Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/09/04 Present: T 0111 Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Jackfugstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Don DuBois PUBLIC HEARING November 9, 2004 Chairman Commissioner COmlllissioner County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County COmlllissioners for their consideration: COmlllissioner Gallagher 1110ved that the board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal a.dvice on issues regarding a lease agreement with Chris Estes and discussion of Regents of University of Colorado v. CoUi1tyofBo111der (1041 regulations) which are appropriate topics fordiscussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4)(b). Com:lllissioner Menconi seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. At the end of the discussion COm:lllissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from executive session and Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion which passed unanimously. GENERAL FUND 21 st CENTtJRY PHoto SUPPLY ACTION TARGEt INC ADAM PALMER AFFORDABLE PORTABLE ALICIA J REED ALLEN CHRlSTENSEN ALLEN PRECISION EQUIPMENT ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE, INC ALLIED ELECTRONICS INC ALPHA INTERACTIVE GROUP ALPINAIRE HEALTHCARE ALPINE AREA AGENCY AGING ALPINE COFFEE SERVICE,LLC ALPINE CREDIT ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY AMADEO GONZALES AMERICAN LEAK DETECTION AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERIGAS AMERISUITES ANDIE WILKERSON ANGELA HOLM ANIXTER COMMUNICATIONS AQUA TEC SYSTEMS ARMOR HOLDINGS FORENSICS ARTCRAFT SIGNS ASCE BOOK ORDERS ASPEN BASE OPERA nON <\.SPEN CTR FOR WOMENS HL TH AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 285.69 250.00 300.00 192.51 10.35 12.42 40.20 3,302.14 31.50 100.00 193.00 4,728.25 980.00 13.64 81.70 46.80 /810.00 819.00 728.29 395.00 151.80 189.75 195.76 1,543.33 230.30 28.00 18.95 951.75 1,150.00 5,155.20 6,225.30 1 11/9/2004 AVON RECREATION CENTER B &H SPORTS B J ROWE BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BALCOMB AND GREEN BALLARD KING BARBARA BRUNDIN BASALT SAN ITA TION D1ST BERLITZ LANGUAGE CENTER BERTHA MARMOLEJO BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS BOB BARKER COMPANY BONDED BUSINESS SERVICE BONDED COLLECTION SERVICE BONJOUR BAKERY BONNIEVOGT BRCIHARRIS INC BRUCELLI ADVERTISING CO CAPITOL ADV ANTAGE PUB. CARMEN LOZOYO-VELEZ CAROLEE STEWART CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY Cbw CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE CHARLES B DARRAH CHEMATOX INC. CHRIS JUERGENS CINDYPREYTIS CLARK SHNLEY CLIFF SIMONTON CLIFFORD b ZINIbA CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIA ,[ION CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLTH COLUMBINE MARKET COMFORT SUITES COMMAND CONCEPTS COMPASS TOOLS CONNIE MUSAEUS CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING CONTRACT PHARMACY SERVICE COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING D.H.L. WORLDWIDE EXPRESS DAN CORCORAN PLS DAN SEIBEL DAN SPARKMAN SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE _ SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES . SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 2 11/9/2004 100.00 37.48 60.72 919.73 5,146.30 1,500.00 70.36 135.00 50.00 75.00 151.73 1.59 60.00 24.00 127.50 17.25 2,703.00 862.75 33.90 144.21 10.00 612.05 3,198.28 468.12 3,848.37 11,523.24 2.00 380.00 13.80 803.20 87.97 68.60 65.70 55.0b 158.00 424.50 1,005.00 80.00 5,273.16 2,386.00 61.02 567.40 750.00 70.00 3,987.68 487.75 3,799.11 1,495.63 3,953.22 664.61 13.72 3,070.00 55.20 250.00 DAN STANEK DARELL WEGERT DAVEMOTT DA vIb A BAUER DAVID GUINNEE, DVM DEEP ROCK WEST DEFENSEFmANC~ACCOUNTNG DELL mc DELTA COUNTY SHERIFF DENNIS WILLEY DENVER COMMUNITY FEDERAL DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY DEPT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT DIAMOND KIP'S INC. DIANA JOHNSON DIANA KAFKA DISPLAY SALES DOCTORS ON CALL DON OLSEN DON ROBINSON DONALD LEMON DONALD SALEM DOSIA LAEYENDECKER EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE COUNTY WEED & PEST EAGLE DIRECT EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COAL. EAGLE V ALLEY GLASS AND EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER ELECTION CENTER ELIZABETH HASLEY EMC2 EMPLOYERS COUNCIL SERVICE Eps DESIGN AND PRINT ESRI EXTENSION PROGRAM FUND FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FEDERAL EXPRESS FIRST BANK OF VAIL FIRST BANKS FLORIDA MICRO FOOTHILLS BMWITRIUMPH FREMANTLE DEVELOPMENT GALLS INCORPORATED GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK GASTOF GRAMSHAMMER GENEVIEVE VALDEZ JFOA OIL MARCHAND GLENDA HAMPTON REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 3 1119/2004 445.50 20.70 25.50 30.00 2,930.35 436.73 322.04 1,674.55 26.25 120.42 502.94 253.68 480.00 575.00 16.50 85.22 1,038.77 265.00 34.20 506.40 48.65 13.80 66.60 5,934.00 5,578.00 726.39 13.00 388.02 369.51 108.84 311.09 132.20 4,945.75 64.92 200.00 31.90 725.38 5,025.00 251.26 1,700.00 1,200.62 2,187.76 450.89 444.26 18,257.45 140.00 47.47 999.73 1,029.64 22.50 1,393.97 18.00 315.00 13.80 1l7.04 GORE RANGE NATURAL GOVCONNECTION, INC GRACE FINNEY GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRANVILLE LLOYD MD GREAT AMERICAN LEASING GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES H JAMES GAREL HALL AND EVANS fIANSEN STEVE R fIART INTERCIVIC HASLER INC HAWTHORN SUITES HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH CARE LOGISTICS HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HELEN M LINDOW HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILL & COMPANY HOLIDAY INN DENVER WEST HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOME DEPOT SUPPLY iCC IMPAqT GRAPHICS & SIGNS INTAB INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION JAMES PUBLISHING COMPANY JANET CONNORS JAY LUCAS JDS T ACnCAL mc JEAN NUNN JEANETTE HURSEY JENNIE WAffRER JILL HUNSAKER JIM DUKE JIM WAHLSTROM JIMMY COLIHAN JOHN ANGLIN JOHN KING JOHN LOWERY JOHN'SONS HOUSE OF FLoWERS JOSEPH L FORINASH JOYCE L REICHE JOYCE MACK JP TRUCKING, INC. JUSTIN ALLISON KARA BETTIS, CORONER KAREN LEAVITT KATIE BRANDRUP KATIE HARPER KAUFMAN BILL KEN NEUBECKER KERRY WALLACE KIM ERICKSON SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SuPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT RE1MBUltsEMEm--~~- REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 4 11/912004 10,048.00 109.16 91.80 100.20 450.00 148.50 18.80 340.00 2,200.00 282.30 490.12 187.00 345.00 137.29 313.05 8,432.25 123.68 258.00 1,669.00 296.00 13,854.65 165.62 376.98 518.55 148.52 200.00 649.25 65.94 72.60 50.00 125.00 296.24 205.72 653.03 241.91 13.20 _u-~55T8~'- 189.75 140.00 41.40 192.36 44.75 52.60 78.00 104.25 300.00 150.00 53.49 30.00 24.00 250.00 373.79 41.40 41.40 189.75 KIM JOHNSON KINDER MORGAN INC KIRK HANSEN KUTNER MILLER, P .C. LARA "HEATHER" LAWDERMILK LARSON TURNER DALBY LASER JUNCTION LAURA FAWCETT LAUREL POTTS LEDERHAUSE EDITH LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LESLIE KEHMEIER LEXIS NEXIS MATTHEW LEXISNEXIS LINDA MAGGIORE LrvEPERSON INC LIZ MAYER LL BEAN CORPORATE SALES LORRAINE VALLADARES LUZ FORD M LEE SMITH PUBLISHERS MACHOL & JOHANNES MAG INSTRUMENT MAIN AUTO PARTS MARIA ANJIER MARILYN MENNS MARKS pLuMBING PARTS MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MATTHEW BENDER MAURI NOTTINGHAM MBIA MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MCI WORLDCOM MEDICAL CENTER OF EAGLE MESA COUNTY EXTENSION MICHAEL MCCLINTON MICHAEL ROEPER MICRO PLASTICS MID V ALLEY ELECTRIC MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN MIKE BAIR MONTAG KEITH P MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNTAIN DIRECT MARKETING MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS MOUNTAIN TEMP SERVICES NATIONAL 4H SUPPLY NATIONAL BUSINESS NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIONAL EVIRONMENT AL NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY , rOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NW EDUCATION LOAN ASSOC. OLGA WILKINS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 5 11/912004 6.90 3,307.24 62.10 4,878.40 20.36 30.00 105.00 18.25 23.71 79.20 1,328.82 169.22 89.35 49.55 80.39 990.00 76.47 685.95 389.26 28.98 187.00 48.96 79.35 53.09 15.96 21.90 489.81 51.14 326.29 378.60 4,816.70 318.28 2,236.34 342.00 30.00 27.60 160.83 14.90 423.98 527.66 37.95 324.07 130.20 35,435.08 1,500.00 250.00 2,606.63 673.17 426.95 515.00 85.00 1,149.95 2,274.33 247.80 135.00 OLSON PROPERTY OSM DELIVERY LLC P-LOGIC SYSTEMS PAPER OIRECT PAT MAGDZIUI( PAT MAGDZUIK PEGGY GRAYBEAL PET FOOD LTD PETTY CASH PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PHILLIP BOWMAN PHOENIX INN SUITES PITNEY BOWEs INCORPORATED PRCA MOUNTAIN STATES PREMIER ELECTRIC CO INC PRIMEDIA WORKPLACE PRO POLYOF AMERICA INC PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT PIWFESSIONAL TREE & TURF PSS,INC QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QwEST RADIOLOGY IMAGING ASSOC RAMON MONTOYA REGION 8 HSA RITA WOODS RNER OAKS COMMUNICATIONS ROBAR COMPANIES ROBERT WARNER ROBIN BURGDORF ROCKHURSTCOLLEGE ROCKYNET.COM INC RON WOLfE ROSIE MORENO RRMA RSC S & H UNIFORM CORP SAFECO SANDRA L SKILES SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SECURE FILES INC SENN VISCIANO SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SHAINHOLTZ TODD H DDS SHANNON HURST SHEAFFER KAREN SHIRLEY WHITE SIGNATURE SIGNS SILT CO"OP SILVIA LORENA DELGADO SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SKlLLPATH SEMINAR SNOWHITE LINEN SO TECH SPECIAL OPERATION SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SF,RVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 6 11/9/2004 4,370.00 399.00 7,852.50 66.81 159.10 143.67 180.00 454.40 100.36 466.26 19.93 299.22 97.25 1,000.00 336.34 388.00 2,885.00 131.90 9.36 1,418.75 333.93 6,170.48 28.00 26.91 45.00 285.12 10,961.62 1,461.10 12.42 38.64 152.89 100.00 18.98 51.09 1,050.00 2,649.00 304.15 6,212.75 189.75 2,364.75 152.50 1,125.00 21.00 34,264.38 165.00 10.00 545.21 41.40 217.50 298.97 100.74 362.94 388.00 153.88 1,331.50 . SOLE MAN LLC SPEAKOUTV AIL INCORP. SPILLMAN DATA SYSTEMS SPRINT PRESS DENVER STATE OF COLORADO STEPHANIE GLENWRIGHT STER.ICYCLE INC STRA wBERRYPATCH SUE MOTT SUMMIT COUNTY SENIORS SUSAN NOTTINGHAM SUSPENSE FUND TEAK SIMONTON TENIE CHICOINE THE GALLERY COLLECTION TBEGOURMETCOWSOY THEMEETINGEDGE, INC. THOMAS C BARRETT THOMAS F FARRELL TIM LOSA TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMA TI TOTAL PLUMBING INC TOWN OF BASALT TOWN OF SASALT- WATER FUND TOWN OF V AIL TRANE COMPANY TRANSCOR AMERICA.INC TR.I COuNTY FIRE uNIFORM KiNGDOM uNItEtHARCEL SERVICE UNITED REPROGRAPHIC V ACCESS AMERICA, INC VAIL MOUNTAIN RESCUE GROU VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT VAIL VALLEY CUSTOM VAIL V ALLEY EMERGENCY VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTR VAILNET INC VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL VERIZON WIRELESS, VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS VIOLA HERMOSILLO VISA CARD SERVICES VISION CHEMICAL SYSTEMS WAGNER POWER SYSTEMS WASTE MANAGEMENT WELLS FARGO WENDY GRIFFITH PHOTOGRAPB WENDY JO HASKINS WEST GROUP WESTERN SLOPE WHISLER BEARING CO WHITE RNER INSTITUTE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLLEXPD SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 7 1119/2004 34.00 225.00 250.00 800.00 472.56 30.00 3 I 1.16 109.50 84.00 7,438.00 44.85 79,180.58 201.20 82.80 128.00 1,687.00 25.00 23.32 16.80 206.74 199.56 2,260.54 4.00 1,320.00 86.58 7,282.00 4,407.54 2,443.88 115.00 1,258.60 424.91 415.54 10,192.00 384.13 5,000.00 1,281.00 1,170.00 812.80 67.80 33.13 180.00 5,100.04 274.36 38.30 4,494.08 50.00 4,637.91 105.53 284,040.817180.40 43.12 1,606.44 555.35 232.65 900.00 WILLIAM VANNICE WIND RNER TREES WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYN CONSULTING XCELENERGY XEROX CORPORATION XEROX OMNIFAX XOCHITL HERNANDEZlCONTERA Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC Z DELI INC ZEE MEDICAL SEIWICE PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER R.OAD AND BRIDGE FUND ADOLPH B CRAMER ALEXANDER KIM AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOC BAND B EXCA VA TING BELLYACHE RIDGE METRO DlS BILL BOCELA W A TZ COLORADO LiAP COpy pLUS CUSTOM ENVIRONMENTAL SVS CUSTOM HOUSE CONSTRUCnON DA VlD MUNK DAVlDORKERRIHEYL DEEP ROCK WEST DOUGLAS GUION EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING ELLIOTT CONCRETE INC dARY ORJUDY DENKER GARY PLATH GORDON ADAMS GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HI~L BROTHERS CHEMICAL CO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC IDEAL FENCING CORP INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY JAKOB SCHVV AIGER KERRY O'NEILL KINDER MORGAN !NC LAF ARGE CORPORATION LHC CONSTIJCTION INC MOTOR POOL FUND MTJ MASONRY NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP PAUL MOSES PAVEMENT REPAIR RD CRAIG RODNEY DAVIS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL 21 &22 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 8 11/9/2004 6.90 660.00 1,033.17 74.71 4,428.39 49.84 9,294.62 612.00 28.98 74.92 60.00 458.62 648,088.82 1,459,353.15 100.00 250.00 1,895.00 100.00 2,000.00 75.00 240.00 2.71 250.00 250.00 100.00 250.00 30.89 75.00 105.39 100.00 250.00 100.00 72.13 2,020.68 664.00 5,922.22 433.27 5,906.65 344.11 2,000.00 75.00 185.42 1,147.00 125.00 4,132.54 100.00 3.50 139.00 39.44 349.75 250.00 250.00 RON BUCHAN SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION SCULLY BUILDING CORP SERVICEMASTER CLEAN STEVE OR KATY KLOOSTERMAN SUSPENSE FUND TIMBERLINE STEEL TOWN OF GYPSUM V AIL RESORTS INC VALLEY LUMBER WARNING LITES & EQUIPMENT WELLS FARGO WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATE WOOD PRODUCT SIGNS WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION P A YROL FOR OCTOBER SOCIAL SERVICES FUNI> ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF AMP AHOE COUNTY SHERIFF CAtHERINE ZAKOIAN, M.A. COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLTH COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CRAIG SMITH CRICKET PYLMAN CSWC EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COAL. EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EC SOC.IAL SERVICES ELIZABETH MCGILLVRAY FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY GARFIELD CO DEPT SOC SERV HEALTH & ffiJMAN SERVICES HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC JANE WEST JEANNE MCQUEENEY JEROME EVANS PH.D JERRI ISRAEL JULIA KOZUSKO KAPLAN COMPANIES, INC KA TO COUNSELING KRISTI GREMS LISA GRIGGS LONG BEACH GENETICS INC MARIAN MCDONOUGH REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE PAYROLL EXPD SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE PAYROLL 21 &22 SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 9 11/9/2004 125.00 212.39 100.00 913.05 100.00 6,048.04 93.14 239.85 2,000.00 107.47 46,582.77 26,072.16 3.00 11,875.00 383.95 283.84 62,012.10 187,485.46 19.00 7.00 430.00 2,425.88 212.62 29.45 94.25 176.30 300.00 21.70 294.18 96.60 1,000.00 188.64 191.25 40.00 537.50 46.90 14,576.00 5.56 870.37 140.47 1,467.51 1,824.52 1,337.50 348.39 2,305.00 1,413.08 130.00 1,741.50 377.58 50.00 717.62 MOTOR POOL FUND NOLA SMITH OLGA WILKINS PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING QUILL CORPORATION RITA WOODS SERENA DE LEON STATE FORMS CENTER STATE FORMS PUBLICATIONS SUSPENSE FUND THREE FEATHERS ASSOCIATES TRI COUNTY FIRE VERIZON WIRELESS, VIOLA HERMOSILLO WElL PUBLISHING , WELLS FARGO WENDY GRIFFITH PHOTOGRAPH XEROX CORPORATION PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER RETlREMENT FUND SUSPENSE FUND INSURANCE RESERVE FlIND COUNTY TECHNiCAL SERVICES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND AME~CANFENCECOMPANY AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ARCHITERRA B ANDB EXCAVATING BENCHMARK ENGINBE~G BLUE SKY LIGHTING AND CDW COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS EAGLE RIVER WATER AND IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS KLINE CONSTRUCTION LEFTHAND NETWORKS MCGRAW HILL COMPANY PET PICK UPS PETER BERGH R J THOMAS MFG CO INC SECURE FILES INC SHEPHERD RESOURCES, INC. SQUARE ROOT SOLUTIONS INC TRANE COMPANY VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE PAYROLL EXPD SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL 21 &22 SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 10 11/9/2004 222.72 42.16 1,098.09 119.60 10.99 401.37 59.28 208.75 9.47 5,808.52 450.00 229.00 422.32 31.33 145.00 19,337.79 147.60 737.39 40,477.84 103,375.59 68,905.27 68,905.27 2,054.89 2,054.89 394.00 134.00 1,548.75 92,146.90 745.50 2,199.00 -237.00 329.65 150.00 2,634.40 3,000.00 14,500.00 782.00 379.14 500.00 4,316.00 16,605.00 6,570.57 250.00 8,499.51 33.13 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. A& E TIRE INC Al AUTO ELECTRIC COMPANY ADVANTAGE NETWORK SYSTEMS ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES BICYCLE COLORADO BILLINGS KAR KOLaR INC BUFFALO RIDGE AFFORDABLE CARTER & ALTERMAN CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING COLLETTS COLORADO MOTOR PARTS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLUMBINE MARKET CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEEP ROCK WEST DOCTORS ON CALL DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES FEDERAL ExPRESS G & K SERVICES GE CAPITAL GILLIG CORPORATION HASLER INt HCA-IfEALTfIONE Ltc HBAL TH INSURANCE FUND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HSSRENTX INNOVA TIVE ENERGY JJ KELLER JAY MAX SALES KA TINA RENZELMAN KINDER MORGAN INC KINETICO WATER PROS KIPLINGER LETTER LAFARGE CORPORATION LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC M & M AUTO PARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS METER TREATER MOTOR POOL FUND MYRON CORPORATION NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL NOVUS AUTOGLASS QWEST REGAL PLASTIC SUPPLY RON E BECK SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SUSPENSE FUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SBRVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE 11 11/912004 155,480.55 3,534.94 180.00 307.87 1,298.15 323.05 100.00 120.50 6,942.00 2,000.00 13.82 78.71 74.69 378.56 264.95 11.33 4,992.71 14.90 165.00 4,571.13 127.45 325.98 565.24 2,783.10 187.00 659.10 1,228.72 2,121.31 249.99 427.00 212.38 45.56 38.62 649.30 35.00 58.00 542.50 934.69 44.07 2.94 27.40 1,721.04 4,803.00 268.64 275.00 279.00 172.32 896.56 1,800.00 46.08 . 