>'< C CD ZQ) 9:~ -~:JCD s: -.CC < 0< -. CD ...... CD Co..:J'"~ rQ)CDCD (J)r-1-~Cl. -<:j:Q)Q) <CD=R:J 00""0.. r-1-:J CD en CD _ "'0 r-1- 0..,< 0 C """iot-~o.. o O. -. ..., CC CD o -. )> 0.. ~ . I_ r-1- m_CD~ ZO""en )>0("")-0 r:JQ)..., ~ Q.. CD ~. ---' C -... CD --'en~O < -. ...... S 0 0 -. ():::JO:J . :J m---,oo~ --. -. CD :J'"o..Q) CDCD...... '<WCl. ~CD 0....... :J ~. ~ - .. N N o..--i CD=r :JCD '<m IQ) CDee ..., - ;::+CD Q)() (00 CDc "1J:J Q)....... ...,'< ~"1J Q)- ......0> ......:J ::T':J CD -. :J -0 CC ..., CD() ==0 ~.3 :J3 0> -. ~~ -0 o. Q)":J :J< -00 :J'"eD Q)o.. ~~ . ...... o o ...... o Cl.--i CD::T' :JCD '<m Io> CDCC ..., - ;::+CD o>() CCo CDc "1J:J Q)...... ...,'< ~"1J Q)- ......0> ......:J ::T':J CD -. :J OOCC @() ......0 9-3 -03 or en. :JOO -. -00 :J'":J 0>< 000 CD....... CD 0.. ~ ...... o o r-1- o O>()::T'- "'OOCD~ ~3~::T' o 3 5. CD -0 -.(0 en ::J. en.. ~ ~ ~. CD CD CDO<f) -...:JCD:J'" Q~~-o ......0>30) ::T'r-1- ~ -. CD CD ..J C/)o..3:J" -0 ...... 0'" CD ...,::T'CDQ) 00> ..., -0 ...... ..., - . CDr-1-0:J ~ ::T' -... cc '<CD......)> . '<~z CD' 0 -m ......Q)...... ..-+ cc :J" :J""-CD ~CD-o ~()..., I\Jg~ c:::J3 :J ...... -. ;::+ '< :J 00 -c 0> o -~ ...,Q)-o _:J CD:JM 00 _.2oU C/):J:J ~cc 0> C/) o CD :J -- Q) - C- '< ....... :r.- eD -0 - Q) ::J :J -- ::J CO () o 3 3 -- en en -- o :J N W -000 CD 0) ::+ "'0 Z CDO)O ..., 0 (J) _ . --....I .... .-+--, 0) ':< S. :::s o.-ist (J) ~ CD cO. CD :J "'0 C 0) Co- ~O-== '- == 0 CD 0 _. (J)~3. . 0) CD -i(J)..., ::T(J)~ CD~.-+ O. :5.:E s: ~ :J 0) 0) .-+ '--. -~O -. CD ..., 3 ,. q- "'000) 0) "'0 ~ o "'0 0 '-+0 -. (J) 0) (J) - . ;::1.. '-+~CD 00..., o :J co. ::TO-(J) cC.,< 0) ~~..., . c CD :J 0) 0.::;- -, CD CD 0) 0.0. (J),< o Ol -+'0- CD 0 3 < Ol cp =.: r-+ (J) ~ CD -. ..., -0-0 o C 0 '-+.-+ - CD CD :J (J) enoZ (J) .-+ '-+0-0 ~C--....I 0):,:--, -.-+--1'\ .-. C '-+I- ::T =:!1 CDO= Q) 3 0 (J) CD 0 ^"(J)3 S. ..., 3 co~c "'OCD:::S :::::!.:::s ;:::::;.: o tt CD '< :::s . en CD o CD -0. 0.. :E -I CD ~ ..., CD CD -, o CD :::s Ol .-+ ..., ~CD CD Ol 3 :::s Q) Q) ..., 0- ^"c CD :J '-+0. oOl o :::s -0 o CD :J 0 CO-+. Ol C :J :::s 0.;:::::;.: (J) (J) o N -0 o.:::s O'CD ...,0. Ol .-+ - .., (J) -. ~z ~ 0 -1-1 ~o CD 0 Ol 3 o Ol o .-+ CD -. (J)Q: (J) CD (i)" :E -. c ,-..to> :::s ~ (J) (J) Q) C &~ .... 0 -. C :J :J CD 0. ~ -. -. :::s o -. CD C :::s (J) ,-..to> CD Ol (J) :::S. 0.