Loading...
Minutes 07/01/08 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver PUBLIC HEARING July 1, 2008 Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: JUNE 2008 BILL PAYING AND PAYROLL GENERAL FUND 3T SYSTEMS A I COLLECTION AGENCY A&A SEPTIC SERVICES A. RIFKIN CO. ACADEMY SPORTS TURF, LLC ADP ADV ANT AGE NETWORK SYSTEMS ALL V ALLEY WOMEN'S CARE ALLIANCE MOVING SYSTEMS ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE v ALLEY SERVICES AMADEO GONZALES AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ANIMAL HEALTH AND SANITARY SUPPLY ANN MUNCASTER ANNE ROBINSON ANTHONY LSCARBOROUGH APPLIED TRUST ENGINEERING ARCHIBEQUE LAND CONSULTING ARMY AND FACTORY SURPLUS ARTWORKS THE AT&T A V TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK I HOA AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION BALCOMB AND GREEN BEEP WEST RADIO PAGING BEN GERDES BENTLEY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED BERTHOD MOTORS BETHANY V AN WYK BRCIHARRlS INC BRUCE BAUMGARTNER BUSCH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION C & H DISTRIBUTORS, LLC C STAN HALVORSOM CASTLE PEAK DENTAL, LLC SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE $7,777.00 $1.02 $1,540.00 $527.55 $9,000.00 $839.50 $4.80 $5,625.00 $472.50 $36.94 $5,061.08 $57.60 $239.50 $36.67 $203.84 $25.50 $191.91 $4.80 $77.50 $2,165.00 $5.98 $880.00 $33.59 $20,415.39 $2,252.05 $2,245.43 $1,704.50 $186.00 $24.00 $60.00 $140.50 $83.87 $251.64 $44.79 $64.60 $246.76 $905.00 $373.00 1 06/01/08 CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY CATHOLIC CHARITIES CDOT CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CEMARK INC,dba COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CENTURYTELOFEAGLE CHARLES B DARRAH CHARM TEX CHOLPON WRD CHRJSTY LIPPERT CIVIL AIR PATROL MAGAZINE CLEAN DESIGNS CHI, Ine CO DEPT OF REVENUE COLORADO ASSOCIA nON OF CHIEFS OF POLICE COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION COLORADO COUNTIES INCORPORATED COLORADO DEP ARTMENT AGRICULTURE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO PATHOLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.c. COLORADO STATE 4 H OFFICE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH COMMANDER CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING INCORPORATED CONTRACT PHARMACY SERVICE COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING COUNTY OF FREMONT COWBOY CATERING CRAIG COHN CSSDA CURA SCRJPT DJ. REVEAL, INC. DALY PROPERTY SERVICES DAVE MOTT DAVID A BAUER DBA RESORT ENTERTAINMENT DBA ZACH'S MOUNTAIN DELI DENVER COUNTY SHERJFF DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY DEWHIRST & DOLVEN, LLC DIAMONDBACK TACTICAL DIRECT TV DISTRICT ATTORNEYS DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORPORATION DOREEN CONSTANTINE DUFFORD WALDECK AND MILBURN EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC 2 06/01/08 SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE $188.73 $24,000.00 $12,000.00 $5,457.60 $6,437.00 $380.26 $1,421.51 $2,030.06 $17.00 $308.00 $63.88 $51.00 $145.00 $275.00 $140.79 $630.00 $100.00 $900.00 $240.00 $175.00 $224.50 $10,630.71 $8,132.94 $55.00 $300.00 $55.00 $1,283.60 $3,000.00 $615.38 $2,611.12 $34.40 $4,352.30 $784.92 $19,486.08 $2,085.75 $19.40 $110.00 $1,713.97 $356.57 $1,878.50 $45.00 $62.80 $3,575.00 $198.00 $18.00 $2,269.15 $19.00 $221.45 $5.00 $313,364.75 $520.00 $379.38 $6.00 $182.00 $10,300.00 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION EAGLE V ALLEY CHILD CARE CENTER EAGLE V ALLEY LAND TRUST EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLE V ALLEY TEMPS EARL GLENWRIGHT ELISA ACOSTA ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF DENVER EVA WILSON FARRELL & SELDIN FEDERAL EXPRESS FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED FILTERFRESH DENVER FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED FWRIDA MICRO FRANKLIN COVEY FREMONTCOUNTYCOWRADO FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC GALLS INCORPORATED GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY GEMPLERS INCORPORATED GEORGE DOW GEORGIE C ZINDA GLENWOOD SPRJNGS PARKS AND RECREATION GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAN FARNUM PRJNTING GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRANICUS, INC GREAT AMERICAN LEASING GREG V AN WYK GROSSMAN & GROSSMAN PC GYPSUM ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC HARDEN HASS HAAG HALLBERG HART INTERCIVIC INCORPORATED HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HEATHER BURCHALL HENRY SCHEIN HEWLETT PACKARD HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES HOLLY KASPER HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HORST MEISSNER HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HUNSPERGER & WESTON, LTD HVAC SUPPLY IACPNATIONALLAW IDENTIX 3 06/01/08 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE $2,050.00 $3,475.01 $1,320,436.58 $1,123.23 $3,245.98 $10,000.00 $379.17 $134.03 $1,075.00 $3,514.50 $9.00 $38.22 $488.07 $208.98 $41.46 $189.02 $75.80 $1,375.62 $335.00 $3,907.50 $27.92 $314.94 $70.00 $31.01 $11,760.68 $1,140.00 $70.25 $30.00 $452.00 $300.00 $475.00 $58.32 $6,277.97 $1,144.26 $12,922.50 $1,294.28 $189.60 $13.60 $576.00 $2,614.32 $847.58 $40.00 $1,124.50 $67.40 $155.79 $1,089.00 $125.25 $389.47 $21,784.19 $10.00 $350.63 $4,322.00 $337.04 $1,200.00 $719.42 INTERIOR PLANTSCAPES INTERNAP NETWORK SYSTEMS J & J COMMERCE, INC JACOBS & JACOBS JAMES H THERRELL IV JAMES WM. STOVALL, P.C. JAN 0 WEST MAN JARA DIVERSIFIED SERVICES JEFFREY L. GOWIN JILL HUNSAKER JIM DUKE JOAN HOZA RIGOLI JOHN BADE JP COOKIE COMPANY JUSTIN WINSTEAD KATHY DUNN LEWIS KEVIN KROMER LAF ARGE CORPORA TION INCORPORATED LAMINATION SERVICE INCORPORATED LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATES INC. LEIF A NELSON LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INCORPORATED LAKEWOOD HOLIDAY INN LINDA CARR LORI J GUNTHER WRI SIEFERS LORRAINE VASQUEZ LOZOYA VELEZ, CARMEN LUZ AVILA LYNN GOTTLIEB MA LYNN KANAKIS MAIN AUTO PARTS MARGARET KEELEY BENNETT - JOHNSON MARl PLAZA MUNET MARIA ANJIER MARIA D. ESCOBAR MARK CHAPIN MARKS PLUMBING PARTS MARTHA SUTHERLAND MARY ELLEN COPE MARY JANE HESS MATRIX SYSTEMS, INC MBIA MISC MCCAULLEY,REBECCA,T MCMAHAN AND ASSOCIATES LLC MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING MEET THE WILDERNESS MEGAN MORRISSEY MERCK A TL METRO PATHOLOGISTS MICRO PLASTICS MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT MIKE MEDHURST MOES ORJGINAL BBQ 4 06/01/08 SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND REFUND REFUND REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEM ENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURS EMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $125.00 $2,427.40 $1,273.98 $38.00 $76.20 $60.00 $15.00 $116.55 $243.61 $158.16 $4.20 $48.46 $21.60 $76.74 $77.82 $60.22 $1,166.50 $963.23 $475.26 $917.00 $0.60 $2,050.00 $105.00 $174.00 $36.00 $90.95 $25.36 $171.40 $266.64 $130.57 $350.00 $4.50 $130.76 $17.60 $10,016.25 $43.68 $16.00 $127.15 $124.13 $18.00 $24.00 $92.67 $2,941.05 $5,259.94 $1,578.00 $15,000.00 $4,300.00 $1,000.00 $403.09 $6,279.95 $18.00 $47.64 $452.51 $1,710.00 $350.00 MOFFET CONSULTING MOTOROLA MTN MESA SPORT INC MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MX WGIC, INC NANCY MULLER NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION NATIONAL POLICE SUICIDE FOUNDATION, INC NICOLETTI- FLATER ASSOCIATES, PLLP NORDIC REFRIGERATION NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NUTRITION CONSULTANTS OC TANNER OLSON DON ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY OSM DELIVERY LLC OXYGEN PLUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC PAINT BUCKET PAPER WISE PAT NOLAN PATHOLOGY GROUP PAULA A PALMATEER PECZUH PRINTING COMP ANY PEGGY BUCHANNAN PETER WILLIAM THOMAS, PC PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PHYLLIS ROUNDS PITNEY BOWES PRCA INCORPORATED PROSHINE SALES & SERVICE PUBLIC AGENCY TRAINING COUNCIL QWEST RAND S NORTHEAST LLC RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING RENEE DUBUISSON ROCKY MOUNTAIN BUSINESS ROLLY ROUNDS RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SAN ISABEL TELECOM INCORPORATED SANDRA SUTHER SARA J FISHER SCHERJNG PLOUGH HOME AGAIN LLC SCHMIDT POLYGRAPH AND CONSULTING, INC SCHUTZMAN COMP ANY INCORPORATED SCOTT LOWERY LAW OFFICE P.C. SECURJTY TRANSPORT SERVICES INCORPORATED SHAPINS ASSOCIATES SHARON BALIUS SHERI MINTZ SHIVELY & HOLST, LLP SIGNATURE SIGNS SILVERMAN LAW FIRM SIMPLIFILE LLC SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SNOW WHITE LINEN 5 06/01/08 SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $6,388.43 $11,497.22 $12.10 $585.94 $900.00 $7.80 $52.00 $300.00 $1,535.00 $300.00 $7,499.98 $138.00 $1,029.51 $56.06 $257.12 $738.85 $550.00 $26.95 $4,859.75 $86.19 $3,030.00 $132.60 $573.37 $54.00 $50.00 $984.44 $12.00 $748.95 $27,000.00 $3,279.37 $275.00 $5,376.24 $459.00 $284.70 $54.50 $21. 