3,197.28 12,379.89 TIMBERLINE STEEL TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF V AIL UNITED LABORATORIES UNITED STATES WELDING VAIL NET V AIL RESORTS INC VERIZON WIRELESS, WELLS F ARGg WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XCEL ENERGY XEROX CORPORATION ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS ALPINE ENGINEERING BEAUTY BEYOND BELIEF COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLUMBINE MARKET COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPREss HEALTH INSURANCE FUND KEMP AND COMPANY INC NEXGENCONSTRUCTORS NOBLE WELDING QUILL CORPORATION SUSPENSE FUND WELLS FARGO SALES TAX R.F.V. TRANSP. ROA~G FORK SALES TAX R.F.V. TRAILS ROARING FORK TRANSPORT A. VEHICLE RPLCMT GILLIG CORPORATION AIRPORT FUND AAAA SEPTIC PUMPING SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLLEXPD SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL 21 &22 SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE PAYROLLEXPD SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 12 11/9/2004 397.90 381.25 159.83 839.93 200.00 126.89 26.91 17.93 250.00 123.30 50,174.92 70.37 178.38 582.46 15.49 55.95 117,294.71 233,372.69 1,136.25 226.49 536.24 29.09 24.00 274.65 5.36 243.70 32,694.51 5,379.60 373.26 183.64 1,117.44 42,224.23 95,878.50 95,878.50 11,223.94 11,223.94 278,835.00 278,835.00 777.00 ALBERTOS TRUCKING ALPINE GLASS & MIRROR ARFF WORKING GROUP BALCOMB AND GREEN BARNES DISTRIBUTING BENCHMARK ENGINEERING BRENT SERVICES CARTER & BURGESS, INC CED-CONSOLIDA TED ELECTRIC CENTURYEQUWMENTCOMPANY CHRIS ANDERSON COLLETTS COLORADO MOTOR PARTS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEEP ROCK WEST DISH NETWORK DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DOMINGUEZ TRUCKING DRAGONS BOOT & SHOE ELIZABETH WILT ENSEMBLE CARE & FINGER ROCk pRESERVE, LLC GALLS INCORJiORA TED GA TEKEEPER'SYSTEMS GYPSUM TOWN OF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HEALTH SYTLES FITNESS HEWLETT PACKARD fUGHTOWER TRUCKING HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC IMAGINIT'EMBROIDERY INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER JEPPESEN DATAPLAN INC KtNDERMORGAN INC KOLBE STRIPING INC L.N. CURTIS & SONS LAMINATION SERVICE INC LAWSON PRODUCTS M&MAUTOPARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MCGRAW HILL COMPANY MCI WORLDCOM MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC MOTOR POOL FUND NEXTEL OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION RIVENDALL SOD FARM RYCOM SERVICEMASTER CLEAN _HAMROCK TRUCKING , 'UMMITEX, LLC SUSPENSE FUND UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SuPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 13 11/9/2004 100.00 210.20 125.00 771.00 110.36 585.00 682.38 3,086.19 1,226.93 226.23 18.39 305.30 64.97 75.76 160.85 268.35 29.99 110.00 271.77 100.00 179.90 26.57 137.00 54,000.00 149.84 1,875.00 344.25 483.68 708.28 356.00 50.00 2,602.60 143.21 42.00 32,407.64 479.44 150.00 1,858.50 2,707.22 1,514.80 49.78 139.31 664.20 245.86 26,633.00 923.94 906.99 38.69 5,299.66 3,263.83 2,348.00 50.00 139.00 2,474.70 78.33 US CUSTOMS SERVICE SERVICE 4,687.56 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 58.79 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 222.78 WALSH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE 780.73 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE 445.02 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 13,282.25 WESTERN COLORADO TESTING SERVICE 200.00 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS SUl'PLIES 2,190.93 WILLIAM E PAYNE & ASSOC SERVICE 8,850.00 WINDFALL ATTRACTIONS SERVICE 12.00 WORKRITE SERVICE 459.04 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 55.98 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 87.55 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUPPLIES 444.68 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 21 & 22 28,973.83 213,528.03 MICROWAVE MAINTENANCE FUND HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 3,208.61 MCI WORLDCOM SERVICE 3,291.02 QWEST SERVICE 933.22 7,432.85 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND BEAUbIN GANZE CONSULTING SERVICE 1,002.08 QWEST INTERPRrSE NETWRKNG SERVICE 309.00 1,311.08 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FUND ALL METALS SERVICE 717.89 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY SERVICE I,I07.42 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 75.00 SAFE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 1,603.50 SKYLINE MECHANICAL SERVICE 2,353.00 VrSA CARD SERVrCES SERVICE 933.17 6,789.98 LANDFILL FUND ACZ LABORATORY INC BOLES CUSTOM BUILDER INC CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS CAROLINA SOFTWARE CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS DEEP ROCK WEST DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 498.00 855.20 589.56 300.00 68.56 16,943.71 46.90 112.60 600.00 250.73 8.58 14 11/912004 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND KEMP AND COMPANY INC KRW CONSULTING INC MARVIN LAMAN jR MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS PAWNEE BUTTES SEED INC PEAK LAND SURVEYING INC ROAD AND BRIDGE bEPARTMEN RONALD RASNIC SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SUSPENSE FUND VAIL DAILY THE VISA CARD SERVICES WELbELN DESIGN CO WELLS FARGO WEStERN PAPER DISTR1BUTOR WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER MOTOR POOL FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS AL-JON INC AMERIGAS CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CHERYL CRANE COLLETTS COLORADO MOTOR PARTS COpy PLUS DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES G & K SERVICES GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE HANSON EQUIPMENT HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HENSLEY BATTERY HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HONNEN EQtJWMENT KINDER MORGAN INC LAWSON PRODUCTS M & M AUTO PARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MARIAN MCDONOUGH MIKE ALDRICH MOTOR POOL FUND NEW HOLLAND PLAN NICOLE SISNEROS NOVUS AUTO GLASS POWEREQUWMENTCOMPANY REY MOTORS INCORPORATED RHONDAPARKER SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SERVICEMASTER CLEAN EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXPD SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL 21 &22 SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE 15 11/9/2004 410.18 127.50 10,064.64 34.97 694.00 499.00 1,080.00 10,066.02 150.00 1,936.81 1,778.82 46.90 965.97 300.00 6,461.44 104.73 29.19. 14,876.36 69,900.37 88.95 99.58 1.03 694.20 48.08 15.00 54,965.21 579.09 171.12 612.32 438.14 418.65 2,422.15 316.76 219.90 1,120.18 309.54 479.38 531.03 227.93 12.97 26.58 75.00 994.44 153.68 10.00 1,024.00 321.25 2,830.43 19.99 46.08 2,360.58 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 1,494.85 TIMBERLINE STEEL SERVICE 167.29 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 620.13 UNITED STAtE WELDING INC. SERVICE 291.65 VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY SERVICE 99.00 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 66.40 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE 3,611.03 WELLS FARGO PAYROLLEXPD 8,219.28 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS SERVICE 667.76 WESTERN SLOPE PAINT SERVICE 53.24 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 606.05 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 21 &22 22,568.62 110,098.54 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND DENMAN GREY AND COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 1,050.00 EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH AND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 753.98 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 482.98 GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 11,922.97 MOUNTAIN STATES ADMIN. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 36,379.27 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 129.09 UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 4,898.90 55,617.19 ENHANCED E911 FUND CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE QWEST SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 366.70 226.50 17,158,62 17,751.82 3,120,619.13 Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of November 8, 2004 (Subject to review by the COutlty Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Departm:ent 13. Approval of Payroll for November 10,2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for October 12th and October 26th, 2004. Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder D. Public Improvements Agreement for the Beaver Creek Landing Roundabout Grading Permit, File No. MI- 11973 Phillip Bowman, Engineering E. Preconstruction Services Agreement for the Eagle County Childcare Community Center Building 16 11/9/2004 County Attorney's Office Representative F. Resolution 2004-113 Authorizing the Chairman of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners to Authorize Commencement of Warranty and/or Correction Periods for any and all Public Improvement within Eagle County, Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative G. Agreement Esta.blishing the Obligation of Berry Creek Limited Liability Company Regarding the Installation of Underground Drainage Piping at Tract C, Berry CreekIMiller Ranch Planned Unite Development County Attorney's Office Representative H. AssigfllnentofCertificate of Deposit From Contract One, Inc. to County of Eagle in the Amount of $2,000 for Permit to Construct Within the Public Way No. 3417 County Attorney's Office Representative 1. Lease between County of Eagle and MGM Rental, L.L.C. for Parking and Storing of Overflow Rental Motor Vehicles at the Eagle County Airport County Attorney's Office Representative J. LeaSe between Eagle County and the Hertz Corporation for New Rental Motor-Vehicle Deliveries, Parking and Storage of Overflow Motor Vehicles at the Eagle County Airport County Attorney's Office Representative K. Lease betWeen Eagle County and Cendant Car Rental Group, Inc., for New Rental Motor Vehicle Deliveries, Parking and Storing of Overflow Motor Vehicles at the Eagle County Airport Airport Representative L. Agreement for use of Building and Temporary Easement for the 4"H Barn in Eagle, Colorado, betWeen Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and Eagle County Government Helen Migchelbrink, Facilities Management M. Master Agreement Regarding Provision of Architectural Services for Freedom Park betWeen Eagle COutlty and Shepherd Resources, mc. County Attomey's Office Representative N. Memorandum of Agreement betWeen the Federal Aviation Administration and Eagle County, Colorado for the Radar System at the Eagle County Regional Airport County Attorney's Office Representative O. Agreement between County of Eagle and the Colorado River Water Conservation District County Attorney's Office Representative P. Application for Federal Assistance for East Runway Extension at the Eagle County Airport County Attorney's Office Representative Engineering Q. Hangar Lease between Eagle County Regional Airport and American Airlines Chris Anderson, Airport R. Agreement between Eagle County and Carmen L. lacino for Substance Abuse Treatment Services for Families Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services 17 11/912004 S. Agreemeht between Eagle County and the Literacy Project for use of Space at the Health & Human Services Edwards Annex Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services T. Audit Engagement Letter with Chadwick, Steinkirchner, Davis & Co., P.C. Mike Roeper, Finance U. Time and Materials Work Order No.7 Change Order No.1 to Provide Additional Construction Oversight for Seventeen (17) Days Required for Application of Shoulder Seeding and Permanent Pavement Markings between Eagle County and URS Corporation Phillip Bowman, Facilities Management Chairman Stone complimented the County Clerk and Recorder for a well-run election - November 2, 2004. He also complimented Jack Ingstad and the IT department for the prompt election results on the Web oil election hight. Mr. Ingstad stated that he had nothing to do with it - Deborah Churchill and the Clerk's office deserved the pra.Ise. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that she recommended items E, G, M, and N be moved to November 16th and be pulled from this agenda. She stated that these items would be better considered during budget discussions next week. Commissioner Gallagher asked the Airport Operations staff to discuss item Q. He stated that he remembered that the housekeeping was not sufficient when he had visited the site and wondered if this had changed a.t all. Mr. Seifers stated that the interior housekeeping had improved drastically from last year. It had been a fire hazard, but this had since been rectified. The exterior still needed some attention, but he committed to addressing this issue. Commissioner Gallagher asked whether storage structures would be appropriate for this type of equipment ~ father than using a hangar for this putpose,as there are planes that would like to utilize the hangar. Mr. Seifers responded that he would consider this possibility and agreed the need existed. . Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda for November 9, 2004, Items A-U, omitting items E, G, M and N for future consideration. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Minot Subdivision Plat Signing 5MB-00344. Homestead-Filin2 2. Blocks 13 thru 16. a Re-subdivision of Lot 19 A Minor Type B subdivision, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 19, Block 16, Filing 2, of the Homestead Subdivision, creating two (2) Y2 duplex lots, Lot 19A and Lot 19B, and a shared access easement. 5MB-00346. Red Sky Ranch. Lot 88 An Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to relocate the platted building envelope on Lot 88, Red Sky Ranch, and to vacate a portiOIl of a utility, drainage, golf, and recreation trail easement. The size and configuration of the building envelope will remain unchanged. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve 5MB-00344, Homestead-Filing 2, Blocks 13 thru 16, a Re- subdivision of Lot 19, A Minor T)'IlS: B subdivision, the purpose of which is to subdivide Lot 19, Block 16, Filing 2,. of the Homestead Subdivision, creating two (2) Y2 duplex lots, Lot 19A and Lot 19B, and a shared access easement and 5MB-00346, Red Sky Ranch, Lot 88 an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to relocate the platted building envelope on Lot 88, Red Sky Ranch, and to vacate a portion of a utility, drainage, golf, and recreation trail easement. The size and configuration of the building envelope will remain unchanged. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement - Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. d/b/a B&B Excavating for Miller Ranch Road/Highway 6 Intersection Improvements, Edwards, Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative and Engineering 18 11/912004 Ms. Mauriello stated that she had not received any complaints or challenges related to this settlement. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Final Settlement Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. d/b/a B&B Excavating for Miller Ranch RoadlHighway 6 Intersection Improvements, Edwards, Colorado. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Third Quarter Investment Interest Report Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer Ms. Sheaffer provided details related to the third quarter interest report. She believes the budget will be met for interest earnings. Chairman Stone stated that the third quarter interest totals equaled $402,897.85. Ms. Sheaffer stated that November's interest should be just under $161,000. She believed the $1.2 million dollar budget should be achieved. Other Comm.issioner Gallagher reminded the board that Eagle County owns a cemetery. He asked for approval for staff to do a survey on that cemetery. He suggested that Eagle County operate this cemetery until another entity could be found to take this responsibility on. The property owner who donated the land has agreed to double the size of this cemetery at no cost to the county for the tax benefit. He stated that people had contacted the county askingabdut being buried in this location. Commissioner Menconi asked what would be involved in managing this cemetery. Walter Matthews of the County Attorney's Office stated that people had asked to be buried there and are from the area around the cemetery. He did not know the exact acreage, but there are no available plots. He informed the board that the survey Would cost around $25,000 according to Helen Migchelbrink. The County Surveyor has offered his assistance for the survey. Chairman Stone asked for a budget amount and that the issue be raised during the upcoming budget hearings. Mr. Matthews stated that the current owner doesn't live in Eagle County and did not have financial reS01.lrces to handle the operation. There are no statutory requirements related to operating a cemetery, and the collrtty would have to rely on the cemetery districts that already exist. Commissioner Gallagher asked about contracting with another cemetery district. Mr. Matthews stated that none of the entities contacted were interested. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Matthews to provide a plan that includes the different options available based on the knOWledge that the county already owns this cemetery. ,Abatement Hearings Commissioner Menconi moved to table the abatement hearings until November 16, 2004 at 1:30 P.M. Comm.issioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Clerk & Recorder's Office ~onsent Agenda Renewals 19 11/9/2004 A) Marko's Pizza ria of Edwards, Inc. dba Marko's Pizzeria Edwards, CO This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid. B) The Resort Company dba The Terrace Beaver Creek, CO This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. All fees have been p~id. C) The Gashouse, Inc. dba The Gashotrse Restanrant Edwards, CO This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Edwards. There have been no complaints ot disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid. D) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. dba Inn at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek, CO This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for November 9, 2004, Items A-D. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Otller Liquor A. Beaver Creek Resort Company and Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival LOCATION: CONCERNS / ISSUES: Beaver Creek Resort Company and Bravo! Vail Valley Music Festival Michael Kloser, Director of Activities Beaver Creek Resort Company Beaver Creek Resort Plaza Beaver Creek, CO None APPLICANT: . REPRESENTATIVE: DESCRIPTION: This is a special events permit application for the Beaver Creek World Cup Ceremonies from December 1-5, 2004 from 1 :00 pm to 9:00 pm. Staff has had no problems in the past with events held by the applicant. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on October 29, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. 20 11/9/2004 Mike Kloser was present and spoke to the board about the event. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the alcohol management plan. He asked for more definitive information. He referred to the number of staff and asked for a commitment on the amount of staff provided, instead of a maybe. He asked that Mr. Kloser work in conjunction with Don DuBois, Liquor License Coordinator, to tighten up the alcohol management plan for future events. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the special events permit applications for the Beaver Creek Resort Company and Bravo! V ail Valley Music Festival for December 1 st through December 5th, 2004 from 1 :00 pm to 9:00 pm each day. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Agenda County Attorney's Office Representative 1. Approval of minutes of October 26, 2004 meeting; Commissioner Gallagher asked that Chairman Stone be referred to as Secretary Stone during the ECAT meetings, and questioned whether the discussion of the radar belonged in the minutes. Secretary Stone stated that the minutes should reflect what action was taken, and then moved to approve the minutes of the October 26,2004 ECAT.meeting. Mike Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous, with Commissioner Gallagher a.bstaining. 2. Second Amendment to the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation "Signatory Airline-Type D" Terminal Building Lease with US Airways, Inc.; Ms. Mauriello asked that this item be pulled from the agenda as the Agreement is currently in the mail. Mr. Ingstad asked to authorize the President to sign the Second Amendment to the Eagle County Air Tenninal Corporation when it arrived, rather than have another ECAT meeting. Commissioner Gallagher moved to authorize the Chairman to execute and sign the Second Amendment to the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation "Signatory Airline-Type D" Terminal Building Lease with US Airways, Inc.; upon approval by the County Attorney's Office and the Administrator. Mike Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Approval of Ground Transportation Agreements as follows: Ground Transportation Agreements: a. Hy-Mountain Transportation b. ColoradO Mountain Express Ms. Mauriello described the two ground agreements and stated that they were both three year leases. She stated that Article 4 of each agreement listed the minimum fees. She also stated that there were currently RFP's being prepared for Food/Coffee service and an Information Booth at the unused counter spaces. Secretary Stone moved to approve the Ground Transportation Agreements. Mike Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Review and approval of 2005 Budget; 21 11/912004 Mike Roeper went over the details of the 2005 Budget and gave the operating revenues of around $3.2 million and expenses of around $1.3 million for 2005. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the increased revenues generated from the other agreements were reflected in the budget. Mr. Roeper stated that they were reflected in the revenues. Mr. Ingstad stated that the $500,000 increase in revenue would be spread out over three years. Mr. Roeper stated that the Rental Car Agreements reflected an increase in $44,000. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the losses that were being shown in the budget. Mr. Roeper asserted that he wouldgo over the budget and re-check the figures for Commissioner Gallagher. He stated that the signed Lease Lot Agreements would generate an additional $28,000 that would be received by the airport, and other Counter Space agreements and maintenance expenditures would result in additional $25,000 for the airport. These figures were not reflected in the budget that the commissioners possess. Mr. Ingstad asked to discuss the security portion of the budget. He stated that there is not an on-site Deputy, as they were only required to be on-call, and was questioning the need for it. Mr. Roeper stated that the amount paid for this service was $78,000. Mr. Ingstad asked if ECAT needed to continue paying this fee to the County General Fund, as there was no lOnger a requirement for a Deputy to be on-site. Conunissioner Gallagher asked if this agreement also included the Town of Gypsum providing a deputy. He asked how many times the deputy was called during the previous year. Mr. Siefers stated that the deputy was never called, but occasionally a deputy would stop by during the winter season, maybe 1-2 times per day, or sometimes not at all. Commissioner Gallagher wanted clarification about the purchasing of services from the Sheriffs Office. Mr. Ingstad stated that the problem is that the monies received from ECAT for this service go into the County's General Fund, not to the Sheriff. Secretary Stone stated that the terminal is in the Town of Gypsu.m and they receive a great benefit, tax-wise from the airport; therefore, he believed that Gypsum should contribute to the security. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there was a signed agreement by the County with the Sheriff for services at the airport Mr. Ingstad stated that there was no longer an agreement. Mr. Siefers stated that the only requirement now from TSA is that the Sheriff must respond within 15 minutes of any call. President Menconi stated that the Town of Gypsum has two police officers that they contract with. He then clarified that one issue was to remove $78,000 from the budget as Gypsum does provide service. He stated that it didn't seem to be a good service, but by pulling it out of the budget, they are only taking money away from the County. He asked if the County could then go to the Sheriff and take $78,000 out of his budget. Mr. Ingstad stated technically he could, but that the Sheriff was not happy with the current budget as it stood. He asked Mr. Roeper what his feelings about this subject were. Mr. Roeper had no strong feelings about this, as he was concerned only with balancing the budget. Mr. Stone asked ifthis item affected the airline leases in any way. Mr. Ingstad stated that everyone ends up paying for it, and by not paying it; they would have to share the profits With the airlines. Mr. Gallagher asked to see a copy of the contract that the Town of Gypsum has with the County Sheriff s Office and asked about the possibility of committing the funds to debt relief, rather than sharing it with the airlines. Mr. Ingstad stated that they were ahead of schedule in paying off the debts. Secretary Stone believed that they should not alter the budget, but they should ask the Town of Gypsum to pay their fair share, as a result of the benefits they are receiving from the airport. President Menconi stated that it would be discussed in the coming year. He then asked Mr. Roeper if this was the first time that GAAP-based accounting was used to prepare the budget. Mr. Roeper stated that it was not the first time. He then asked that the budget reflect the additional $53,000 m expenses. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the ECA T Budget for 2005 with the amendments recommended by Mike Roeper. Mr. Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5. Review and approval of counter signage as follows: 22 1119/2004 a. Cendant Car Rental Group, Inc. counter signage and carpet sample b. Enterprise Leasing Company of Denver counter signage c. Hy-Mountain Taxi counter signage d. MGM Rental, L.L.C. counter signage; Chris Anderson, Airport Manager, talked about the new carpeting for Cendant and stated that it would go in behind the counters, following the current patterns already laid. He stated that all counter signage is in compliance with established rules and regulations, with the exception ofHy-Mountain signage that does not comply. He stated that this was because of the construction that is going on. Mr. Roeper asked if the Enterprise signage being slightly illuminated gives it a competitive advantage. Mr. Anderson stated that it mayor may not, according to the current guidelines. Mr. Ingstad asked that Eagle County Guidelines be revisited and possibly updated. Commissioner Gallagher moved that staff pursue making modifications to the design guidelines. Secretary Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Secretary Stone moved to approve the counter signage. Mr. Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6. Ready Lot Signage; Mr. Anderson stated that this request consisted of road signage to show rental car customers where to go get their vehicles. He stated that the signs would be aluminum, 20" x 20", have black lettering, and would be permanently attached to corresponding islands in the lot. Secretary Stone moved to approve the Ready Lot signage. Mr. Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 7. New Bnsiness Mr. Ingstad stated that ECAT needed direction and permission in order to put out the RFP's for the unused colinter space. Mr. Anderson explained that one counter would be used for a comprehensive visitor's information desk. The other counter would be used for a coffee cart that would serve various coffee drinks and pastries. Mr. Ingstad thought that it may be best to contact the existing food concessionaire rather than put out RFP's, as they may be able to provide a more extensive menu. Mr. Anderson stated that he had not pursued that option. He asked about ECAT helping to pay for the improvements that may be necessary to make these counters fit the plan. Mr. Ingstad believed that the ECA T should order and own the fixtures in order to make it look as nice as possible. Mr. Anderson stated that the prices would range from $5,000 to $25,000 depending upon counter length. President Menconi asked if the location in the terminal was the appropriate place to set up the Visitor's Center and Concession Booth, as it was located between Car Rental counters and the Taxi counters. Mr. Ingstad stated that it did look better in person, than it did on paper. He stated that ifthose counters continue to remain unused in March, someone could force ECA T to rent them out. President Menconi asked if it would be appropriate to have a part~time employee to be a visitor ambassador during the busy season. Mr. Anderson stated that they already did, but that person was not affixed to one location. He stated that the Airport Ambassador worked about 9 hours daily during the winter season. Secretary Stone moved to authorize RFP's for the information counter and authorize Mr. Anderson to begin discussions with the existing concessionaire about using the other counter. Commissioner Gallagher seconded with the following amendments: he asked that the information center not be limited to just one chamber, but allow for potential partnerships, and not limit the concessionaire to its :isting cart, but to allow for another facility. Secretary Stone accepted the amendments to the motion and asked that the costs not exceed the budgeted amount of$25,000. 23 11/9/2004 Commissioner Gallagher seconded the amended motion. As a point for discussion, he recommended that a small, fence-like structure be erected to identify boundaries. President Menconi then asked for clarification that this site represented the best possible location. Mr. Anderson believed that this was the best location to operate a coffee cart as it was a recessed area and was the highest volume area in the non-secured portion of the terminal. The vote was declared unanimous. Secretary Stone moved to adjourn as Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS..00113 HObbsProcessine:Plant Joseph Forinash, Planner, Community Development NOTE: This file was tabled fr()m 9/28/04 - Applicant has requested this file be tabled to December 7, 2004 ACTION: Special Use Permit for a concrete and asphalt crushing and recycling operation LOCATION: South of US Hwy 6, between Gypsum and Dotsero (aka 06024 Hwy 6) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval Comm:issioner Menconi moved to table File Number 2S-00113 Hobbs Processing Plant, at the applicant's request, until December 7, 2004. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. J.>DS-00041 Edwards Desi2:n and Craft Center pun Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development NOTE: This file was tabled from 9/28 and 10/18 ACT10N: Approval of a mixed use PUD comprising of approximately two (2) one bedroom, employee residences and approximately 52.685 sq. ft of comm:ercial/light industrial spaces to be used as: office, shoWrooms and shop spaces for construction wholesale suppliers (e.g. wholesale tile; lighting; flooring) and craftspeople (e.g. cabinetmakers; custom furniture m.akers, etc.); commercial uses such as a commercial laundry, bakery, specialize spotting goods assembly shop & appliance service and repair. TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: Edwards Design and Craft Center POO PDS-00041 / PUD Sketch Plan 32466 Hwy 6, West Edwards; South ofHwy 6 (this is the remaining lot to the Woodland Hills PUD) Phil Woodward, Woodward Development LLC Owner Knight Planning OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ST AFFRECOMMENDA TION: Approval with Conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The applicant wishes to create a mixed use PUD which is comprised of up to 49,755 sq feet of commercial/light industrial spaces to be used as: office, showrooms and shop spaces for construction wholesale suppliers (e.g. wholesale tile; lighting; flooring); craftspeople (e.g. cabinet makers; custom furniture makers, etc.); and commercial uses such as a bakery, specialized sporting goods assembly shop & appliance service and repair. Also included in the proposed, maximum square footage are two (2) one bedroom, employee residences; dwellings are permitted in Buildings C and D (see attached PUD Guide). 24 11/9/2004 Buildings are proposed to be condominiumized prior to initial sale. Proposed uses are intended to accommodate wholesale clientele and crafts peoplelartisans needing a place to have an office and workspace. The intent of this development is not to have the general public frequenting the proposed development; rather, it is to be a destination for the design and construction industry. The Edwards Design and Craft Center is situated on one of the three lots and parcels which formally comprised the Woodland HillsPUD. Woodland Hills never received Final Plat approval. Recently, the other remaining two lots comprising the Woodland Hills PUD r~ceived Sketch Plan approval for a mixed use residential/commercial PUD, called Fox Hollow. CHRONOLOGY: 1974- RSL zoning was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, , 1974. 1980- Reytlolds Minor Subdivision was approved which created one of the two lots proposed for Fox Hollow. 1998- The Deer Park PUD Sketch Plan was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. 106 townhomes and condominium units (12 units per acre) were proposed, along with a bus stop, trails and open space. . . 2001- The Woodland Hills Sketch Plan was approved (with conditions) by the Board of County Commissioners. An 88 unit multifamily development on an 8.81 acre site, recreation trail and open space was proposed. 2002- The Woodland Hills Preliminary Plan was approved (with conditions) by the Board of County Commissioners. A 76 unit multifamily development on an 8.81 acre site, recreation trail and open space was proposed. 2004- The Fox Hollow PUD Sketch Plan was approved. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential: CenturyTel I Unplatted I RSL West: Residential (potentially the Fox Hollow PUD) I Unplatted / Woodland Hills PUD North: Highway 6 Residential I Unplatted I Resource South: Residential I Unplatted I Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: 3.6 acres Water: Public- as proposed Sewer: Public- as proposed Access: Via the proposed road which travels from Hwy 6, through Fox Hollow to the Edwards Design and Craft Center. PLANNING. COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Eagle County Planning Commission did not identify any issues with this file. Aside from adding three conditions, the following comments were also made by the Commission: · The hours of operation should be uniform throughout the development; · Road widths should not be compromised (for safety's sake); · This plan successfully addresses the Edwards Area Community Plan "exception" criteria. Additional Conditions Added by the Commission: 16. Applicant shall satisfy Housing Guidelines by providing cash in lieu versus utilizing available Fox Hollow PUD dwelling units. 17. Bear -proof trash containers shall be utilized throughout the development. 18. Trees shown on the landscaping plan shall be substantially sized trees; not saplings. 25 11/9/2004 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion: [7:0] On October 6, 2004, the Eagle County Planning Commission Recommended unanimous approval of file PDS-00041 incorporating all Staff findings and conditions, with the addition of three conditions (as stated above). STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: (see attached) Eagle River Fire Protection District, dated September 9, 2004: . Access for emergency vehicles throughout the site will need to be verified by providing a site plan with engine dimensions and clearances identified (data attached to memo). . . Roads within the projectare identified as "private roads". Provide confirmation these roads meet Eagle County minimum standards. . Hydrant locations and main sizes need to be confirmed. . Based on occupancy classification and use, fire alarm and sprinkler systems may be required. Engineering MenlO, dated August 24th, 2004: . Please be aware of the criteria for vehicle circulation as required in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) Section 5-240. Prior to preliminary plan approval, please confirm that all delivery trucks and emergency vehicles have the ability to safely and efficiently maneuver within the site. . Please verify that the minimum off-street parking standards can be met for each use per the requirements of the ECLUR Section 4-120. This is especially important because the parking spates located in front of the garage doors cannot be utilized at all times. . Because this proposal is for a cOmrrlercial development, the public access road from Highway 6, and the public road running east/west shall follow cOmrrlercial road standards. Article 4 of the (ECLU.R) requires a 70 foot wide right-of-way, and 17 foot wide drive lanes for a commercial road. The current proposal shows a 50 foot right-of-way and 12 foot wide drive lanes. . In addition, because the public road is shared with the Fox Hollow Development, an agreement with the Fox Hollow Developers will be required for changing the road standard. . Because the proposed earth berm will be centered on the western property line please provide a letter from the adjacent land owner that sanctions this berm. This letter can be submitted with the preliminary plan application. . Buildings C and D are at the base of an earth berm which will discourage proper drainage away from the foundation. Please comment. . Landscaping will have to be designed to ensure adequate and safe site distances for motorists Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, dated August 23rd, 2004: . The District has confirmed that the proposed property is included within the Edwards Metropolitan District boundaries; however not within the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District boundary. . fuclusion will be required prior to an availability to serve letter for sewer. . The Applicant should contact the District's water rights consultants to determine whether proposed Water uses for the project require the dedication of additional water rights in order for the District to provide Ability to Serve letters for water. Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated August 12th, 2004: . In response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bi1135 (1972), I visited the site and reviewed the site plan on August 9, 2004. The site consists of approximately 3.6 acres. The proposed subdivision includes 2 residential units and 52685 sq. ft. of commercialllight industrial space. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation district will supply water and sanitation services. . Included in the review package was a sketch plan application which included a site map by Knight Planning Services (7-29-04), a preliminary soil and foundation investigation by LKP Engineering, Inc. (4-21-98), and a soils map. 26 11/9/2004 . The site is located south of Highway 6 approximately 2 miles west of Edwards. The property is on a relatively flat site with up to 10% slopes and is adjacent to a steep hill with a cliff face of Eagle Valley Evaporite. . The geologic report by LKP Engineering states that the soils and underlying bedrock found on the property are corrosive and can produce detrimental effects on concrete. They recommefid that Type II cement be utilized for any structures in contact with the soils. They also note that the Eagle Valley Evaporite is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. LKP Engineering recommends site-specific soil investiga.tiofis as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation in oider to verify the soil cOfiditions for each building site. · There is a serious potential for rockfall hazard on the south central portion of the property. A steep hill (>60% slopes) with a cliff prone to rockfall (approximately 200 feet above the site) is located on the south side ofthe property. Local residents indicated that rockfall had occurred during the spring of 2004. Boulders 1-2 feet in diameter were observed that reached the upper fence line on the south side of the property. Boulders up to 4 feet long were observed in a ditch approximately 30 feet uphill of the property (see attached photo page). ' · The developer should consider some type of rockfall mitigation on the south-central portion of the property below the cliff face in the design plan. Rockfall mitigation structures are often designed utilizing a rockfall model to account for bourtce and impact pressures. Note that a 30-foot clear zone for fire protection on the south side ofthe property is specified in the report (Section V-5). This will be loca.ted at the base of the steep hill where rockfall was evident. If trees are removed for fire protectiol1, the mitigation for rockfall must take this into account. · Foundation perimeter drains are recommended by LKP Engineering to reduce the risk of surface water infiltrating the foundation subsoil. LKP Engineering also makes recommendations for site grading and draifiage that should be followed closely during construction. · In conclusion, a plan for rockfall mitigation should be prepared as a condition for preliminary plat a.pproval. Also recommendations in the Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation by LKP Efigineering, Inc. should be complied with. Housing Department Memo, dated August 4th, 2004: · The Eagle County Housing Department has had the opportunity to review therproposed Edwards Craftsmen Center POO, · Using the full 52,685 square feet as "commercial" space for the purpose of calculating the housing need generated by this project, the housing need is seven (7) units. The applicant proposes providing two employee rental units within the POO, leaving the need for five additional workforce housing units. · The Housing Guidelines address homeoWnership in order to insure the long term affordability of the units. While the guidelines do not specifically address the provision of rental units, it is our general interpretation that the overall goal is to provide workforce housing. The two units included in the proposal could be used in an inclusive housing plan for this application. · Please refer to the Housing Guidelines, especially Section 3- 180, for guidance preparing a housing plan. Another document which the applicant may find useful is titled Housing YourWorkforce: A Resource Guide for Colorado Rural Resort Employers (published by CHFA.) Both of these documents are available on the Eagle County websitt;;, www.ea~lecounty.us. under Housing: Planning Documefits. · This office is available to help you or the applicant in any way with this process or with the details of a housing plan. Please contact me at any time if! can be of service Environmental Health Department, verbal with Ray Merry, Director · As some of the proposed uses utilize potentially hazardous materials, a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan will be necessary for this development. . A 1041 may also be necessary. "dditional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: · Eagle County Attorney, Animal Control, Assessor, Sheriff, School District . CDOT 27 11/9/2004 . Colorado State Forest Service, Division of Wildlife . Natural Resource Conservation Service . CentufyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross, Fire District . ECOGE, Colorado and Eagle County Historical Societies, St. Clare of Assisi . Eagle River Mobile Home Park, Homestead HOA,.Cordillera HOA, Singletree HOA, Riverwalk HOA, South Forty HOA, Lake Creek HOA, Brett Ranch HOA, River Pines HOA DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary plan for 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. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Sketch Plan is in single ownership. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] Thetitle to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled bone (1 erson and/or enti . 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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized. The subject properties are already zoned PUD; however, most of the proposed uses were previously not contemplated as part of the currently goveming Woodland Hills PUD (Woodland Hills was approved for 76 multi-family dwelling units and recreational amenities). This proposal contemplates a variety of commercial and light industrial uses, with two employee housing rental units. . Several of the uses, proposed as a use by right, are currently allowed only with a Special Use Permit or would not be allowed anywhere in the entirety of Edwards * utilizing existing zoning and uses currently identified in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Those uses relate to: studios for arts and crafts; the manufacture and assembly of goods; contractor storage; distribution; warehouse or storage building; dwelling units; wholesale establishments; shops for blacksmith, cabinet makers, electrician glazing, machining, plumbing, or sheet metal. Mitigation, including the flexibility in the construction of the buildings to allow for easy retrofitting of necessary items such as additional vents, specialized plumbing, sound proofing, etc., would alleviate concerns of compatibility; the applicant has seriously considered this aspect of the development. *The uses, as stated above, are taken from Article 3 Table 3-320 Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Uses are allowed by either a Special Use Permit or Limited Review in the Commercial General zone district (the most intensive commercial zone district in Edwards), and not as a use by right; however, the uses in the current PUD have been modified for the PUD to lessen impacts and improve compatibility. [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in either Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource 28 11/9/2004 Zone Districts Use Schedule". The residential uses ARE uses allowed in the currently governing Woodland Hills PUD; however, the commercial/industrial uses ARE NOT currently permitted in the underlying zone district. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.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. The following Variations will be requested by the applicant in the Preliminary Plan application: 1. A Variation to allow the commerciallindustrial uses; the previous Woodland Hills PUD was solely a residential PUD. 2. Maximumlot, floor area and impervious coverages; these restrictions are to be removed from the PUD. 3 . Variations to allow building envelopes to control lot coverages, 19 feet to be the minimum side setback versus 15 feet as is in the underlying PUD. 12.5 feet, or half the height ofthe tallest building is the standard side yard setback specified in the Land Use Regulations, 100 feet to be the minimum side setback versus 50 feet as is in the underlying PUD, and 40 feet to be the minimum rear setback versus 15 feet as is in the underlying PUD. 4. Heights. The height limitation of the proposed buildings is actually less than the previous PUD (30 feet, doWn from 35 feet). More Variations could be requested at Preliminary Plan. [+]FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in the existing Planned Unit Development Guide for these properties; however, this finding may be found positive assuming approval of the Variations by the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. 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 andemployees of the project will be met; or (h) 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. With the nature of this proposal, and the design of the buildings for the multiple uses, a site specific parking plan will have to be developed and submitted as part of Preliminary Plan. The parking plan must adequately address vehicular circulation, loading ,areas, residential, employee and patron parking. The maximum number and viability of any shared-use parking spaces must also be addressed in the parking plan. 29 11/9/2004 [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Given the Sketch Plan level detail of the development plan, it is likely that the applicants WILL be able to demonstrate that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards, at Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaoing and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan. That plan should detail all types artd location of landscape materials to be utilized as part of this development. A cost estimate will also be necessary for collateralization purposes. Site lighting and illumination standards must also be satisfactorily addressed with the Preliminary Plan. An agreement between the applicant and the adjacent oWIlers of Fox Hollow must be submitted with the Preliminary Plan as a berm is proposed to straddle the shared property line. A landscape buffer adjacent to the east property line must be provided to help shield lands lying to the east of the subject property from the proposed commercial and industrial activities. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] . It WILL be demonstrated that landscaping provided in the POO can comply with the standards of Article 4, Divisiort 2, Lartdscaping and Illumination Standards. Illumination standards must be considered as part of Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD $hall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develol1ment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitablefor the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The applicant has made statements that signage will comply with Eagle County sign standards. Nevertheless, a Comprehensive Sign Plan will be required with the Preliminary Plan application because the buildings are proposed to contain multiple uses. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. The POO guide properly references that signs shall be as allowed pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. 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. Existing facilities such as electricity (telephone, gas, cable, etc.), solid waste removal and fire protection currently service the residents living on the proposed property. In regards to water and wastewater service, it may be necessary for the Applicant to apply for a new 1041 approval. The Woodland Hills PUD was granted a 1041 which covered two sections of the 1041 regulations: (1) Major Extension of Water and Sewer; and (2) the Efficient Utilization of an Industrial or Municipal Water Project. Water and sewer for Woodland Hills would have serviced 76 residentialtmits, 30 11/9/2004 landscaping, etc. Prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Plan application, the applicants must provide an evaluation in which the potential water and wastewater generation needs for the Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD in conjunction with the Fox Hollow PUD, are compared against the Woodland Hills PUD 1041 approval. If it appears that the proj ected water and wastewater generation for both PUDs together exceed the needs of the Woodland Hills PUD 1041, a new 1041 application will be necessary. In addition to the 1041 determination, it will be necessary for the property to be incorporated into the boundary of the Eagle River Water and Sand District necessary prior to an issuance of an "Ability to Serve" letter from the District. The "Ability to Serve" letter must be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan submittal. The applicants have shown preliminary road layouts on their Sketch Plan. As a condition of the Engineering memo date August 24, 2004, the applicant is required to adhere to the Eagle County road standards, unless a Variation from those standards is approved with the Preliminary Plan. The applicants are also aware of the possible improvements to the road traveling through the Fox Hollow PUD, and the effects that this development, in conjunction with the uses ofthe Fox Hollow PUD, has on Hwy 6 in regards to acceleration and deceleration turning lanes. To date, neither road designs, nor a detailed Traffic Analysis have been submitted. These will be required as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+1-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in this Sketch Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for solid waste disposal and roads. Further the applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water and sewage disposal. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. .. . STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or. compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right~of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. . (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and/or installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. This development, in conjunction with the Fox Hollow PUD, will have to meet all minimum County and/or Colorado Division of Transportation standards regarding road designs unless a Variation from Eagle 31 11/912004 County standards is granted by the Board of County Commissioners during the Preliminary Plan process. A new Highway 6 access permit must be received upon the expiration of the existing permit for both developments. There is a concern regarding the transportation and clean up of hazardous materials. At present, the PUD guide does not include a Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan; however, it makes reference to the requirement that each owner tenant must prepare a "spill and containment" plan. A Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan drafted by the developer will also be necessary for the development as a whole. The applicant has met with the Director of Environmental Health, and will continue to work with Staff in order to produce a satisfactory document for Preliminary Plan submittal. In looking at the site plan, it does not appear to dedicate areas for snow removal purposes. The landscaping plan, and possibly the circulation and parking plans will need to be altered in order to accommodate snow storage. If the edge of roadways is to be used for snow storage, pedestrian throughways could be severely restricted throughout the project. [+/_) FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT 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. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The majority of the proposed uses for the Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD, however, are not found in a residential zone district but rather are commercial and/or industrial in nature. The applicant has proposed mitigation of noise, fumes/odors and visual aspects by utilizing sound-proof buildings, provisions for properly venting fumes and odors, and architectural plans which include dormers and residential exterior finishes on the buildings. The applicant also proposes to include two (2) employee housing units (rentals) within the buildings located on the west side of the subject property directly adjacent to the Habitat for Humanity homes (as proposed in the Fox Hollow PUD). Uses proposed underneath the rental units are to be more restricted than elsewhere in the project and, therefore, compatible with residential uses. Some of the more potentially uncertain uses have also been permitted with Eagle County Special Use approval in order for a closer examination of the more intensive, proposed use. This development, if properly mitigated, could be compatible with the West Edwards vicinity. Given that this proposal aims to capture a wholesale and artisan/craft clientele versus general commercial patrons, the development may "disappear" by blending in with the buildings and uses as proposed in the Fox Hollow PUD (including the general, architectural appearance, and the size and scale of the buildings); the public will generally not be accessing this development. A major consideration of this development area, is that ifnot operated as represented by the Applicant, the proposal could turn into an area more akin to typical industrial establishments, where garage doors are left open while people are working within thereby allowing obtrusive noise and odor to escape the facility. Debris and materials may accumulate outside; hazardous materials may not be properly handled and stored, hours of operation may be neglected and construction vehicles and delivery trucks may be constantly present in the parking lots. Recognizing these concerns, the applicant has agreed to establish a unit for the Property Owners Association and on-site security office to ensure the integrity of the development is maintained. Additionally, a concern that the scale of the development did not reflect the scale of existing or proposed developments in the nearby vicinity, largely due the size of the buildings proposed and the lack of open 32 11/9/2004 space between the buildings, was also raised to the Applicant. As a response, the Applicant decreased the bulk of the buildings, re-utilizing the "removed square footage" as a secondary, small building at the rear of the development; the two small buildings at the rear will be largely unseen as they are hidden behind larger buildings and a berm to the west. As a result, the Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD now proposes six (6) buildings comprising of 49,755 square feet of interior c<ommercial/light industrial space on 3.6 acres.! [+1-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] All a.spects ofthe development proposed for the pun ARE NOT 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). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. FLUM -lCommunity Center. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the Edwards Design arid Craft Center is within the designated Community Center. Community Center has a suggested residential density 00-12 dwelling units per acre, in areas typically found along major transportation routes which are accessible public water and sewer, and have not been identified as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations for affor<hble housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. Coriununity Centers are also places where a mix of non-residential activities takes place, including neighborhood cOIIl.mercial activities to serve the population of the Comm.unity Center and comm.unity-oriented commercial or service which may serve surrounding areas or the entire County2. Development in a Community Center is primarily served by centralized water supply and sewage treatment facilities. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN he Edwards Design and Craft Center is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county, nor is it located in a natural hazard area. 33 11/9/2004 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN x x x x x The Edwards Design and Craft Center currently is in the Edwards Metropolitan District for water; however, is not within the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for wastewater service. This property must be included within the ERWS District boundary before the' Ability to Serve' letter by the District can be provided to the applicant. Most likely the applicant will provide cash in lieu of water rights to the District and purchase water from sources in the Eagle River basin and Colorado River systems. If deemed necessary, 1041 approval must be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan approval to ensure efficient utilization of water and wastewater. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will compromise either the Eagle River watershed or the Eagle RiVer. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue. . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . pevelopment of local residents housing shoul<l 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 for other infrastructure needs. . 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. POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 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. Seine... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job Xl 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . X 34 11/9/2004 ITEM YES NO X N/A 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents .7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . X2. x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed ilse 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 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl- The applicants are proposing to provide two (2) employee rental units as part of this development. X2- The proposed employee housing units, two, is not sufficient to satisfy the required need. Five (5) additional workforce housing units are necessary. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable LaiJd Use X HOusing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X Services and Facilities X Environmental Quality X , Econornic Development X Recreation and Tourism X Historic Preservation X Irnplementation X Filture Land Use Map X Pursuant to the Edwards Area Community Plan, limited "neighborhood commercial" uses may be permitted in West Edwards. This proposal, however, contains a list of uses found within a typical commercial general and/or industrial type zoning, beyond what would normally be found in a conventional residential neighborhood. As such, the applicant is requesting an "exception" to the Edwards Area Community Plan for this PUD. and Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and human-made environment, ensures the timely, 35 11/9/2004 cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". This proposal may serve to balance the physical, social, cultural and environmental needs of the entire Edwards Community, for tourists, and for the residents in West Edwards; however this development will definitely serve as a working environment, will utilize public facilities, provide for the economic needs of the community and will support a unique variety of lifestyles related to the proposed, customized land uses. If properly operated as represented by the applicant, the surrounding environment should not be compromised. According to the applicant, there is a need for this type of development in this central area of Edwards, as this need was not anticipated as part of the Edwards Area Community Plan. Currently, only the Edwards Commercial Park, located in Edwards, will accommodate some of the proposed uses. The 76 units in that development are also condominiumized; however, the units are significantly smaller with the largest unit being approximately 951 square feet. The Edwards Commercial Park development, which is not a PUD, allows only those uses as permitted in the Commercial General Zone District. In contrast, this customized, unique PUD proposal would provide an opportunity for small business owners to locate their business within the Edwards Community where many owners and their employees live providing a convenient location to their ultimate jobsites in Edwards, Arrowhead, Beaver Creek, Cordillera, etc. The units will utilize architectural considerations and more restrictive environmental controls than in conventional zoning. Most importantly, Eagle County, as a requirement of the PUD will be notified if occupancy and/or use changes (unless a building permit is warranted, uses not currentlypermitted in the standard commercial zone district could set up without County knowledge; uses may need more environmental controls or notification to local fire authorities, etc.). Housin2 - "Affordable" housing is anticipated in the current application; however, at this point, there is no indication of what rental prices will be for the housing unit component of this application, nor is there any discussion of capturing the five (5) additional units as suggested by the Eagle County Housing Department. Transportation - The applicant needs to work with the Eagle County Engineering Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation to secure appropriate access permits. A bus stop is not anticipated in or near the entrance of this development. Open Space - "Open ~pace preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area tQrough coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does not represent a coordinated efforlto preserve any of the subject site as Open Space. Minimal landscaping will be found throughout the development, with the condition that additional landscaping be planted along the eastern edge of the property. Potable Water and Wastewater - Public potable water and sanitary sewer service is anticipated to be made available to serve the proposed development; however, according to the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, although the property is within the Edwards Metropolitan District, the applicant will have to become incorporated into the Eagle River Water and Sanitation district before service will be provided. 