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