60 $66.15 $316.Q4 $117.42 $45.45 $819.11 $3,746.25 $500.00 $164.08 $4.00 $4,101.90 $13,204.25 $35.02 $1,605.00 $18.94 $37.75 $35.00 $195.00 $482.70 $371.98 SOFTWARE SPECTRUM SONDRA MANSKE SOURCE GAS SPECIALTIES INCORPORATED SPRJNGMAN, BRADEN, WILSON & PONTIUS, P.c. STACIBRUCE STATE OF COWRADO STEPHEN THISSEN STEPHENS NURSERY STERICYCLE INCORPORATED STURGEON ELECTRIC SUE MOTT SULIN VINCENT SUMMERHA YS MUSIC CENTER SUSAN RODGER MA SUSPENSE FUND SYDNEY PITTMAN SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER TASER INTERNATIONAL TAYLOR PEARL TED JOHNSON THE NORMANDY GROUP LLC THE PARENTS HANDBOOK THIMGAN AND ASSOCIATES THK ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED THOMPSON WEST GROUP TODD BONATTI TONI BERNS TOTAL ACCESS GROUP INCORPORATED TOWN OF EAGLE TRANECOMPANY TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED UNDERGROUND VAULTS AND STORAGE INCORPORATED UNITED AMERICAN ELECTION SUPPLY COMPANY, INC UNITED PARCEL SERVICE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY PINES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION V ALLEY PRECAST, INC V ALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL VALUE CHECK, INC VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY V AX SERVE, INC VELASCO, GABRIELA VERA FULLA WAY VERIFICATIONS, INC. VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VIRGINIA TRUJILLO VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WEST BROWN HUNTLEY THOMPSON PC WEST V AIL SHELL WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT 6 06/01/08 SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND REIMBURSEM ENT REFUND REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE $335.72 $417.55 $15,854.26 $264.50 $12.40 $123.72 $65.00 $1.40 $406.39 $942.76 $126.00 $136.50 $19.00 $84.00 $140.00 $217,799.47 $9.00 $1,912.63 $550.00 $26.46 $1,847.48 $7,506.62 $2,400.00 $1,600.00 $5,949.21 $2,115.66 $23.02 $87.30 $240.00 $8,536.40 $2,073.93 $3,030.00 $910.45 $1,491.87 $196.34 $34,212.53 $9,267.79 $70.00 $297.91 $2,913.89 $19.00 $180.00 $4,250.00 $6,642.78 $1,827.18 $137.94 $1,214.40 $637.80 $8,177.22 $17.17 $48,667.79 $2,187.17 $12.00 $296.00 $1,981.36 WESTERNS SLOPE SUPPLIES WILLIAM G HORLBECK PC WILLITS GENERAL STORE WOODS, RITA WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYNTTAYLOR XCEL ENERGY XEROX CORPORATION, INC Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION JUNE 2008 PAYROLL ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICAnONS AMERIGAS BAND B EXCA V A TING COLLETTS COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CSW SAFETY SERVICES, COLORADO STRIJPE WRIGHT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION GMCO CORPORATION HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY J&S CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO KEMP AND COMPANY INCORPORATED KNUPP LLC LAFARGECORPORATIONINCORPORATED PAPER WISE QUEST DIAGNOSTICS SAFETY AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY SOPRJS ARCHITECTURE, , SOURCE GAS SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VALLEY LUMBER VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATE WESTERN SWPE SUPPLIES WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION, INC Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION JUNE 2008 PAYROLL EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER 7 06/01/08 SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE $1,101.64 $527.76 $32.00 $238.90 $309.96 $33.90 $280.93 $7,942.41 $83.23 $2,509,607.18 $1,553,062.37 PAYROLL 11 & 12 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE $138.00 $1,161.67 $164,721.30 $329.93 $412.00 $42.24 $99.79 $17,222.50 $113,567.34 $24.95 $80.00 $86,757.33 $177,985.38 $54,317.86 $1,299.50 $743.3 7 $1,450.85 $3,164.00 $34.00 $102,167.06 $123.66 $47.41 $1,231.36 $363.21 $2,988.70 $224.25 $18,232.3 I $253.79 $741.06 $41.15 $198.69 $85.50 $156.77 $17.45 $1,169.18 $639.36 $45.30 $752,278.22 $130,603.47 PAYROLL 11 & 12 SERVICE $7,854.05 EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS MCCAULLEY,REBECCA,T QUALISTAR EARLY LEARNING SUSPENSE FUND TRIWGY INTEGRATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES JUNE 2008 PAYROLL SOCIAL SERVICE FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS ADELA JIMENEZ AIDAN FLEMING BETHANIE LINDAL BORRE, RACHAEL CHARLENE WHITNEY CHRJS MORTON COWRADO MOUNTAIN NEWS CORPORATE EXPRESS CSSDA DARLENE MONTANO DOREEN CONSTANTINE EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COALITION EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF'S EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES FEDERAL EXPRESS HART INTERCIVIC INCORPORATED HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS IDAHO CHILD SUPPORT RECEIPTING JERRY SANTORO JODY ANDERSON, , JOHN FAY JUANA GARCIA KRISTIE WILLIAMSON LA QUINTA LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INCORPORATED LYONS, KATHLEEN MARGARITA PALMA NOLA NICHOLSON ONTIVEROS, LUPE OSM DELIVERY LLC OTERO COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE PECZUH PRINTING COMPANY PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING SCHUTZMAN COMP ANY INCORPORATED SHERRY A CALOIA, LLC STATE FORMS PUBLICATIONS SUSPENSE FUND VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED 8 06/01/08 SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $9,625.00 $21.67 $41.96 $10,000.00 $1,497.90 $20,736.00 $30.00 $238.34 $50,044.92 $7,025.33 PAYROLL 11 & 12 SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEM ENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEM ENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $45.95 $468.43 $319.19 $75.00 $274.59 $222.86 $600.00 $202.95 $297.96 $90.00 $83.00 $139.44 $75.40 $126,764.94 $6,375.00 $15.20 $1,890.00 $30.69 $51.81 $127.62 $160.00 $94.64 $281.24 $216.00 $50.00 $104.70 $220.18 $47.47 $503.86 $33.95 $401.80 $5.15 $18.18 $135.94 $192.15 $31.88 $494.50 $45.00 $134.24 $2,061.25 $55.85 $20,635.54 $489.58 VISA CARD SERVICES WOODS, RITA XEROX CORPORATION, INC JUNE 2008 PAYROLL WRAP FUND BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS SALES TAX EV TRANSPORTATION ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY AT&T BEAVER CREEK RESORT CO BUFF AW RIDGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING COLLETTS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLUMBINE MARKET COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED COPY COPY CORPORATE EXPRESS DOCTORS ON CALL EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER GFI GENF ARE HARRY TAYLOR HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC 1-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR COALITION IMPACT GRAPHICS AND SIGNS JANET FIELD KINETICO WATER PROS KZYR FM LAF ARGE CORPORA TION INCORPORATED LAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC NEW DIMENSION CLEANING NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED PAPER WISE SILVER CREEK DEVEWPMENT SOURCE GAS SUSPENSE FUND THE DUNLEAVY GROUP TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF GYPSUM US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL V ALLEY COMMUNITY TELEVISION CHANNEL 5 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WESTERNS SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTON SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED XEROX CORPORATION YELWW BOOK USA ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 9 06/01/08 SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES $1,213.26 $195.40 $519.10 $166,490.89 $141,568.98 PAYROLL 11 & 12 SERVICE $90.00 $90.00 SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES $137.51 $121.42 $179.25 $1,000.00 $7,580.00 $680.52 $2,456.20 $548.65 $26.63 $867.00 $23.00 $330.59 $270.00 $231,542.04 $170.00 $1,090.93 $201.31 $2,603.10 $105.00 $658.00 $217.33 $35.00 $464.00 $322.66 $2,764.84 $14,368.91 $782.40 $558.00 $166.02 $2,200.00 $3,119.33 $28,876.34 $599.36 $3,530.17 $888.73 $3,892.59 $275.00 $233.50 $7,560.39 $100.92 $17.90 $4,000.00 $638.96 $502.00 $131.83 COLORADO PRINTING COMPANY JUNE 2008 PAYROLL SALES TAX EV TRAILS EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER FEDERAL EXPRESS GARY THORNTON IMP ACT GRAPHICS AND SIGNS OJ WATSON COMP ANY INCORPORATED SUSPENSE FUND VISA CARD SERVICES WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION JUNE 2008 PAYROLL AIRPORT FUND ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION AIRPORT EXECUTIVES AON AVIATION ASI TECHNOWGIES, INC ASMl ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT BALCOMB AND GREEN CED CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTORS INCORPORATE CENTURYTEL CHRJS ANDERSON COOPER CROUSE HINDS COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS DISH NETWORK EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE EMBROIDERY FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC GATEKEEPER SYSTEMS INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC 13 AVIATION CONSULTANTS, INC JAY MAX SALES KATHY LAWN LAMINATION SERVICE INCORPORATED LAWSON PRODUCTS MARY MOE MCI COMMERCIAL SERVICE MCNEIL'S TRUCK AND MOORE MEDICAL CORPORATION NASCO LLC NEXTEL OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMPANY PST ENTERPRISES INC SERCO SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL 10 06/01/08 SERVICE $1,209.91 $328,047.24 $268,036.34 PAYROLL 11 & 12 REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE $3,169.20 $43.00 $107.06 $193.00 $175.62 $350.42 $42.44 $2,975.00 $100.44 $66.33 $7,222.51 $3,225.72 PAYROLL 11& 12 SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE $186.10 $1,180.00 $33,947.00 $763.79 $17,274.05 $1,177.00 $259.50 $48.40 $6,848.60 $213.43 $11,008.00 $63.16 $343.03 $59.99 $77,219.25 $45.00 $372.50 $209.51 $1,980.00 $1,343.25 $4,380.09 $23,125.50 $105.00 $133.74 $4,663.17 $355.80 $86.00 $42.39 $179.32 $41.88 $813.00 $558.13 $634.50 $20.36 $16,013.10 $2,043.25 SKYLINE MECHANICAL INCORPORATED SERVICE $180.00 SOURCE GAS SERVICE $910.57 SUMMITEX LLC SUPPLIES $86.87 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $10,766.37 TERRI MARTINEZ JOHNSON REIMBURSEMENT $10.63 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE $455.05 US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $551.32 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE $6,841.99 WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED SERVICE $390.00 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS, INC SUPPLIES $1,057.13 WESTERN SWPE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $497.10 