-1 "'O::T o CD (J) ,-..to> CD .., (J) 0) (J) ~ -. 0 ego -. :::s =:!1 o :l> Q) = :J CD '-+:J ::TO Ol _. N ..., Q) 0 ..., - 0. CD ~ :E -. - - "'0 - o en -. Z 3.0 (J) -i Q,o Q) 0 o :::s o ~. CD en (J) ,-..to> (J) CD Q) 3. :J :E 0. _. .-+ ,-..to>~ ::T CD.-+ ..., ::T CD CD 00. 3 o 0) :J ~ -CD '< ..., ~ -I ~ CD 0. CD :::s (J) -. .-+ '< (J) c co co CD (J) ,-..to> CD 0. 0) (J) (J) c 3 CD (J) I\.) -I ~ CD "'0 ..., o "'0 o (J) CD 0. 0. CD < CD - o "'0 3 CD :J ,-..to> . . -I :::T ()CD :::T;o Q) CD ::J..c ~ ~. Iro ~ 3 CD CD ::J zen 011 -10 OJ"" CD )> CD N ::J 0 s: ~. CD ::J r+ co " . .. <'-+-1 o::T::T r+CDQ) CD ::!. :::J 0' CO 7' -, ::T '< .-+ 00.0 mCDC () -h Z -- 0 -Cf)..., )> -- '< rOo · :::J C 0''''' .-+ ..., -- o 3 C CD ..., . () \J o _ 3 CD 3 ~ C CD :::J ;:+3 '< Q) Q) 7' :::J CD 0. N +::- ,!Jrlq j RECEIVED JUN ,"' 1 ":",'"\.1 \, '-,;.,1 Eagle Board , Comm' pf County ~s/oners , I -1 ; j , dt/J tJ~ ~', tJC!t\j' - 2 Hollis and Helen Allen Wes Allen Barbara Allen May 12, 2004 . T' ) , To Whom It May Concern: Eagle County Commissioners Dear Commissioners: We were recently contacted by Mr. Jim Guida, the developer of Heritage Park, regarding our family's original intent for the lO-acre parcel that was held back from our original sale to Mr. Warner in 1979. From the onset of our dealings with Mr. Warner and Mr. Gelvin, we made clear the requirement that the 10-acre parcel would be provided with a legal access road for its eventual development. We had several discussions, understandings, and agreements regarding the access and also regarding adequate water and sewer, all of which were to be provided from the Homestead systems to this parcel. We did not want to be restricted in any way regarding future development of the lO-acre parcel, especially pertaining to a legal access road. Mr. Warner was satisfied in meeting these conditions. We had always felt he was preparing for the eventual possibility of putting in a fairly dense development on this property himself. He and Dennis Gelvin made several offers to our family in attempts to purchase this property. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. My father, Hollis Allen, is 94 years old and still mentally as sharp as can be Sincerely, Wes Allen ~~ Barbara Allen f3~{}- ~ Holli~ ,AI~n ,~~ For PUBLIC COMMENT ~~~ ?