'Ability to Serve' will be analyzed with the Preliminary Plan, as well as the possibility of the requirement for 104 1 compliance. Services and Facilities - This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan pertains to the maIlagement of solid and hazardous wastes and the support of public schools, occupational training and higher education. These parlicular goals do not apply to this development. Environmental Quality -This proposal does not necessitate the creation of any new wastewater or water supply facilities. Stormwater runoff and related issues will be addressed in more detailed drainage plans to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. Economic Development - This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan suggests, "... a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses to encourage a diverse economy." This proposal attempts to promote land uses in the Edwards community, not identified on the current Future Land Use Map of the Edwards Area Cotnmunity Plan. According to the applicant, the Edwards Design and Craft Center application represents unanticipated land uses, and as such, the applicants are requesting an "Exception" to the current plan to allow for additional commerciallindustrial uses. 36 11/9/2004 Recreation and Tourism - The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in sl1ch a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This application does not offer any community recreational or open space amenities; this PUD may not be suitable for the promotion of this goal with no river access, commercial/industrial uses, and without direct access to Highway 6. HistoricPreservation - No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Colorado State Historical Society nor, the Eagle County Historical Society had provided comment. Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Compliance with the Hwy 6 Access Control Plan is strongly recommended as well, with significant highway improvements to be constructed by the applicants of both Fox Hollow and the Edwards Design and Craft Center. According to the applicant, water and wastewater services will be provided, although an 'Ability to Serve' letter has not been received from the District. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) -The proposed commercial site is identified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for, "medium density residential development and minimal mixed use that would address the service, retail and office needs of specifically the surrounding neighborhood." This aspect of the proposal is somewhat consistent with this recommendation, in that the intent for the "minimal mixed use" also states that the development should address the, "service, retail and office needs of specifically the surrounding neighborhood"; this development does include mixed uses and office space; however, the proposal would most likely service more than just the needs of the immediate neighborhood. As such, and as mentioned above, the applicants are requesting an "Exception" to the current Future Land Use Map of the Edwards Area Community Plan. To date, the Eagle County Planning Commission has found that the applicants have met the intent of granting an exception, and has supported this file. [+/-) FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed Sketch Plan IS NOT entirely consistent with all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of applicable master plans, primarily due to a lack of conformance with the Edwards Area Community Plan FLUM, the insufficient amourtt of affordable housing proposed and because minimal open space areas are reserved with this application; however, with the Planning Commission determination that the Applicant's proposal "qualifies" for the "Exception" aspect of the current Edwards AreaConununity Plan, this application satisfies many of the plan goals for the Edwards area, including potentially beneficial uses for the Edwards economy. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that ate 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 current phasing plan has not been evaluated to reflect all the necessary details such as timing on actual road construction and platting or which parcels will be platted in what order, etc. A more detailed phasing plan is required at Preliminary Plan application. [+) FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Phasing [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) ] A phasing plan IS necessary 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 of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the pun 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 37 11/9/2004 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 MasterPlan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways, and. areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) 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. (d) 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. (e) 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 mainte'!ance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. As quoted above, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations only recommend that 25% of the total POO area be utilized as open space. The total acreage of the Edwards Design and Craft Center is approximately 3.6 acres. Development will occur on the majority of property, with minimal area left as useable open space. Landscaping will fill in any lands not covered by asphalt or buildings. Dwelling units will have no designated green areas; the Edwards Design and Craft Center plans to reserve little land for parks or passive recreation, aside from a small picnic area and a limited, pedestrian sidewalk. Development of the site will be maximized, if approved, with the exception of the lawn areas that parallel roads ahd areas around buildings. lliforthation regarding maintenance responsibilities has been provided as part ofthe PUD guide. The POO guide submitted with the Preliminary Plan application should more specifically explain that maintenance includes items such as landscaping, roads, snow removal for parking lots, etc. H FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed development 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. The Board of County Commissioners may find that 25% common open space would not further benefit this project. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Pursuant to the memo dated August 12th, 2004 from the Colorado Geological Survey, a rockfall mitigation plan for should be prepared as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. Recommendations in the Preliminary Soil and Foundation Investigation by LKP Engineering, Inc. should be complied with as well. 38 11/9/2004 [+/-J FINDING: AS CONDITIONED 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 both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARI): Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptuallevel, i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. See previous discussion. [+/-J FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The proposed Sketch IS NOT entirely consistent with all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of applicable master plans, primarily due to a lack of conformance with the FLUM, the insufficient amount of affordable housing proposed and because minimal open space areas are reserved with this application except for "open space" areas around buildings and parking lots. The application does, however, include potentially beneficial uses for the Edwards vicinity. . STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shalf comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Reguldtions, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+/-] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) AS CONDITIONED. A detailed parking plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+/-] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) AS CONDITIONED. A detailed landscaping plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+1-] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) AS CONDITIONED. A detailed sign plan will be necessary as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+] Natural.Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) . [+/-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) AS CONDITIONED. A Rockfall Mitigation Plan must be provided as part of the Preliminary Plan submittal. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) 39 11/9/2004 [+] 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) Impact fees are associated with this proposal, and are anticipated to be paid at the time of Building Permit. [+1_] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] AS CONDITIONED The Applicant MAT BE ABLE TO fully 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)] B 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 orpremature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) 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 Eaele Countv Road CapitalImprovements Plan. (2) 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. (3) 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. The Edwards Design and Craft Center is "filling in" the third of three lots and parcels previously approved as part of the Woodland Hills PUD. ill this instance, the Edwards Design and Craft Center and Fox Hollow PUD are "clustered" with Fox Hollow along the front and the western perimeter; the Edwards Design and Craft Center fills in the remaining third lot forming what's close to an overall, rectangular shape (see attached). This development will be coordinated with the developer of the neighboring Fox Hollow PUD in regards to utility extensions. All the proposed utilities, and main access roads will originate at Hwy 6, through Fox Hollow, and into the Edwards Design and Craft Center. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: AS CONDITIONED Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. This property appears to be entirely suitable for development; however, pursuant to the memo from the Colorado Geological Survey dated August It'\ 2004, there isa serious potential for rockfall hazard on the south central portion of the property. As such, a rockfall mitigation plan shall be required to be incorporated into the Preliminary Plan submittal. . [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential 40 11/9/2004 development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B 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. See previous discussion, page 10. [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (5)] 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 surrounding area. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDS: Several potential development proposal inquiries for properties in West Edwards have been presented to Staff since the adoption ofthe Edwards Area Community Plan. Although the following finding from the Land Use Regulations has existed prior to this adoption, the language found in the Edwards Area Community Vision Plan makes this finding even more important. The Edwards Area Community Plan, as previously discussed on pages 15-17, states that, "These sites are appropriate for medium density residential development and minimal mixed use that would address the service, retail and office needs of specifically the surrounding neighborhood." The Edwards Area Community Plan also suggests to, "Promote a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses to encourage a diverse economy." To detenn.ine what uses would satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood, Staff had requested the applicant to examine the potential uses, and analyze them to ensure and demonstrate that they would "mesh" with the West Edwards vicinity first and foremost. Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant re-submitted a refined list ofuses (see attached PUD guide), along with several letters from potential buyers. These uses may not directly support the immediate vicinity; however, the uses were evaluated for compatibility with the existing neighborhood, remembering that the applicant is requesting an "exception" from the existing plan for this development for more commercial/industrial uses in the West Edwards community. The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15).(a): (15) Any or all of the following requirements, as determined by the Community Development Director, based on the complexity of the proposal: (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned; Given the customized nature of this development, the proposed uses would not necessarily conform to the conventional, commercial zone districts without the need to limit the uses through several Special Use Penn.its; multiple Special Use Permits would be necessary as ownership or occupancy, or unanticipated uses change. Utilizing a.PUD format creates a uniform, defined, more restrictive development than what currently exists in the Edwards vicinity. HOUSING GUIDELINES. - On April]3, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable ousing criteria. 41 11/9/2004 The provisions regarding affordable housing have been not been satisfied. According to the memo from the Housing Department, the applicant is deficient in their dedication of employee housing units by five (5) units, even with the (proposed) two (2) onsite rental units which will be available for employees of businesses within the development. Jena Skinner-Markowitz presented this file to the board. She gave a background of the file and explained what the proposed uses would be. In addition to the craft center, there would also be two, one-bedroom employee housing units built. Using PowerPoint slides, she gave a chronology of the land and showed many photographs of the proposal. This site was once part ofthe Woodland Hills PUD approved by the Board. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this file would take a chunk out of the Fox Hollow PUD. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that this property is adjacent to Fox Hollow. The craft center would share access off of Route 6 with the Fox Hollow PUD. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Skinner-Markowitz to detail how this proposal would change compared to the.Woodland Hills proposal that was previously approved, especially when Woodland Hills planned to have 86 residential units and this proposal would have mixed uses. He was especially concerned about the densities of the two projects. Chairman Stone also wanted to see the comparison of the two projects. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz detailed the changes. She stated that Woodland Hills had 76 multi-family units approved on 8.81 acres, whereas Fox Hollow had substantially less units, resulting in smaller density. Commissioner Menconi asked about comparing the amount of traffic generation between the two proposals. Justin Hildreth of Engineering stated traffic reports were not required for this and Fox Hollow sketch plans. He stated that the Woodland Hills project would have generated 700-750 trips per day. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that they are expecting similar road infrastructure to Woodland Hills. Mr. Hildreth stated that because of the commercial nature, the roads would be wider. He stated that when detemining traffic patterns, they tend to use the most intensive uses when making calculations. He stated that Fox Hollow has some less intensive uses proposed for it. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the applicant would be preparing traffic counts. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the number of negative findings in the Staff Report, specifically that the project was not consistent with the Master Plan. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz replied that West Edwards was a unique entity compared to the Edwards CommUI1ity Plan. She stated that there may not be a specific location or zoning that exists for this type ofuse. Terrell Knight, representing the applicant, spoke to the board. He acknowledged that this project was different from the prior, approved project. He stated that they were working with the Fox Hollow owners, as well, to have a project that was acceptable. He was convinced that the traffic patterns were very different, as they were more spread out throughout the entire day. He stated that it was the applicant's intention to meet all concerns of the County and Public, after the Sketch Plan was approved. Phil Woodward the applicant was present to answer the Board's questions. He stated that this was not his first foray into a project of this type, but that this was his first time dealing with the County. They have been working on this project since January, 2004 and he appreciates the help of all the staff. He believes that Edwards is in dire needofa project of this nature, and many of the residents and business owners of West Edwards are in favor ofthi!'; project. Tom Boni representing the applicant gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing how the project would look. He stated that the proposal would include, through a PUD and not a zone change, showroollls, office space, and shop space for small businesses in the "building" trades. There would be six buildings with a total square footage of 49,687 at a maximum. He showed a map that included a CenturyTel parcel and indicated that CenturyTeLintended to continue to use it in the future, but said they are in support of the Craft Center. The buildings, especially the roofs, and the landscaping will be compatible with the area. The showroom will be the focal point of the buildings and the shops will be located in the rear. Office space will be .constructed as a loft space. The cost of the access permit and road system will be shared with Fox Hollow. He then showed several slides showing how the buildings will look after they are built. The buildings will have a residential, rather than industrial, look to them. Access would be granted from Highway 6 and the buildings will be located a couple hundred feet from the roadway. He reiterated that the application process has been very productive with both the developer and the County making sacrifices to meet concerns. He next explained how this proposal will meet the Eagle County and Edwards Master Plans. He showed an excerpt from the Eagle County Master Plan and showed how this proposal fits into the language of it, especially with it being a community center. He stated that this project will have no impact to 42 11/9/2004 wildlife species or sensitive lands. The applicant meets the transportation provision of the Master Plan and it will work with Eagle County Housing and Habitat for Humanity to determine the appropriate monetary contribution to meet the affordable housing requirement, as they will need more than the two units that are proposed to be built. Next, he showed the Edwards Area Community Plan and showed how the applicant meets its tenets concerning balanced growth, transportation, environmental quality, and economic development. He stated that Edwards is a live/w()rk area and is the largest community in Eagle County, and the applicant does have the support of both the Commilllity and Businesses. He stated that in one area the applicant will be an exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan because they are not a residential plan. The Plan does allow for an exception process and the applicant does meet the criteria set forth. The Edwards Plan does not provide an area for craftsmen and artisans to use for their livelihood, thus allowing the exception. The applicant has met with adjacent property owners and other property owners, and there have been no objections to the plan by them or the various Homeowners' Associations, such as Singletree and Homestead. He then gave a couple of examples ofletters of support from various residents of the community, Next, he gave the county standards for Sketch Plan Approval and showed how the applicant had met them, and he showed how the applicant met the current zoning standards. Finally, he mentioned that Eagle County Staff and the Planning Commission had given their approval to this project. ChairITlan Stone asked about the Open Space Finding in the Staff Report and if the applicant had ignored the reconnnendation. Mr. Boni stated that they had not ignored it, but would like to discuss what was appropriate open space for a project of this type. He believed that the area set aside to eat, relax, play ball, and walk was appropriate, even though itwas not active open-space. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant disagreed with it being a negative staff finding. Mr. Boni stated that the Open Space being provided is appropriately scaled and tailored specifically to the application, and he doesn't think the recommended 25% of active recreation is warranted for this project. Chairman Stone asked how a detention pond would exist at the highest point on the site. Mr. Boni stated that it was possible and at the preliminary plan there would be studies to show how this will be accomplished. It was possible that the location may change, though. Chairman Stone then opened Public Comment. Keith Thompson, a realtor for Prudential Gore Range Properties in Edwards and representing several area business owners, spoke to the board. He believes that this is a significant project that is badly needed in Edwards. This project is serviced by a bus route, whereas other locations in the county are not. Matt McGrath, an owner in one ofMr. Woodward's other projects, stated that Mr. Woodward is very affordable and is willing to let the tenants have ownership. He will build to what the tenant wants without having to outlay a lot of money, and he builds quality projects on-time. Mr. Woodward continually improves with each project that he takes on, provides an excellent opportunity for small business owners, and is available to meet with. David Peterson, an electrical contractor and Homestead resident, stated this project is a good opportunity to move the small contractors into a place that doesn't impact the residences and doesn't cause a lot of traffic. This is a project that is lacking in Edwards, as it provides an opportunity for small business owners to own their buildings, rather than have to rent. Cindy Strauss, another owner in one of Mr. Woodward's projects, spoke and stated that this project will allow her business to move up valley, as they have been looking to do for two years. She is very impressed with how he operates. Catherine Streiger, a realtor and Edwards resident, spoke and stated that this project is vital for Edwards to be able to properly grow, as the types of businesses that this project will attract are sorely lacking in the Edwards area. She stated that this falls within the Edwards Master Plan, utilities are available, and bus service makes it attractive. Chairman Stone then closed Public Comment. Commissioner Gallagher asked for clarification as to where the "Community Center" is located according to the Edwards Community Plan. He asked if this proposed use will "spoil" the Community Center and if it matters, and if the omission ofthis use is something that should be re-visited and included in the future. Ms. Rebecca Leonard stated that this was looked upon as a neighborhood center, a residential area with some mixed use commercial that would service the residential units in the area. She stated there is an area zoned for mixed use that Vail Christian High School has gotten approval for, but will not utilize in a manner that was intended. She doesn't know if this will spoil the community center idea and believes that is for the commissioners decide. Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant why the proposal should be where it is rather than in one of the mixed use areas that currently exist. 43 11/912004 Mr. Boni stated that those areas are designed for other "mix uses" than what the applicant is proposing. He believes that this project would interfere with the future success of Edwards. The planned uses are for pedestrian and campus-style businesses and the applicant's project does not meet those visions, as it is a little more high impact than those other business-types. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the neighborhood center would be sacrificed with this application. Mr. Boni did not think it would be, as the applicant would be creating a live-work environment. Mr. Woodward stated that the six buildings will be built and each building will be subdivided into 16-20 units in each building. Commissioner Gallagher doesn't think it really is a "live-work" environment with their only being 2 residential units being built. He is not sure if this is the proper location for this project. Ms. Leonard stated that in that area there is a tendency to have commercial uses, and there is likely to be a proliferation of commercial applicants in that area. Cotnmissioner Gallagher relayed his fears that approving this project will send out the message that this area will be commercial, rather than residential in nature. That would be okay with him if it is beneficial to the Edwards Conununity, though. He then asked if it would be possible to expand the number of housing units. Mr. Boni stated that the two housing units did not make it a live-work area, but the live-work is in reference to all the residences nearby, specifically the Edwards Village Mobile Home Park and Fox Hollow. They have discussed with Habitat For Humanity about building more houses nearby. Mr. Woodward stated that he is working with KT Gazunis in Housing about what his commitment will be. He stated that he is open to suggestions on how to meet the housing requirements. Chairman Stone asked Ms. Skinner-Markowitz to explain what was approved with the Fox Hollow PUD. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that there would be duplexes (Free market), four-plexes (Free market), and above-business residences. There will also be general retail located at Fox Hollow. Chairman Stone believed that they should call the development a strictly commercial development, as the people who will work there would live somewhere else. He thinks that this development would be better placed in the center of downtown Edwards. He believes that the Open Space recommendation is important and recommends re-designing the site to provide a buffer between the proposed Buildings C and D and the residences in the Fox Hollow PUD. He thinks that more open space with mature landscaping should be included at the Preliminary Plan hearing. He then asked the applicant if any of the proj ect would be retail. Mr. Woodward stated that any retail would be business-to-business and not open to the general public. Chairman Stone stated he would like to see the PUD Guidelines limit the amount of retail in order to limit the traffic and noise concerns of the surrounding residences. Commissioner Gallagher asked to staff to prepare an additional condition relating to the location of the C and D buildings in the proposal. Chairman Stone asked if the Board had the latitude to make or not make a finding with regards to Open Space. Ms. Mauriello stated that the Board did have latitude and cited the regulation that states it is a recommendation. Chairman Stone stated he would look past the open space recommendation in order to provide additional buffering to the west. Mr. Boni was agreeable with it. Commissioner Menconi stated that this has been a struggle for the Board for the past couple of years. The approval of Fox Hollow made this a project that he liked and was acceptable to him. He liked that there has been a Staff and Planning Commission approval, along with the approval of the Fox Hollow applicants. He believes that there are compromises here, and knows that there were other commercial areas approved that contain less than 25% Open Space. Commissioner Gallagher stated his concerns about the traffic counts and the location of playgrounds. Chairman Stone stated that all commissioners had reviewed the standards for the PUD, went over them very briefly, and stated that they were positive. Commissioner Menconi read Condition 19 concerning the re-design of the layout to the applicants to see if they had any ideas for improving it. Chairman Stone stated that they should leave some flexibility for the applicant and maybe they should have the condition read something to the effect of "Prior to preliminary plan, the applicant demonstrate a more efficient buffer on the Western edge of the property, utilizing landscaping, additional separation, or other means." Mr. Knight stated that they did not disagree with what the Commissioners wanted done and agreed in principle with the suggestion. Chairman Stone asked about limiting retail as a condition for approval, also. 44 11/9/2004 Ms. Mauriello stated that she had come up with an additional condition addressing that point. Mr. Knight believed that they were working to achieve that condition, as well. Commissioner Gallagher asked that Condition 19 include the words "increased setback". -Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Ccmunissioners approve File PDS-00041 incorporating all Staff findings and the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in pul?lic meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The buildings should utilize [mish materials and colors designed to "blend" in with both the surrounding landscape and the neighboring Fox Hollow PUD. 3. All comments pursuant to the Engineering Memo, dated August 24th, 2004 must be adequately addressed prior to Preliminary Plan application. 4. A Comprehensive Sign Plan shall be developed and submitted as part ofthe Preliminary Plan application. 5. A site specific parking and vehicular circulation plan (drawing) shall be developed and submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. This plan shall both identify snow storagelremoval areas as well as incorporate the recommendations of the Eagle River Fire Protection District pursuant to the memo dated September 9, 2004. 6. A detailed landscaping plan is required to be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. The landscaping plan shall identify all snow storage areas. 7. An agreement between the Edwards Design and Craft Center and Fox Hollow allowing the proposed berm to encroach across the east property line must be received as well. 8. A detailed phasing plan shall be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 9. 'Ability to Serve' from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (the District) must be provided with the Preliminary Plan application. 10. The necessity for a 1041 application shall be determined by Eagle County prior to Preliminary Plan application. The determination shall be based on evidence, as supplied by the Applicant, which compares the projected water and wastewater generation needs for the Edwards Design and Craft Center (in conjunction with the Fox Hollow PUD) against the approved 1041 of the Woodland Hills PUD. 11. Soils Analyses are required at building permit for each building site in order to obtain site-specific information regarding soil engineering properties. 12. An additional landscaping buffer is required along the eastern edge of the development. 13. A Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan shall be submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan application. 14. Applicant shall review the proposed uses for compatibility and analyze those uses for appropriateness within such close proximity to residential uses. Any use which entails the use of explosive or toxic chemicals shall not be allowed as "uses by right", but shall be permitted via the Limited Review or Special Use level of review. 45 11/9/2004 15. The applicant shall submit a Rockfall Mitigation Plan pursuant to the Colorado Geological Survey comments dated August 12,2004. 16. Applicant shall satisfy Housing Guidelines by providing cash in lieu versus utilizing available Fox Hollow PUD dwelling units. 17. Bear-proof trash containers shall be utilized throughout the development. 18. Trees shown on the landscaping plan shall be substantially sized trees; not saplings. 19. Prior to preliminary plan, the applicant will demonstrate a more efficient buffer on the Western edge of the property, utilizing landscaping, increased setback, additional separation or other means of more enhanced buffering. 20. The applicant must develop language in the PUD Guide restricting retail activity within the PUD. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00199 Amended Final Plat 0313 Strawberry Park Court: Strawberry at Beaver Creek Lot 27: Thirteenth Filioe:. Beaver Creek Subdivision Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development ACTION: To vacate/relocate and create certain skyway easements found on Lot 27. LOCATION: 0313 Strawberry Park Court; Strawberry at Beaver Creek Lot 27; Thirteenth Filing, Beaver Creek SubdiviSIon STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions TITLE: Strawberry Park at Beaver Creek, Lot 27; Thirteenth Filing, Beaver Creek Subdivision, FP-00199 I Amended Final Plat 0313 Strawberry Park Court Mark Filler Marcin Engineering FILE NO/PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intent of this plat is to vacatelrelocate and create ski way easements on Lot 27. The easements are dedicated to Lots 27, 28 and 29. All lot owners have consented to the amendments. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses! Zoning: East: Residential I Beaver Creek PUD West: ROW: Strawberry Park Rd! Residential! Beaver Creek PUD North: Western Hillside Easement I Beaver Creek PUD South: Tract F: Access Easement I Residential I Beaver Creek PUD Existing Zoning: Beaver Creek PUD Total Area: 0.830 acres STAFF FINDINGS: 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. The applicants have 46 11/9/2004 provided letters of consent from pertinent adjacent property owners, the Beaver Creek DRB and, additionally; all Adjacent Property Owners have also been notified. Those neighbors include: FLK LLC, Frances R. Lindner Living Trust, Bergman Family Trust, Vail Corp, John G. and Maureen D. Kirsch and Ira Mark and Beth P. Leventhal. No letters of opposition have been received by Staff as of the date of this report. 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. The applicant proposes to actually increase the coverage of the skiway easements. 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. d. Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement ARE adequate. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. written. DOES NOT Apply; easements shall remain aspreviously Jena Skinner-Markowitz presented this file and showed various slides and photographs to the board. She stated thatthe proposal is to vacatelrelocate a skiway easement to make for a nicer building envelope. Steve Wujek representing the applicant was present to answer any of the Board's questions. Chairman Stone opened and closed Public Comment, as there was none. . Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File Number AFP-OO 199 Amended Final Plat for 0313 StravvberryPatkCourt; Strawberry at Beaver Creek Lot 27; Thirteenth Filing, Beaver Creek Subdivision, incotporating.Stafffindings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS...O()121. - Brett Ranch Tract F - Emplovee Housine: and Subdivision Improvements Ae:reement Joseph Forinash, Planner, Community Development ACTION: Development of nine (9) single family and multi family affordable employee housing units on a 3,477 acre parcel LOCATION: Tract F, Brett Ranch PUD (33483 US Highway 6) TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNE.R: APPLICANT: :REPRESENTATIVE: Brett Ranch Tract F - Employee Housing ZS-00121 I Special Use Permit Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Fox & Company (Sid Fox) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions (7-0) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: · Timing on proposed required completion of sidewalk segment along frontage of this site. . Cost of proposed sidewalk Whether relocation of utilities is necessary to install sidewalk. Other sidewalks along this stretch of Highway 6. 47 11/9/2004 . Whether this sidewalk segment would be isolated and without connection to other sidewalk segments for many years. . Whether CDOT is likely to take sidewalk out to widen Highway 6 along this stretch. . Planned extent of sidewalks to the east and west of this site. . Value of developer paying their own way and getting segments of the sidewalk completed as the opportunity permits and the County later filling in the gaps. . It is logical to have sidewalks in the area, especially with the presence of children likely. . Reason why road connection through to the Mobile Home Park is not proposed. . On which property is the fence located. . mcumbent on Planning Commission to follow the Master Plan and amend the Trails Plan if necessary. . Sidewalk to nowhere is not fair, but the County should be consistent. . Proposed tirneline for completion of the sidewalk along Highway 6. . Responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk. . Need for on-site stormwater detention - distance between outlet and 100 year floodplain. . Would like to see something to filter runoff before it reaches the Eagle River. . Sidewalk is problematic; unfortunately, it won't connect to the Mobile Home Park. . Affordable housing program of the District is cOll1mendab1e. (Comment repeated several times.) . Would like to see either the sidewalk along Highway 6 or connect Cattail Way through to the Mobile Home Park. . . Would like to see some sort of on-site storrnwater detention and/or filtration. . Agree with incremental building of sidewalk along Highway 6: . Eagle County encourages alternative means of transportation, proViding a good reason to connect the sidewalk. . Some surprise was expressed that the County would be willing to take on the maintenance of a short road. . County needs some sort of Vision regarding sidewalks. . Would not like to see burdens on affordable housing. PRoJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: Special Use Permit application to permit the development of affordable housing by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, consisting of four single-family dwellings and five townhouse dwellings. The governing Brett Ranch Planned Unit Development, which was approved in 1997, specifically identifies "Employee Housing" as a special use within this Planning Area B - Public Uses. CHRONOLOGY: 1981 - Final plat approved for the Brett Ranch SubdiVision which created Tract F. 1997 - PUD Preliminary Plan zone change to PUD approved for the Brett Ranch PUD which superseded the Brett Ranch SubdiVision. 