WESTON SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,200.00 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $242.14 XEROX CORPORATION, INC SUPPLIES $445.10 YUCK TRUCK SEPTIC PUMPING, INC SERVICE $425.00 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES $154.36 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUPPLIES $217.38 $232,167.80 JUNE 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 11 & 12 $86,180.69 800 MHZ FUND HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC SERVICE $7,339.80 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED SERVICE $19,724.28 QWEST SERVICE $537.69 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED SERVICE $3,254.84 $30,856.61 HOUSING LOAN FUND EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $3,183.96 FUNDING PARTNERS FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS SERVICE $32,250.00 KIM BELL WILLIAMS REIMBURSEMENT $351.70 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $1,017.68 VAIL DAILY SERVICE $1,126.96 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE $10.00 $37,940.30 JUNE 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 11 & 12 $4,274.20 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FUND AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED SERVICE $229.36 ARISTA TEK INC SERVICE $1,000.00 FIRE PROTECTION PUBLICATIONS SUPPLIES $788.34 JJ KELLER AND AS SOCIA TES SUPPLIES $699.78 L.N. CURTIS & SONS SERVICE $1,805.02 MES - MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC SERVICE $8,149.50 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE $214.62 $12,886.62 OPEN SPACE FUND AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS SERVICE $124,387.51 BAND B EXCA V A TING SUPPLIES $3,087.30 $127,474.81 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND CARTER AND BURGESS INCORPORATED SERVICE $7,378.34 CDW COMPUTER CENTERS SUPPLIES $2,820.72 11 06/01/08 DAVIDKEKAR ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES G W HANNA WAY AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED GOVCONNECTION INCORPORATED ISC, Ine 13 AVIATION CONSULTANTS, INC JOHNSON, REILLY MATRIX SYSTEMS, INC NEW WORLD SYSTEMS SHAPINS ASSOCIATES SIGN DESIGN & GRAPHICS, LLC TOWN OF EAGLE V AG INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES LANDFILL FUND AMERIGAS BARNES DISTRIBUTING BLACKFORD WEIGHING SYSTEM COLORADO DEP ARTMENT AGRICULTURE CORPORATE EXPRESS DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC AND DRAIN DUANE L PENNEY, INC EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER GARDEN CONCEPTS GREAT AMERICAN LEASING HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC KRW CONSULTING MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC SUSPENSE FUND TUSCA II, INC US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL DAILY VISA CARD SERVICES XEROX CORPORATION, INC JUNE 2008 PAYROLL MOTOR POOL FUND A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED BURT CHEVROLET BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP IN P ARKER INCORPORATED CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CHARLENE WHITNEY COLLETTS COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED CORPORATE EXPRESS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DANIEL DAVIS 12 06/01/08 REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $258.30 $775,563.08 $2,973.47 $51,338.00 $4,075.63 $65,797.26 $38,746.30 $136,286.78 $8,642.50 $1,854.32 $6,041.00 $3,444.03 $228.11 $10,626.07 $52.56 $1,116,126.47 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES $1,038.67 $44.63 $985.05 $120.00 $161.07 $282.80 $475.00 $1,260.00 $38,698.14 $500.00 $101.21 $17.76 $3,351.87 $7,350.00 $6,351.66 $101,683.00 $826.20 $108.54 $32.41 $20.00 $163,408.01 $44,541.51 PAYROLL II & 12 SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT $6,923.71 $491.97 $247.82 $2,553.95 $30.05 $482.43 $75.91 $58.70 $206,660.13 $201.00 $63.02 $1,088.16 $140.00 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER EATON SALES & SERVICE, LLC. EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES FARIS MACHINERY COMPANY GILLIG CORPORATION GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE CENTERS GRAND JUNCTION PIPE HANSON EQUIPMENT HENSLEY BATTERY AND ELECTRONICS HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HONNEN EQUIPMENT HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INSTA CHAIN INCORPORATED JOHN STRUBEL KLAM AMERICA CORP LAWSON PRODUCTS M & M AUTO PARTS MESAMACK SALES & SERVICE INC, DBA MID WEST TRUCK PARTS & SERVICE MN HUNTER SYSTEMS INC NOVUS AUTOGLASS OJ WATSON COMP ANY INCORPORATED PAPER WISE POWER EQU IPMENT COMPANY POWER MOTIVE PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL PST ENTERPRISES INC SAFETY KLEEN SERCK SERVICES INCORPORATED SOURCE GAS STEW ART AND STEVENSON POWER SUSPENSE FUND TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED STATES WELDING US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VISA CARD SERVICES W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WEAR PARTS EQUIPMENT WESTERN SWPE PAINT WESTERN SWPE SUPPLIES WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION JUNE 2008 PAYROLL INSURANCE RESERVE FUND COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES CRAZY AL GYPSUM AUTOBODY 13 06/01/08 SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE $8,169.57 $63,012.19 $90.00 $17.86 $628.14 $843.19 $1,134.63 $1,429.01 $78.90 $274.69 $226.85 $1,921.90 $1,380.26 $77.98 $1,293.01 $86.00 $274.60 $381.99 $2,336.97 $95.19 $2,393.00 $445.00 $5,495.00 $263.90 $231.57 $136.79 $56.53 $631.92 $812.53 $219.41 $3,319.49 $2,303.04 $219.11 $7,965.00 $1,322.72 $656.16 $28.77 $2,873.94 $1,430.71 $2,016.28 $74.51 $734.31 $433.30 $225.95 $248.96 $100.68 $337,408.36 $73,593.49 PAYROLL II & 12 SERVICE SERVICE $1,787.05 $13,184.92 $3,834.05 $18,806.02 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND AFLAC DANIEL BARRY INCORPORATED EMPWYEE BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY MUTUAL OF OMAHA UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $3,716.04 $300.00 $477.90 $4,907.66 $4,064.96 $2,936.30 $16,402.86 911 FUND CENTVRYTEL LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES NOMAD TECHNOLOGIES QWEST SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE $356.66 $1,319.12 $850.00 $6,607.59 $9,133.37 BILL PAYING PAYROLL TOTAL $5,916,392.19 $2,312,112.10 $8,228,504.29 Executive Session There was none. Planning Files Eagle County Room AFP-00271 Cordillera Filinl! 27 Lots 61. 62. & 63 Terri Johnson, Planning Department NOTE: This file was tabled from 5/27/08. File tabled to 7/22/08 ACTION: The purpose of this plat is to consolidate Lots 61, 62, and 63 by vacating/eliminating the interior lot lines between the lots and the building envelopes on lots 61 and 63. Lot 62 shall be the resulting lot of this amendment. LOCATION: 0278,0246,0218 Sunquist Road; Edwards Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. AFP-00271 Cordillera Fig 27 Lots 61,62, & 63 until July 22, 2008. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. LUR-0081 Sustainable Community Index Adam Palmer, Planning Department NOTE: This file was tabled from 5/27/08. File tabled - date to be determined. ACTION: Eagle County is proposing a Sustainable Community Index, which if adopted, would be a finding included in Eagle County Staff Reports and a review tool to consider the public benefits proposed by a project. The Sustainable Community Index is proposed as a required finding in the Land Use Regulations for Zone Changes, Final Plat Subdivisions, PUDs, Pun Amendments, and Special Use Permits. 14 06/01/08 LOCATION: N/A DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer stated that the Eagle County Planning Commission wanted to take another look at the file. The Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission approved it 4 -1. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. LUR-0081 Sustainable Community Index to July 29,2008. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00160 - Crawford ADD Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow installation of range in already constructed unit to be legal ADU. ACTION: LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 540 Vista Hi Drive - El Jebel ZS-00160 / Special Use Permit Crawford ADU Brad & Vicki Crawford Brad Crawford N/A 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to add a kitchen with a range/oven to an existing dwelling unit, which will be used as an apartment. The ADU was approved through building permit #17978; with a wet bar. The existing unit is 850 square feet in size and is detached from the main structure and located above a garage. The unit cannot be seen by neighbors and has been approved by the Mountain Meadows Ranch HOA. A Special Use Permit is required to make this a legal accessory dwelling unit, as it was not approved for an ADU at the time of building permit. SITE DATA: North: Large lot residential Agricultural Residential (AR) South: Ranch/residence Resource East: Large lot residential AR West: Ranch/residence Resource Agricultural Residential (AR) No Zone change proposed One primary dwelling and garage with unit above Flat and slope with trees and pinions 15 06/01/08 Total Land Area: Acres: 7.75 Squ~feet: Total Open Space Acres: N/A Percentage: Usable Open Space: Acres: N/A Percentage: Water: Public: Private Well Sewer: Public: Private Septic Access: Via Vista Hi Drive CHRONOLOGYfflACKGROUND: . 11/2006 - Building Permit issuance . 06/2008 - Building Permit closed B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Roaring Fork Planning Commission heard this file on June 19,2008 in El Jebel. There were no major concerns in regards to the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a "full" kitchen be added to the already existing accessory dwelling unit. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval for file # ZS-OOI60. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration ofthe Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 16 06/01/08 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '" 5 ~ '" ~ ";l - 0 g.~ 5 (.) E u '" '" '" ~~ FLUM !a ._ 0 j! 0 ~8 0 Q. E U ,g (.) .::: Designation 5 0 o S .... := S 1:) .... ;:I .<::: .~] is 51 '" 00 "00 '" ~ > ;:I ~'" ::: f.IJ 5 0 ~~ 0 ..s!a ~~ ~~ &30 0 Cl ::I:: r:/) Exceeds Mid Valley Plan Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X X X X X X Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X X X MID VALLEY PLAN Transportatio Communit EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing y Environment Jebell Frying Reservoir Heights n Facilities Basalt Pan Exceeds Recommenda tions IncOlporates Majority of X X X X Recommenda tions Does Not Incorporate Recommenda tions Not X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN is 0'- "'e :':::>0 "OQ. !a g ,..JU <U ?! Ii! is ..d ._ u~ g b .sr U) :SA: -~ ~.- .~ ~ >0 - 5 [ o '" 1:)~ ~~ ClA... 1 ::x:: ~ sa ~ olt X X X X X X X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 17 06/01/08 Review Standard: 3.310.A Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements: Size: Sq Ft: I 850 I No. Bedrooms: 1 I ADU Location: Above Garage Parking: 2 provided / 1 parking space required Potable Water: Private- Well Waste Water: Private- Septic Solid Waste Disposal: Yes Electrical Supply: Yes Fire Protection: Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Access: Good - Vista Hi Drive 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. Potential Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No North: Large lot residential AR X South: Ranch/residence Resource X East: Large lot residential AR X West: Ranch/residence Resource X This is an existing structure and has not posed any compatibility issues. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses The proposed use is consistent with Agricultural Residential Zone District (AR) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. 18 06/01/08 ! ] 6 C'. S 0/) =8 <.) 8 gfl:: rn U '4:l '4:l !a ~ .- ;> .- :a .... ~ IS is .~ t:;= ~~ 0 rn '" '0 ,D - :::l u v 5 ;; ~z E- r;nQ p..~ 0 Z Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requ' Does ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable x x x x x x x x x ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.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. u "'I:: u 5 rn !a .S ~ is ,~5 (I) .~ ~ .g, ~ ~ Z S 1>1'", t;l 0 e rn u g 1 -~ 0 ~o '" ~ '0 -g's: ~] .g ~ f u .- I:: ;; 0 lXl~ UE- Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. b ~ !a ~ >. <<l <.> 'C J:!>. ::=>. rn is ~ rn - '0 0/)0 rn rn ,D- ~- rn -g 8: 0 .....- .g~ ~~ ~ '5 U i: ~ p..p.. p..r;n ~b5 p.. r;n JL~ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X Requirements 19 06/01/08 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7J The proposed Special Use shall I . h h d d . A . I 4 S' D I S d d comply wzt t e approprzate stan ar s In rUe e , zte eve ovment tan ar s. - l: 0 gs '" gs caE 0 '" ..... ..... '" ..... ;::l ~ Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions .....- u= t;:!0" U l: lZl 0 ~o ~ 0 -~ '" 5 ~ 5 o~ -a "0 .... ~ 09 Zo ~ o ..... o ;::l "'..... U 0" ~~ 8u '0 l<: 0 ~~ lZl~ Cl~ Z X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Seetion 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) 20 06/01/08 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - All concerns have been satisfied. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District - Please see attachment dated June 11, 2008 Mountain Meadow Ranch BOA - Please see attachment dated November 7, 2007 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Environmental Health; Wildfire Mitigation . Districts:: Holy Cross Electric . Towns: Basalt C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The living unit already exists and has been used to house a family member. This unit cannot be sold and could contribute to affordable housing in the future. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve ZS-00160 Special Use Permit request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny ZS-00160 Special Use Permit request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table ZS-00160 Special Use Permit request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve ZS-00160 Special Use Permit request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: 21 06/01/08 Ms. De Graaf presented the application. The applicant wishes to add a kitchen to an existing dwelling unit. She presented photos of the property. She stated that access to the property would be shared from the main road. The findings meet the minimum standards for a special use permit and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the file. Brad Crawford, the applicant was present. He stated the main reason for the unit was to accommodate his mother. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked if the apartment was currently being rented. Mr. Crawford stated that it is currently being rented for financial reasons. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Crawford if he would commit to renting to the local workforce anytime that the unit is rented. Mr. Crawford stated that if he were to rent to someone other than his mother he would rent the apartment to the local workers in the Roaring Fork Valley. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the File No. ZS-00160 / Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Final inspection of kitchen shall be approved by Eagle County. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none Work Session - Roaring Fork Planning Commission Bob Narracci, Community Development Recorded Site Visit Coleman Ranch Property in El Jebel Recorded Planning Files EI Jebel Community Center/Mt. Sopris Room PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application is to allow the subject 24- acre property to be subdivided into an eight lot subdivision. The eight lots are no less than 2 acres each and are all proposed on the Eagle County portion of the site. That portion of the property 22 06/01/08 located within Eagle County is approximately 18 acres in area. The balance six acres, located in Pitkin County, will remain as 'open space'. LOCATION: 2701 Emma Road: On the north side of Emma Road; east of Hooks Spur Lane. The property is located in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENT ATIVE: PDS-00057; PUD Sketch Plan Coleman Ranch PUD 2701 Emma Road Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. / Patrick Rawley 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This PUD Sketch Plan proposal is to subdivide a 24.16 acre, 'Resource' zoned parcel into eight (8) single-family residential lots ranging from 2.0 acres to 3.5 acres in size. One additional 'lot' is six (6) acres in area and is located entirely within Pitkin County. Eighteen (18) acres of the subject property lie within Eagle County and the balance six (6) acres in Pitkin County. Each of the proposed lots would be served by individual wells and sewage disposal systems. Access to the subject property is via Emma Road. A. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I North: Former Railroad R.O.W. 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' East: Pitkin County Residential/Agricultural (Si ido Subdivision) Residential (Dreager Subdivision) Residential/Agricultural (Rather Subdivision) 'AFR 10' South: 'R' Residential! Agricultural Residential (Crown Mountain Estates Subdivision 'R' West: 'RR' 'RR' West: 'AL' Existing Zoning: Resource PUD- Planned Unit Development Current Development: Site Conditions: Single family residence and agriculture. Total Land Area: Acres: Relatively level pastureland with one single-family residence. (24 acres) 18 acres in Ea Ie Coun Square feet: 784,080 sq. ft. Total Open Space Acres: 6 in Pitkin County Percentage: 25% (67% ofthe site, including the 6-acre open space and the area within each lot surrounding the building envelopes is proposed as a 'Conservation Area;) Usable Open Spaee: Acres: Public: None in Eagle County Percentage: Individual Well Private: N/A N/A Sewer: Public: Individual Septic Private: Aeeess: Via Emma Road 23 06/01/08 B. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: June 8, 2007: February 12, 2008: April 29, 2008: Initial discussion with representative from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Initial application received by Eagle County. Formal application referral process initiated. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning recommended denial of the proposed development in a vote of 5 to 1. During their deliberations the following comments were made: · The proposed lot configuration should be clustered; · Need a compelling reason to approve; what is the public benefit of the proposed development to Eagle County citizens? · The property owner should benefit but so should the public. Greater creativity is necessary; perhaps homes with agricultural appearance, ADD's should be attached to the primary residence and perhaps share a common entryway - better control over who rents the ADD's; · The existing 'Resource' zoning at one dwelling unit per 35 acres is appropriate. Will not support small lots. Eagle County takes the brunt of development repeatedly where the property is split between Eagle and Pitkin Counties; · Landowners are not entitled to develop beyond existing allowances. The property can be a viable small farm. Homes located on agricultural properties are typically situated close to the road (Emma Road) leaving the balance of the property uninterrupted for agricultural activities. · The one planning commissioner who did not support the motion to deny offered the following perspective: The subject property is not agricultural property it is rural and compatible with existing development in the vicinity and suggested that a compromise of 4 lots with the access road oriented to the side of the property versus down the middle so as to not interrupt the 6 acre open space in Pitkin County. Also suggested that common open space should be retained along the sides of the property to provide clean connection to the Rio Grande Trail corridor adjacent to the north line of the subject property. Further, believes that Resident Occupied accessory dwelling units located over garages or attached to the primary residence is more appropriate than fees-in-lieu of providing affordable housing. This planning commissioner requested that the application be tabled to allow the applicant opportunity to revise the proposal. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: Section Purpose: 5-240/5-280 Sketch Plan; The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general 24 06/01/08 locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5-280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard. 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 subject property is owned by the Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F3j, Variations Authorized. Nature of Variarion Residential: Primary Single Family Dwellings with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADD) x x x Residential as uses by right; only one (1) single family/primary unit is permitted on a nonconforming, Resource-zoned property. One ADD is potentially allowable via Limited Review. This application proposes primary residential development with Accessory Dwelling Units. If the Board of County Commissioners approves this application, they will also have granted the necessary variations to the proposed land uses. D EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 25 06/01/08 ~ MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. No No No Yes No No No 1- This property has been utilized for residential and agricultural purposes historically. The site consists of approximately 24-acres and is bisected by the Eagle County / Pitkin County line. 18 acres are located within Eagle County and the remainder 6 acres are located within Pitkin County. All residential development is proposed to occur within the Eagle County portion of the property. The 6 acres in Pitkin County is to remain as private 'open space '. Section 5-240.F.3.f, Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: PUD Achievement(s): Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities; No A voids environmental resources and natural resources; No Provides incentives for water augmentation; No Provides incentives for trails; No Provides incentives for affordable housing; No Provides incentives for public facilities. Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification (Proposed) Requirement Setbacks: Ft Front 50' 25' Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement Rear 75' 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement tallest building Side 30' 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement tallest building Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 26 06/01/08 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 Loadinf! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Residential Minimum 2 car garage per residence; guest parking spaces in driveways; no on street parking. 3 spaces per dwelling unit EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ij c--. l5:-g gpi:: ~8. tag. p..,CZl Yes No x x STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Type of Deve10 ment: XI x Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Re uirements X3 x x X2 Is Not Applicable 27 06/01/08 ~ t:O 01) g- o <fl '0 ij ...l !6 o .S ~ :€~ ~bIJ bIJ.S .5~ Bp.., tli.....~ '0 01) ijg ...lCZl '0 ij 01) l:l U .S ij 1<15 ::3-a ~'S .s~ x Comments/Description: Xl - Exceeds quantity requirements. X2 - ECLUR's recommend low water consumptive xeric landscape materials. The proposed plant pallet is not low water consumptive. X3 - Newly introduced landscaping will be confined within each residential building envelope plus entry landscape feature; street trees and buffer adjacent to the bicycle path. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign ReflUlations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? Only one entry sign and individual lot address signs are allowed. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) 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. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not ApplicablelNo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Re uirements DeviationNlS Requested ... c:: 0 0 1;j 0 .-8 ~ 0] ~ -a B ..!a.>. ~i <.) J: .0 - ~o "0 0 . t: ..Q '" .s 8: ~ ~ :.::~ t) 0.. 0 ! o ::3 o ..... 0..... ,.2g. ... ~oo ooCl ooCl UJoo &: X Xl X2 X X3 X4 In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Xl - The total number or group of wastewater systems serving this subdivision (16 dwelling units) exceeds 10 Single Family Equivalents and may be subject to 1041 review. Please reference the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2008 from the Department of Environmental Health. X2 - The development will comply with the ECLUR's by providing a central wildlife proofrefuse station. 28 06/01/08 X3 - Per the attached Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 20, 2008, the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. X4 - Per the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated May 21, 2008, dual access is required per the ECLUR's and the proposed cul-de-sac configuration in exceeds the maximum 1000' length for a rural cul-de-sac. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Emergency Vehicles Principal Access Pts Storage X2 x Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not ApplicablelNo Requirement XI X3 X4 DeviationIVIS Requested 29 06/01/08 Xl - Per the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated May 21,2008, dual access is required per the ECLUR's and the proposed cul-de-sac configuration in exceeds the maximum 1000' length for a rural cul-de-sac. X2 - Access to the adjacent bicycle path must be clearly delineated as a pedestrian / bicycle path only. Proper motorized vehicle deterrent methods shall be implemented. X3 - Per the attached Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 20, 2008, the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. X4 - Dual points of ingress / egress are required per the ECLUR's. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ST ANDARD: 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. Potential Compatibility Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Issues Yes No North: Former Railroad 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' X R.O.W./Regional Path South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10' XI East: Residential/Agricultural 'R' Residential / Agrieultural 'R' X2 X2 (Sipido Subdivision) Residential Residential (Crown West: (Dreager Subdivision) 'RR' Mountain Estates 'R' X3 Subdivision) West: Residential/Agricultural 'AL' X4 (Rather Subdivision) Xl - Per the attached correspondence from the Pitkin County Community Development Department dated May 16, 2008: "The Pitkin County Community Development Department has serious concerns about the appropriateness of the Coleman application for an eight lot subdivision in the 'Sinclair' property in Emma. The proposal is incompatible with the prevailing development pattern in Emma and with all the efforts that Pitkin County has made and continues to make to preserve the rural character of the area. There are some historical subdivision s in the area with smaller lots, but they were established before zoning in Pitkin County. The Emma area has been zoned with a minimum lot size of 1 0 acres since 1973. This proposed development, though in Eagle County, will have its only access in Pitkin County on Pitkin's Emma Road. For all intents and purposes the development would function as if it were in Pitkin County. This proposal constitutes a 'suburban', not 'rural', development pattern at this time, in this configuration, would directly conflict with the Emma neighborhood's and Pitkin County's goals for the area. Pitkin County and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department have invested millions of dollars to preserve the rural character of Emma through land purchases and conservation easement purchases on the Clark property, the Fender property, the Grange property, and the Thomas property ". The Town of Basalt comments dated May 20, 2008 also emphasize the absence of compatibility. 