~\c- I o'-\-\ - CDS 3> Fi Ie No. ~t'ooD~S ~ ~bP-a)DZ:b Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Commissioners during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda. If you would like to address the Commissioners regarding this File, please print your name and address below. I Name L=. .' l~ / .A=--( R, A,-~::::-r;r . / I L. 'T ~ I ~ ' << .._1', ~ l~t-'" r,', tfl"5' /.6.t&..l"A \ CLc?~........... " ---, v :.P e7...&Y )("L-1- J// \ 0 I:) ~ L, LL IS C-I 01t1lfi/ZT/~ --:t:l 11;:::;' Ii -----7....~~ '~ 0"11 k~- CLAY ~1 (J !\J J~~orfty 0UM r111J> I D. J'gQ 11..1 f..) 1-[:,,- Vf:,~:Y ~riYt:.. kCR~~(ro:. ,,-:;fJ\f1~{S(,/~) LA'h~ I ,If, 'llJ n') me i---' Cu'\ I\Q... . no" :1 ~~\~n Ntv -y......r""~tt \14-1 m~d'( LQ,ve- JJ c.{ u \~ A - 0 be,. brn ec J.2I i "tJ I04.J t: d luA"~ liJllc..:>, OIUJ C-J . ENCfR ~1.IT1 s IJ '2) ~/lJ GaT f-.(( ;QDfJD EI)vPf,V[ 5 laMA 0 j- fi I 51 n 5 k fr [,z f!-i l~ 1 ft,I(). r;Y~ '7 ~\C~ vo=to (?(,.AI\1)'v1~ T~-S ~~ Address #. ~~~) J/cwk$!~1D ~ - ~t3.f?WK'1!> ,~~ , ~ (, i J..'_ _~I I . III l r. " Cf= c~O '-<eA fit,' UJr. if- l~ ~ ) E;j CCltft,.h "7 7 iS~. -&/,2) Nu"" -Or", '-' c: (~C'/<::A~ Lc4 3Cl -ALLEJj Cr R..cLE. <;r ...Il vS'SCL-<... T~~ ~7 ~~ (lJtje ' 70 C1)/ f)~, # fJ2;:j,~ --.fJ A lJ.H\,1 ('_ / K Cl.f:./ Y!!f6o }-}CJlvi E~S1'Q-A.V 4L 3'~~ClEtJ C1R~L~ }i(AB At LEt) (l/f<LIL-e ? &-4 l\./lei IE' 4{,~ Lto ~u. ~2lsVl (ij B\v-~ vu!5 For PUBLIC COMMENT t\o1~{ ?at\- I 0"+\ - 005 3- File No. i-~'ooDG,5' ~bP~t:ODZb Members of the public will have an opportunity to address the Commissioners, during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda. If you would like to address the Commissioners regarding this File, please print your name and address below. No" ~/~A} K,e/<tV5 ~~'-k~l~l.(e..\c l<.{c~CS vf1' \ k 1'-1d?1c-() cJB ~\b\.~ C~~,t bA f!;;;~O;:L~:~~>- V /'1:r/<..E Bu,Q..j( Z 7, OR<3c,; Address / Y I h 11-te.. -II N b 11 ( 6 L J J; Pt/.) t4-t~0 -3 2& 5/-.1............ (j(..VL CrT f'~LE:; ,5'32 'S~\'~CRe~ b\- fC:"f/'.e- - ~', ( :J ?fj Cf- S 1=C~~ L~ s ,A\./L\ iU LfI CO HCvt-1E? 5J.~<,~d'7)ri~~ *~ Cc;.\,~ Pt<0~~~~:~~ d~ (~7Tfl {... F Of!. '~' '( P f l.lfl C:/ C tJpt.deRvl1~f<~ CIRC.k.. Eidr"YI+<Js r.3 ~ G/wwlr (/I/! ~ iJ(vef eA~J f 27L, ?i;~.i1,r~r::... 2." ( ~tV.Altl)..s C;i ['14 )'-"'1. &, L-8 L I~' ~/ --- ,/ ) ( . - ..:: 4~/ 2./-(['7 e o O~ l.f 14 l (e flj CL;:: ~ l ~ 56 A(~) G 1 f2..t2J.,b