1998 - Final plat approved for the Brett Ranch PUD which established Tract F in its present configuration. SITEDAT A: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Public or special permit uses I PUD West: Eagle River Mobile Home Park I Residential Suburban Low Density North: Open Space I PUD South: Highway 6, Eagle River Mobile Home Park I Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: 3.477 acres Access: Highway 6 STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: 48 11/9/2004 Eagle County Engineering [Memo from Justin Hildreth dated 24 September 2004] . A Public Improvements Agreement is required for this Special Use Permit. . Sidewalks need to run along the road in the project as required for the applicable road standard. . The sidewalk along the road needs to be in the proposed road right-of-way or road easement. . A sidewalk should be constructed along Highway 6 in conformance with the Highway 6 Corridor' Feasibility Study. . The parking aisles in the town home complex do not meet the Eagle County standards; they are shown as 20 feet wide and the standard is 24 feet. . It is recommended that a ditch be created along Highway 6 that will direct the road runoff around the project. . It is recommended that the building setback be greater than the road easement. . It is not specified in the application whether the internal road is to be public or private. . A final plat is required to plat the road. . The emergency vehicle turn-around will have to have an easement included on the plat. . Other technical comments. [E-mail from Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, dated 22 September 2004] . The Engineering Department strongly supports the ongoing construction of sidewalk/trails which conform to the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study and/or any other published studies that are being used, especially in areas where we are sure exactly the desired location is known. . There is no interest in pursuing contributions for future construction. . . Construction of each piece of the path is seen as a link in the chain that will eventually be strung together to create a contiguous pedestrian network. . In the case of a new maintenance facility in the Eagle-Vail industrial park, the applicant has agreed to conStruct 400 feet of path. [Memo from Ted Wiedeman dated 29 October 2004J . A sidewalk should be constructed along Highway 6 in conformance with the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study. . The drawings must be stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. . The [cost estimate attached to the] Improvements Agreement must be stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Eagle County Road & Bridge . Snow storage areas are not called out. These are essential for this kind of configuration. . Ten foot lane widths seem too narrow. Would like to see 11 foot minimum. . Chevron signs on the 90 degree comer would help delineate the sharpness of that curve. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The site will have minimal wildfire hazard even with the proposed landscaping. Eagle County Environmental Health [Verbal Comments from the Director of Environmental Health on 27 September 2004] . Requests that erosion control and dust suppression criteria be put into the issuance of the building permits. . Requests that a staging area be dedicated to construction materials that includes a hazardous materials management plan. Eagle County Housing · Section 3-100 of the Housing Guidelines states, "Local Resident Housing Developments which provide 100% of their units for "Qualified Employees" meeting sales price, size, quality and other criteria set forth are exempt from these Housing Guidelines". 49 11/9/2004 . This proposal meets the intent of providing affordable workforce housing and, as a 100% affordable housing project, is exempt from the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. ECO Trails . The IIighway 6 Access Plan is just in draft form, but recent versions show that a 10 foot wide "sidewalk" should be our goal on each side of Highway 6 through that area. . There appears to be enough highway right-of-way to accommodate the sidewalk/trail but the issue is should it be constructed now by this applicant. . ECOTrails deferS to Engineering, but would support either construction or a contribution for future construction. Eagle River Fire Protection District . Access for emergency vehicles has previously been submitted by Alpine Engineering and approved. . Hydrant locations were also reviewed and approved. . Based on the building code review, fire alarm system and fire sprinkler systems may be required for the 5 unit building. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . The Environmental Impact Report st;ltes that the project will require a detention pond for control of storm water. The Drainage Area Map indicates a detention basin, but the grading plan does not. . If the basin is required, it should meet Eagle County design requirements, and it would be helpful if it utilized some form of water quality outlet. Colorado Stat~ Forest Service . Colorado State Forest Service has given Brett Ranch POO a wildfire hazard rating oflow, meaning that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . After development, vegetation on this property will mainly consist oflandscaping trees, the majorityof which are deciduous. Native grasses and a few scattered shrubs are also shown in the plan, but their insignificant numbers pose little fire threat. . The relative absence of any native fuels and a very moderate slope both contribute to the low rating. However, even with this low rating we suggest that duel access be considered and noncombustible roofing materials be used. ( Additional R~ferral Ae:encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Weed & Pest, ECO Transit, Eagle County School District, Edwards Postmaster, Colorado Department of Transportation, US Natural Resource Conservation District (USDA), CenturyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Edwards Metro District, Eagle River Mobile Home Park HOA, Brett Ranch HOA. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.I] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location wid be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 50 11/9/2004 x x x X I _ A voids critical wildlife habitat and is set back an appropriate minimum distance from all rivers and tributary creeks. x2 _ SUpports and encourages the diversity of the County's economic base; site design is efficient. x3 _ A primary purpose of the development is to provide affordable housing. This is a small housing development which is integrated with the existing neighborhood and is close to transportation and jobs. x4 _ Site is in an area designated as "Community Center". The proposed use is appropriate in this area. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable land Use Xl Housing x2 Ttansportation x3 . Open Space x Potable Water and Wastewater x4 Services and Facilities x Environmental Quality x Economic DevelOpment x5 Recreation and Tourism x Historic Preservation x Implementation x Future Land Use Map x6 X I ~ 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; and contributes to the retention of the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards. x2 - The proposed development would increase the supply of safe and affordable housing, including low and moderate income households; contributes to the variety of housing types, sizes and value; represents a public sector effort to provide permanently affordable housing for local residents; and provides housing that is within close proximity of the employment center and cortrrnunity center in Edwards. x3 - With the proposed condition of approval, the development will contribute to the development of a pedestrian system in the Edwards area. x4 - The proposed development is consistent with the goal of providing adequate potable water and sanitary seWer service for new development. XS - The development of affordable housing for employees of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District contributes to supporting balanced, orderly and sustainable growth in the Edwards area and the County as a whole. x6 -The site is in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Residential Medium Density", with a gross density of:; 3 units per acre. With nine units on 3.477 acres, the density is 2.6 units per acre. The proposed development fits the character of the broader Edwards development, includes buffering of the on-site parking from .ighWay 6, and avoids the floodplain ofthe Eagle River. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN 51 11/912004 VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 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 pennanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, Of if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x2 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl ~ All of the proposed housing will be for local residents. x2 _ Local residents will not have to compete with second home buyers for the proposed housing units. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, 52 11/912004 including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. This site is currently zoned for "public use" or for certain "special uses", such as employee housing. Tract J to the east is zoned similarly. To the north is open space associated with the Eagle River floodplain. To the west and south is a mobile home park. The proposed residential development is compatible with the surrounding uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified ih 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 site is located in the PUD zone district. Uses and other zoning restrictions and requirements are controlled primarily by the PUD Guide for the Brett Ranch PUD. The proposed development complies with the use restrictions and applicable development standards for Brett Ranch. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] With the recommended condition, the proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4]- 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. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.8.5] - The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife . habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Eagle County Environmental Health requests that Requests that [1] erosion control and dust suppression criteria be put into the issuance of the building permits; and that a staging area be dedicated to construction materials that includes a hazardous materials management plan. As a condition of approval, prior to issuing a uilding permit or grading permit for this Special Use Permit, an erosion control and dust control plan and a azardous materials management plan should be provided which is satisfactory to the County Engineer and fully implemented throughout the construction of the development. [Condition # I] 53 11/912004 [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, school~, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The site is adequately served by public facilities. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDAJlD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([+]) or does not meet the standard (H), or the standard does not apply ([n/a]). A plus/minus ([+1-]) indicates that the finding is mixed and warrants particular attention by the Planning Commission and the Board. [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parkineand Loadine Standards Parking to be provided conforms to the standards of the Brett Ranch PUD Guide and the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] Division 4-2. Landscapine and Illumination Standards A landscaping plan has been provided which generally satisfies the requirements of this Section. A cost estimate is required in the event that public improvements and landscaping are to be collateralized; however, there has been some discussion by the Applicant with the County Attorney's Office as to whether collateralization is appropriate for a quasi-governmental agency. An acceptable cost estimate has been provided by the Applicant. The County Attorney has approved a Corporate Bond without Securities as an acceptable form of collateral for this Applicant and this development. [+] Division 4-3. Sien Reeulations All signs advertising this business will be required to conform to the Sign Code. [+] Division 4-4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The site is not located in any mapped critical wildlife areas. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geoloeic Hazards Potential geologic hazards were evaluated at the time the PUD was reviewed and approved. No site specific geologic hazards have been identified. 54 11/9/2004 [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards The County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist notes that the site will have minimal wildfire hazard even with the proposed landscaping. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burnin2 Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. en/a] Section 4-450. Rid2eline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map as having possible ridge line impacts. [+] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report A satisfactory Environmental Impact Report has been provided. en/a] Division 4-5. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. This Division is not applicable. [+] Division 4-6. Improvements Standards The application does not clearly indicate whether the internal road right~of~way is intended to be dedicated to the public. However, the Applicant has confirmed that the road right-of-way will be dedicated to the public in a subsequent plat. Eagle County Engineering has provided a number of technical comments and noted that the following are required: . A Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements Agreement. . Sidewalks along the internal road, located in the road right-of-way or easement. . A final plat to create and dedicate the road right-of-way. In addition, Eagle County Engineering recommends the following: . Construction of a sidewalk along Highway 6 in conformance with the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study. . Construction of a ditch along Highway 6 that would direct the road runoff around the project. . Other drainage improvements. Further, Eagle, County Engineering notes several deficiencies in the site design. In addition, Eagle County Road and Bridge suggests that 10 foot lane widths seem too narrow, and would like to see 11 foot minimum lane widths. Road and Bridge also notes that chevron signs on the 90 degree comer would help to delineate the sharpness of that curve, and that snow storage areas, essential for this kind of configuration, are not called out on the plans. As a condition of apl'roval, prior to any construction or improvements pursuant to this Special Use Permit, the site design and construction plans should be revised to conform to the provisions of Division 4-6, Improvements Standards, of the Land Use Regulations in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, or one or more appropriate Variances from Improvement Standards should be obtained. [Condition # 3- 2] An applicationfor a Variance from Improvements Standards (File No. VIS-0025) accompanies the applicationfora Special Use Permit.lfthe Variance from Improvements Standards is not approved, it may be necessary to revise the construction plans. 55 11/9/2004 ECO Trails and the Eagle County Engineer have noted the importance of having each segment in a sidewalk/pathway along Highway 6 be constructed as the opportunity presents itself. As a further condition of approval, a segment of sidewalk/pathway should be constructed, within 12 months of the approval of this-the initial grading permit or building permit for this site, along this site's frontage with Highway 6 as provided in the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study and in a design satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 43] The Engineering Department has noted that a Subdivision and Off-Site Itnprovements Agreement is required for the public improvements in this development. Planning Staff understands that there have been discussions between the Applicant's attorney and the County Attorney's Office regard whether collateralization in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit is necessary for quasi-governmental entity. An acceptable cost estimate has been provided by the Applicant. The County Attorney has approved a Corporate Bond without Securities as an acceptable form of collateral for this Applicant and this development. A draft Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements Agreement and Corporate Bond are attached for the Board's review. As a condition of approval. a Subdivision and Public Improvements Agreement and related collateral satisfactory to the County Attorney, shall be approved by the Board and executed prior to issuing the initial grading permit or building permit for this site. [Condition # 4] A separate application is under consideration for Variations from Improvement Standards. (See File No. VIS-0025.) If the Variance from Improvements Standards is not approved, it may be necessary to revise the construction plans. ~ [+] Division 4-7. Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [+] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards This Section provides that "the subdivider of land in each residential subdivision or portion of a subdivision intended for residential use shall allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools". The intent of the Applicant is to further subdivide this site into single-family lots and townhouses for sale to employees, so thl( school land dedication requirement is applicable. The school land dedication requirement for four single-family units is 0.0604 acres (4 x 0.0151 acres per Single-family unit), and the s.chool1and dedication requirement for five multi-family units is 0.0125 acres (5 x 0.0025 acres per multi-family unit), for a total school land dedication requirement of 0.0729 acres. This Section also allows payment of cash in lieu 'of land dedication. At the time this site is subdivided, the requirements of this Section will be applicable and will need to be satisfied. [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees This Section provides that "any development of a lot having received final plat approval prior to the effective date of this regulation (orig. 05/15/01) shall be exempt from the payment of road impact fees, unless a re-plat occurs". The Applicant has indicated that the site will be further subdivided to allow the sale of the lots and units to qualified buyers. Consequently, the development will be subject to road impact fees, unless pursuant to Section 4-710.E.3., the Board of County Commissioners waives the applicable road impact fee in light of the intent of this development to provide employee housing for the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. This issue is appropriately addressed at the time that a final plat for the site is considered. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] 56 11/9/2004 The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed use complies with this standard. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Housin2 Guidelines. - On Aprill3, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion and negotiation of applicable housing ctiteria. The Eagle County Housing Department has determined that this proposal meets.the intent of providing affordable workforce housing and, as a 100% affordable housing project, is exempt from the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. VIS...0025-Brett Ranch. Tract F. Ea"2le River Water and Sanitation District Emplovee Housint! Justin Hildreth, Engineering Department ACTION: Approve a petition for a variance from the Geometric Standards established in Sections 4-620.J of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the centerline radius roadway requirement. The variance permit petition is in accordance with Section 5-260.G and Section 4-610.A.