30 06/01/08 X2 - The Sipido Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 14, 1978. The subdivision consists of one 4-acre lot and one 2-acre lot. This approval occurred almost fourteen years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan (December 19, 1991). Said Plan emphasizes low density development south of the Roaring Fork River. The Plan defines Low Density as 1 dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. If all Master Plan goals and policies are satisfied then a limited number of one or two acre lots may be allowed. Also adjacent to the east of the subject property is a 7.35 acre unplatted residential/agricultural parcel. X3 - The Dreager Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 22, 1978. The subdivision consists of five lots ranging in size from 1.8 acres to 2 acres. The Crown Mountain Estates Subdivision consists of six lots ranging in size from 2 acres to 3.59 acres. Again, these subdivisions were both approved many years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan. X4 - The Rather Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on March 18, 2003. The subdivision consists oftwo lots in Eagle County (5.978 acres and 6.706 acres) and one 13.833 acre lot in Pitkin County. In 2003, both the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners found the proposed subdivision to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, given the Agricultural Limited zoning, to preserve the active agricultural character of the immediate vicinity - including the Coleman Ranch property. This Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan proposal for eight lots ranging from 2 acres to 3.5 acres on 18 acres is generally not compatible with existing and allowable land use in all directions from the subject property. The draft PUD Guide expressly prohibits the keeping of any type of livestock or horses and the minimum two acre lot size proposed is not consistent with the currently adopted Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development is comparable to the Sipido, Dreager and Crown Mountain Estates subdivisions; each of which comprises similar development densities as that which is proposed. A maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 6 acres to 9 acres, retaining the right to certain agricultural activities, may be appropriate in this vicinity of Eagle County; for a total of2 or 3 primary residences on the 18 acre portion of the property located in Eagle County. This would result in a development with increased compatibility relative to the adjacent Rather Subdivision and other unplatted properties. Further, for the purposes of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation; the 6 acre portion of the subject property located within Pitkin County is currently non-conforming in terms of the Pitkin County 'AFR 10' 10 acre zoning and should not be included in density calculations for development proposed to occur in Eagle County. Lastly, it must be noted that per Section 3-310.A.8, Dimensional Limitations ofthe ECLUR's, "Accessory dwelling units shall be developed so as to conform to all setback, height, lot coverage, floor area and other dimensional limitations of the underlying zone district, but shall not count towards any applicable density limitations for the pro1Jerty". This application proposes that Accessory Dwelling Units must either be constructed or a fee-in-1ieu paid by the individual future lot owners. These units shall be a minimum of 1,286 square feet and are intended to satisfy the applicant's affordable housing mitigation requirement. As proposed, the Accessory Dwelling Units may be owned by the owner of each respective lot and primary residence or may rent or sell the units as Resident Occupied units. This concept satisfies Eagle County's Housing Guidelines. The ECLUR's; however, require that Accessory Dwelling Units not be sold as condominiums or sold separately from the principal use of the 31 06/01/08 property. The Accessory Dwelling Units must be utilized for the owner's personal use or rented as Resident Occupied units. If through this Planned Unit Development review process it is determined that Accessory Dwelling Units may be subdivided and sold separately from the primary residence then, the units must be included in the development density calculations; thereby effectively doubling the proposed density. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive 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. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ou (J !a E ou :> o o .... c ou E P- o Q) :> ou CI u Vl .... ou E (J o 5 5 ~ (J ou ~cx: .& Vl ;j o ::I:: ~ Vl .a 8 (J.- E ~ ~~ ..s !a Vl ou e .... ;j ou 0 'a:i Vl ~~ Vl ~@ :.= ::l "'0 0 ::: CI) ~~ Vl "'0 !a ~ ou .~ .t:: Vl 5 r./'J ~ E Sp .... .... '>] ~O' FLUM Designation Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does not Satisfy Majority of Recommendations x x x x x x x x x Not Applicable Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl- Development . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The proposed 8 lot subdivision would incrementally degrade the natural beauty and environmental integrity in this vicinity of Eagle County. . "Work to identifY and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The proposed development will alter the current quality of life characteristics present in the Emma vicinity by increasing and promoting suburban-like development. . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". The Mid-Valley Community Master Plan is currently in the process of being updated wherein; the most current population and job growth data available will be incorporated into long range planning objectives. With regard to this proposal, no supporting demographic data was provided with the application. . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposed development is neither compact nor mixed-use nor is it adjacent to an existing community center. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". The proposal does include one Accessory Dwelling Unit per each of the 8 lots. The Accessory Dwelling Units must either be constructed or a fee-in-lieu paid by the individual future lot owners; shall be a minimum of 1,286 square feet and are intended to satisfy the applicant's affordable housing mitigation requirement. As proposed, the Accessory Dwelling Units may be owned by the owner of each respective lot and primary residence or may 32 06/01/08 rent or sell the units as Resident Occupied units. This concept satisfies Eagle County's Housing Guidelines. The ECLUR's; however, require that Accessory Dwelling Units not be sold as condominiums or sold separately from the principal use of the property. The Accessory Dwelling Units must be utilized for the owner's personal use or rented as Resident Occupied units. Ifthrough this Planned Unit Development review process it is determined that Accessory Dwelling Units may be subdivided and sold separately from the primary residence then, the units must be included in the development density calculations. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". The application states that, "The Town of Basalt will have a significant relationship with the subject site, as future residents of the property contribute sales tax revenue to Basalt's economy to a greater extent than to Pitkin County or Eagle County", the application further asserts that, "The proposed project is for residential development. Taxes collected as part of sale of the eight individual lots will create revenue for the County". Information regarding costs to Eagle County due to the development, such as law enforcement and road maintenance was not provided. . "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". This finding is not applicable. . "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. . "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, which identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". The PUD process is intended to facilitate flexibility in development planning; however, no effort has been made to cluster the development on the Eagle County portion of the subject property. The application sets forth a perspective that the development is indeed clustered because the non-conforming 6 acre area within Pitkin County is being preserved as open space. Staff disagrees due to the fact that the home sites are not grouped closely together and no common area is included on the Eagle County portion of the site. . . .. /":-100-.. /" .,.... ,^, ~".. . .,/~ \ 00-" ._.._, : I . I . L.._oo .._.......: :. .. I Not an acceptable Cluster Layout. J I . Ii_I LR J l I 1 ~Vq;4?1"/./'.,""K-'!""!':Y,':;':~"\'A'C""Y-ti'$*""",,':YN;>""'''W',e<''~1>W",,*,'E:'%Wf!'X\l;,*,%,,$;'~,A,,~gW"'WW'UdJt.)0"'1~?"S %~~'$iW~_~;r.l;:~'""t',1 :il!';l'm'Wlt:-.-~ This is an acceptable Cluster Layout. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". Not applicable . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". In its current configuration and density, the proposed development does not minimize impacts. X2- Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". Not applicable. . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. It is likely that at least a portion of the proposed development will become second home development. If the housing plan 33 06/01/08 set forth in the application is satisfied (less the ability to sell the ADD's separately) then the jobs to housing balance should be impact neutral for this development. . "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". Not applicable. . "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". Not applicable. . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation n. Not applicable. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". Not applicable. . "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population ". Not applicable. . "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly bufferedfrom surroundingproperties". Not applicable. . "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs ofnearby residents". Not applicable. . "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation ". The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the E1 Jebel / Willits Community Centers. X3- Housing . "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers" The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the E1 Jebel / Willits Community Centers. · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". This development proposal is not for workforce housing. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. . "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. . "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The Housing Plan as provided in the application satisfies the requirements ofthe Local Resident Housing Guidelines. X4- Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ The subject property is located in an area served by adequate roads and paths. It is approximately two miles from a mass transit hub. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". Ifthis PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed in correctly in a timely manner. . "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". This application was referred to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority for review and comment. As of this writing, a response has not been received. . "Encourage transit oriented development". This proposal does not constitute transit oriented development. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". Not applicable. 34 06/01/08 . "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The proposed development does include a trail connection to the adjacent Rio Grande Trail. It is unclear if this connection is intended as a public trail access point or as an amenity for residents of the proposed subdivision. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". Not applicable. . "Design streets capes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". This is a PUD Sketch Plan application; however it is not being utilized effectively to achieve a unique solution for appropriate development. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". Not applicable. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". Not applicable. . "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". The proposal does not comply with the ECLUR standards for dual points of access and maximum cul-de-sac length. . "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". The Basalt and Rural FPD has indicated that the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. . "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". If the application is revised to satisfy the Basalt and Rural FPD concerns then the proposed development can be adequately served. . "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". Not applicable. . "Use House Bill 1 041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved to allow 10 or more residential units, including Accessory Dwelling Units, then the PUD Preliminary Plan application must be accompanied by an application for 1041 Permit review ofthe total number or group of wastewater systems. . "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". This proposal entails individual on-site wastewater treatment systems and individual wells that will be the responsibility of future lot owners to install. . "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". Using accepted engineering standards, a trip generation rate of 10 trips per day per home may be used. As proposed, the amount of trips per day generated by this development would be between 80 and 160 based upon 8 primary and 8 accessory dwelling units. . "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". This proposal does represent a high-end housing choice. X5- Water Resources . "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". Baseline data to make this determination is not available at the County and was not provided with the application. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. . "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically 35 06/01/08 adequate. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. · "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not propose the use of pervious surfaces. · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". ". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. Individual on-site wastewater treatment systems must be designed by a registered professional engineer to accomplish de-nitrification and be pressure-dosed to shallow trenches. . "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The proposal does not incorporate low water consumptive landscape materials. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department. of Natural Resources. · "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". With 1041 Permit review, water conservation techniques will be required. · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". Not applicable. · "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". ". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. . "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. . "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of stormwater runoff and work to identifY and treat other non-point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to stormwater management and grading activities. . "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". . "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. . "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". The proposal does not include vegetative buffers between developments. A buffer is proposed adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail. . "Minimize the extent ofimpervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The use of pervious paving systems has not been proposed. X6- Wildlife Resources · "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human-made barriers to wildlife migration". As of this writing, the Colorado State Division of Wildlife had not yet responded. The subject property is not located within any mapped Elk or Mule Deer habitat, range or migration route. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property has historically been utilized for residential/agricultural uses and is not pristine wildlife habitat. . "Prevent contaminantsfrom entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. 36 06/01/08 . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". This is the intent of the PUD Sketch Plan process. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The subject property is not located within a community center. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". Other than access construction and infrastructure, the application proposes to contain all site disturbances within the designated building envelopes. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". With application for Preliminary Plan, a detailed landscape plan will be required. . "Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The application does include a central wildlife proof refuse containment and recycling area. X7- Sensitive Lands . "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 indicates that no observable surface conditions would preclude the proposed land use or subdivision. CGS did note concern about the very close proximity of the Roaring Fork River, located immediately north of the site, indicates that groundwater and perched water should be expected to occur at very shallow depths, at least seasonally. Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate and perched water is likely to collect above the clayey, less permeable soil layers and within foundation excavations (which tend to be more loosely backfilled), causing wet or moist conditions in the soils immediately surrounding basement walls and foundations. Since the lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, full-depth basements should not be considered feasible on this site. Due to the likely presence of very shallow groundwater and fast-draining alluvial terrace soils, engineered septic systems will likely be required. Site specific, design-level geotechnical investigations including drilling, sampling, lab testing and analysis will be needed at the building permit phase and once building locations are finalized, to identify uncontrolled fill areas, if present, to determine groundwater levels and percolation rates, and to characterize soil and rock engineering properties such as density, strength, swell and consolidation potential, and bearing capacity at and below approximate foundation bearing depths. This information is needed to determine maximum bearing and minimum dead-load pressures, and to develop final design criteria for foundations, floor systems, pavements and subsurface drainage. . "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". It is not proposed to overlot grade the entire property. . "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through landform or vegetation modification'~ The above delineated recommendations from the Colorado Geological Survey will be made conditions of approval. . Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". Done. . "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". All CGS recommendations will be made conditions of approval. . "Consider the cumulative impact of in crem ental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is located within a scenic area with an historical agricultural past. As new development has occurred over time, the cumulative impact on the local landscape has been compromised. . "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". Not applicable. X8- Environmental Quality . "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. 