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<slfEXlrMNCH' 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