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations LOCATION: Tract F of the Brett Ranch PUD also known as 33483 Hwy. 6 in Edwards TITLE: FILENO.: RELATED FILE NOS.: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Variance from Improvement Standards for Tract F, Brett Ranch PUD VIS-00025 ZS~0012l, PDF-00087 Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Sid Fox, Fox and Company STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: This is a petition for a Variance from Improvement Standards in accordance with Section 5-260 G of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). Specifically, the applicant, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), is seeking a variance from the centerline radius requirement. The ECLUR require a centerline radius of 100 feet and the applicant seeks approval to construct the road with a fifty foot centerline radius. Tract F of the Brett Ranch PUD is owned by the ERWSD. ERWSD wishes to construct nine employee housing units on the property. Tract F is bounded by the Eagle River to the north, US 6 to the south, Lake Creek to the east and the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park to the west as shown on Figure 1. This applioation is for the road that must be constructed to serve these units. Accompanying this file is a special use permit application, lIe 2S-00121 for the housing units and a final plat, PDF-00087. However, this petition should be approved prior to the approval of the special use permit because it impacts the design of the project. 57 11/912004 Per Section 5-260 G, Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides Variance from Improvement Standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated in the ECLUR. CHRONOLOGY: 1981 - Brett Ranch PUD is platted and Tract F is created. 1998 - Brett Ranch PUD is re-platted and Tract F is subdivided into Tracts F and J. 2004- ERWSD applies for a Special Use Permit to construct 9 employee housing units on the Tract. SITKDATA: Surtoul1ding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Vacant I Brett Ranch PUD West: Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park North: Eagle River, north ofthe river is Villas at Brett Ranch Condominiums South: US 6 and Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park Existing Zoning: Brett Ranch POO Zoning Total Area: 3.477 acres Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: US 6. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES Ea2le County Plann.in2 Deuartment . The Planning Department has no comments regarding the request. No other referral responses have been received. DISCUSSION: This property was originally subdivided in 1981 with the Brett Ranch PUD. In 1998, the Brett Ranch POO was amended and as part of that file, Tract J was created from Tract F. Currently ERWSD owns Tract F and the Edwards Metro District owns Tract J. ERWSD is proposing to construct nine employee housing units on Tract F. A road will be created to serve these units. The road will extend 525 feet from US 6, north and west into the property as shown on Figure 2. The applicant is requesting one variance from improvement standards. The variance request is from the centerline road radius standard of 100 feet. The centerline road radius is the measure of the curve of a road, and for local roads the standard is 100 feet. The standard exists to ensure the road can safely accommodate the expected speed vehicles drive on the road. The applicant is requesting a centerline road radius of fifty feet. The road design with the sharper curve radius is intended to accommodate a 'T' intersection that will allow Tract J to share the US 6 access. The curve is being widened to accommodate trucks and emergency service vehicles. The Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed the proposed road design and feels that it can accommodate emergency vehicles. In addition, the posted speed limit will only be 20 mph and a "curve ahead" sign will be posted to ensure vehicles will drive at the appropriate speed. The reduced speed limit will not inhibit traffic flow and is appropriate because of the dense and residential development proposed on the property. STAFF FINDINGS: Criteria for Evaluation bv the County En2ineer 58 11/912004 The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610 A.2. of the ECLUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that the normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards..." For this evaluation, Staff interpreted the standards in the ECLUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. Ctitetlafor Evaluation bv the Board of County Commissioners The Board of County Commissioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260 G.2.ofthe ECLUR. It states in part: "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of his right to use the land if the ECLUR is strictly followed. staff Findiu2s The applicant must demonstrate that the hardship of not getting the variance exceeds the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected and the adverse impact to the lands affected. The centerline taditisis smaller so that it can accommodate the future tie in from the adjacent parcel. It is reasonable that this curve in the road be designed to a smaller centerline radius in'order for the design to match a road intersection design. The design can accommodate emergency service and other large vehicles because the curve is widened on the outside. Furthermore, the smaller radius will result in a slower speed, which is appropriate for the neighborhood. Staff finds that the inclusion of the mitigation measures and the likelihood of the future road intersection support the smaller centerline curve radius. Staff finds that granting this Variance from Improvement Standards will provide for an equivalent level ofpublic safety as would occur if the road is constructed with a centerline curve radius of 100 feet. Board of Count V Commissioners The Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings in order to approve this file: 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any adverse impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the persons affected or adverse impacts to the affected lands. Joe Forinash of Community Development and Justin Hildreth of Engineering presented these files. Mr. Forinash stated that there were two applications, this one and the following one, and they would be presented at the same time. He gave a PowerPoint presentation that gave a chronology of the file and showed various photographs of the site. He stated that the applicant is seeking a Special Use Permit and a Variance from ~provemen~ Standards to develop af~ordable housing for the Eagle River Water and Sanitati?n I?istrict. He ~owed the SIte plan and stated that thIS was part of the Brett Ranch PUD and employee housmg IS a Special Use item according to that PUD. There is a connection that lines up with an existing road in the mobile home park, but 59 11/9/2004 that connection is not part of the application. This housing is exempt from the housing guidelines as it is for the district's employees. He stated that there was a Subdivision Improvements Agreement in place and ready for the Board's approval. He showed the various landscaping that was proposed, mainly consisting of bushes. Mr. Hildreth stated that the applicant was requesting for a variance in the center line radius requirement from a 100-foot standard to a 50-foot standard. The smaller radius would accommodate a potential intersection with adjacent property, and the radius would result in a lower speed limit. He then showed a slide showing how the two radii would like for the proposed project. He gave the criteria the Board must look at when deciding whether or not to grant the variance, along with the findings the Board must make, and stated staff did recommend approval of the variance. Mr. Forinash stated that all findings are positive and staff and the planning commission both recommended approval. There was an outstanding issue involving sidewalks for Highway 6. He then listed the conditions that could be deleted as they had been satisfied, specifically #2 and #4. He stated that Cattail Way is lined up to someday connect with the road from the adjacent mobile home park, but noted that applicant discussions had not produced an agreement on how to connect the two roads. Chairman Stone asked if this was the only chance the Board has to approve this permit and whether or not the Board must accept that there may only be one point of access to the subdivision. Mr. Forinash concurred with these statements. Conunissioner Gallagher stated he would like to see an access gate installed rather than grant variance to the secondary access. Mr. Dennis Gelvin of the Water and Sanitation district stated that the mobile home park was looking for money to maintain and improve the road. The applicant is willing to make the connection, but the adjacent property owner does not seem too interested in doing that. Chairman Stone stated that the applicant could put a second access' point to Highway 6 on their own property to the west. Sid Fox, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated that there is some grade change there that would make it more difficult to install. The applicant has extended the right of way to the property line to allow for future access. Chairman Stone stated that a right of way does not necessarily grant access to the road, as snow storage in the winter could prevent access. Mr. Fox believed that they could open up that access; it would just involve further discussions with the owner of Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park. He stated that this proposal fell within the tenets of the Brett RanchPUD Guide, and then gave specifics of the various homes that would be built on this property for the employees. He stated they were proposing an excess of parking spaces for the multi-family development. Commissioner Menconi asked for the specific number of parking spaces that would be provided. Mr. Fox stated that Eagle County standards required 13 spaces and they were proposing 19 spaces. He stated that these units would be available for sale, with priority given to Water District employees. If they were to be rented, there would be provisions to allow them to still be for sale, so the rental would be short-term. The units would be deed restricted in a manner that was similar to the County guidelines. The district has obtained a CDOT access permit for the site. They have proposed a sidewalk within the right of way to allow for pedestrians from Hwy. 6 that would extend to the property line of the mobile home park, and there will be no physical barrier between the proposed neighborhood and the mobile home park. Conunissioner Menconi asked if additional safety enhancements would be added to Highway 6. Mr. Hildreth stated that this project would not require any additional turning lanes or signals. They are requesting a sidewalk be constructed on their frontage to accommodate pedestrians. Commissioner Menconi asked if the shoulder of Highway 6 could be extended to help pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Hildreth stated that the right of way does exist to accomplish that. Commissioner Menconi asked if anything could be done to further improve safety. Mr. Hildreth stated that the stretch of road is very straight at that point and did not know what could be done to improve safety. Commissioner Menconi was concerned about morning and evening traffic flows. Mr. Hildreth stated that the small number of units proposed didn't warrant additional lanes or a stoplight. . He didn't anticipate there being any additional hazards. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like to modify Condition #3 to not require building of the sidewalk until an adjacent property owner builds one. 60 11/912004 Mr. Hildreth stated that their philosophy was to try to get sidewalks built whenever possible, especially if it could get done at no expense to the County. Com:missioner Menconi asked that if access could be gotten through the trailer park, would the applicant consider abandoning the access from Highway 6. Mr. Gelvin agreed with that, but didn't think it would be possible, as they had already tried to accomplish that. He then stated they were willing to extend the pavement to the property line and build a fence to satisfy the emergency access. Chairman Stone then opened and closed Public Comment, as there was none. Commissioner Gallagher asked Commissioner Menconi ifhe was a member of the Water District Board, who is the applicant. He then stated that he would be uncomfortable with Commissioner Menconi making a ruling on this file, as he would be the applicant to the file. Commissioner Menconi stated that he was a member of the Board and stated that he had spoken with the County Attorney and researched the issue and believed that he could sit on this file. Ms. Mauriello stated that it was ultimately Commissioner Menconi's decision as to whether or not he was comfortable sitting in on a file. She then stated that each conflict of interest needed to be addressed on a case by case basis. It washer understanding that Commissioner Menconi had not been exposed to the facts of the case as Commissioner or Board member, nor did he have financial interest in the outcome. Commissioner Gallagher reiterated his concerns about Commissioner Menconi being an applicant and ruling on a file in which he was an applicant. Commissioner Menconi stated that he had excused himself from any potential conflicts that have arisen as a result of his role as a Commissioner or a Board member. Ms. Mauriello stated that he had filed the proper reports with the Secretary of State as required. Commissioner Gallagher reiterated his discomfort with Commissioner Menconi being able to approve or disapprove his own application, but he was willing to accept the County Attorney's statements. Chairman Stone stated he finds it difficult to serve two masters, also. Commissioner Menconi reiterated that this was a matter of perception as to how one treated his/her role as Commissioner Or Board member. Chairman Stone then asked Mr. Hildreth why this application didn't require a Variance from Improvement Standards for a single access. Mr. Hildreth stated that the plan was approved in 1997 with a single point of access. Chairman Stone reiterated that he would still like to see a secondary access installed. Mr. Hildreth stated the difference was that the other file alluded to by Chairman Stone had been approved with two points of access, but then was reduced to just one point of access. Chairman Stone asked Commissioner Gallagher about his concerns and what possible solutions to the access problems were and then asked what the grade change was for the western access to Highway 6. Commissioner Gallagher stated that there was a 12 foot grade change. He stated that paving to the property line artdinstalling a gate at the property line and possibly installing some road grading on the adjacent property would be satisfactory and meet the requirement. Chairman Stone explained to the applicant that they were not looking for constant vehicular access and a.sked if it would be possible to work with the trailer park. Mr. Gelvin stated they would make the attempt to work it out with the property owner. Mr. Fox indicated that he had contacted the trailer park and had received no replies from the owner. Chairman Stone thought it would be in the best interest of the trailer park owner to have secondary emergency access to his property, also. Mr. Gelvin stated that the Engineering Department indicated this would be a good faith effort as a condition for approval, but didn't need to be accomplished, especially if negotiations broke down with the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Gallagher stated that the County would be willing to give a letter indicating its desire for secondary emergency access. Mr. Fox then spoke about the center line radius variance. He felt that the 100-foot center line radius compromised the garages that are proposed, and the 50-foot center line would work well for emergency access. Chairman Stone asked to see what the hardship was or what adverse impacts would occur if the variance ere not granted. 61 1119/2004 Mr. Fox stated that the adverse impact referred to the design of the project's buildings, and it would violate the setback requirements of the original PUD. It would also cause the T intersection to be redesigned and reconstructed. Chairman Stone then summarized that the hardship would be that not granting a variance would require a redesign of the entire project. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board find: 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfyirtg these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any adverse impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the persons affected or adverse impacts to the affected lands. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file VIS-0025 with the following condition: 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 considered conditions of approval Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi asked the applicant to relay his concerns about some of the conditions. Mr. Fox stated that the applicant had applied for a grading permit and has submitted an erosion control plan, and he believes the condition should be tied to the grading permit rather than the Use Permit. Chairman Stone stated that the condition addresses a different situation than what Mr. Fox was referring to. Mr. Fox stated that the plan approved today addresses additional erosion control detention. Mr. FOrinash stated that there is additional information that is required, so the condition should remain. Mr. Gelvin followed up on Condition #3 and stated that it sounded like a Regional Trail System and placed an unfair blli'den upon property ownerS. He believes that the condition should follow Commissioner Gallagher's suggestion that the applicant not build a sidewalk to nowhere in the next 12 months, and should build it only when there was additional development by adjacent property owners. They are willing to leave their Subdivisions Improvement Agreement for 50 years, if that is what it would take to satisfy the condition. Chainnan Stone agreed with the delaying of construction of the sidewalk because he believed the Water and Sanitation District would be around for a long time, unlike a private developer. Mr. Hildreth stated there was nothing backing up the bond. Ms. Mauriello stated that full faith and credit of a Government agency was considered adequate collateral. Commissioner Gallagher concurred. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00121, incorporating the staff findings, with the following conditions and authorize the Chairman to sign the Subdivision Improvements Agreement: 1. Prior to issuing any building permit or grading permit for this Special Use Permit, an erosion control and dust control plan and a hazardous materials management plan shall be provided which is satisfactory to the County Engineer and fully implemented throughout the construction of the development. 2. Prior to any construction or improvements pursuant to this Special Use Permit, the site design and construction plans shall be revised to conform to the provisions of Division 4-6, Improvements Standards, of the Land Use Regulations in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, or one or more appropriate Variances from Improvement Standards shall be obtained. 3. A segment of sidewalk/pathway shall be constructed, at such time that an adj acent property is required or volunteers to construct a continuation of the sidewalk, along this site's frontage with Highway 6 as provided in the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study and in a design satisfactory to the County Engineer. 62 11/9/2004 4. A Subdivision and Public Improvements Agreement and related collateral satisfactory to the County Attorney shall be approved by the Board and executed prior to issuing the initial grading permit or building permitfor this site. 5. 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 6. Applicants shall make a good faith attempt to negotiate with the adjacent trailer park property owner to acquire a second point of access to the property through extension of pavement or other appropriate means and provide to staff satisfactory proof of such efforts. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. Chairman Stone then clarified that if Tract J or the trailer park were to build a sidewalk or a subdivision is developed, Condition 3 would then go into effect. Mr. Forinash stated that was the case. The vote was then declared unanimous. EagleCollllty Jail Inspection " j/' If ~-, .'< /l~ . . ' \ Attest: (. Y L r.Z'7 \) . Clerk to the Board I There being no further business to be bromdll'ti~ the Board the meeting was adjourned until November ~ 'i)l.G,tE ", 16, 2004. . 1 o~>~-<{:q.\~ i ~!\\.. \ 'i l /- .. It: ,\~ I '"! ji, (/ ~"~\~ ''<;;1$ .~ c;,~ 1.;: '-..: ?/Il ltl, {if; -.' .---:..-vt,.,,..,., ,:. c- ~ ,~: .........":)o"~ ~. Ol." ,.;s, ".;~ ~;';,::_,~;~;~?~l\; Ch~'~ 63 11/9/2004