37 06/01/08 . "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". The subject property is not located within a town or community center. Residents will either be second home owners; they will be locals that need to commute to work (or the RFT A bus stop in the community center) or they will be locals that need not commute daily. . "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". The application materials do not address lighting standards for the development. · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. · "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. . "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". The subject property is not located in an area conducive to transit-oriented development. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". The proposal does not address the use of renewable resources. . Implement energy efficiency guidelines. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. . Implement energy saving techniques. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. Future Land Use Map Designation The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Q 0 t;j 6 = 0 0 ~ O'i s 0'- lilt;! 0..6 0..", '" ~ ;:J ~ 00,- o i:: -0 ..9 e J <Il ~o.. Q'- &0 ~.- o 0 a g o ;> "S e .~ ] i)~ 0..8 ..JU OQ., ;:JQ., :>0 OQ., Exceeds Recommendation Satisfies X X X X X X Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space El Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing y I JebeV Ftying Reservoir Heights n Facilities Environment Basalt Pan X 38 06/01/08 Conformance Non Conformance Mixed XI X2 X3 Conformance Not X X X X Applicable Xl - The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied per the proposed Housing Plan submitted by the applicant. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. X2 - The Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. X3 - The Plan identifies the region of the subject property as appropriate for low density development with a gross density of one dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. The plan also states that undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels. The Plan; however, allows a 'density bonus' for proposals which include preservation of agriculture and open space. This proposal does contain 6 acres of open space, albeit not in Eagle County. Also proposed is a 'Conservation Area' which is draped over 67% of the total 24-acre land area. The majority of the 'Conservation Area' is located in and around the building envelopes on each individual lot. The draft Pun Guide does expressly prohibit the keeping of any type of livestock or horses which is not consistent with the Plan's recommendation to preserve agriculture and open space. It must be further noted that the proposed development does not comply with the recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Basalt Master Plan. Please refer to the attached letter from the Town of Basalt dated May 20, 2008. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. 10 Phasing Plan Provided? [xl Yes CI No II The developer intends to ready the site for sale of the individual lots by installing the access road, landscaping and utilities stubbed to each lot - this will constitute one phase. It will be the responsibility of each individual lot owner to run utilities and driveways to the building envelope. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD 39 06/01/08 shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (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 maintenance 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. (24 acres) 18 Total Subject Land Area: acres in Eagle County Building Envelopes range from 24,620 sq. ft. to 42,507 sq. ft. The PUD Guide states that there are no limitations on site coverage within the Total Impervious Surface: Calculation Not building envelope nor is there provided a maximum floor area ratio. Narrative elsewhere in the application states that the maximum home size is 5,750 sq. ft. - this must be rectified with the PUD Guide. Cumulatively, the access road, building allowances and Recommended 25% (-Imp. Surface) no maximum site coverage within each building envelope will exceed the recommended 25% maximum impervious surface recommendation. Additional Amount of Open Space NA Reauired Per 1000 Persons = The 6 acre Open Space located in Pitkin County 6 acres in Pitkin also cannot be counted County + The 'Conservation Area' as Open Space fOr the Total Open Space 'Conservation located on individual lots purposes of this PUD Area' on 17.91 cannot be counted as Open evaluation because acres of the total Space per the ECLUR's. Eagle County's land use 24 acres regulations do not apply across jurisdictional boundaries. Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Private Describe: I Owned and maintained by HOA. 40 06/01/08 ~ ~ T Yes I Commonly owned landscaped area. - .. ~ HOA ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. l~ ~ s ~ ~ 7j .~ .g g ~o ;> p., i:2 ~ &3 .5 x XI X X4 X2 X3 X1- The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated May 20,2008 must be adhered to. X2 - Even though the overall wildfire hazard rating for the subject property is 'low' per the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist's response dated May 19, 2008; the Basalt and Rural FPD response stresses that the potential of catastrophic grassland fires occurring is ever present. X3 - The PUD Guide should be revised to restrict wood burning fireplaces within the proposed development. At a minimum, the provisions of the ECLUR's should apply limiting each residence to only one EP A approved new technology wood burning device. X4 - The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application satisfies the ECLUR requirements; however the comments from the Department of Environmental Health, the Colorado Geologic Survey and any other applicable responding agency shall be made conditions of approval to ensure minimized environmental impact. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE ST ANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): (b) (c) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); Not applicable. Proposed schedule of development phasing; This is a one-phase development. Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE-1 School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the 15. (a) 41 06/01/08 ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is 0.1057 acres. The fee-in-lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; The application indicates that Police services will be provided by the Town of Basalt as opposed to the Eagle County Sheriff s Office. This will need to be verified at Preliminary Plan. Eagle County will not perform road maintenance within the development or on Emma Road because it lies within Eagle County. Fire Protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural FPD. (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; A statement is provided in the application but it does not project what the resulting revenue would be. (t) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan has been provided. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The application proposes interior fire protection sprinkler systems in each home and a neighborhood fire hydrant system served by well water. The Basalt and Rural FPD has requested additional specific information regarding the water supply and distribution system for fire fighting purposes. (h) Employee housing plan. The employee housing plan submitted satisfies the intent of the Housing Guidelines. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. ~ EXCEEDS MlNIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MlNIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MlNIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MlNIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MlNIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MlNIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. 42 06/01/08 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Detailed Landscape Plan and Lighting Plan Required with Preliminar Plan Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Wildlift Protection (Section 4-410) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) 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) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) As conditoned Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Storage q{ Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Water Quality Report Required with Preliminary Plan Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Required at Preliminar Plan Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) As conditioned Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM 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 43 06/01/08 public services, or require duplication or premature 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 Eaflle Countv Road CaDital ImDrovements 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 proposed subdivision is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site is already served with electric, natural gas, cable and telephone. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: 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. No natural or human-made hazards have been identified that would preclude successful development of the subject property. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Housing Department- In a verbal discussion with the Housing Department Director; the Housing Plan submitted with the application satisfies the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. . Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist- Please refer to the attached letter dated May 19, 2008. . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 21,2008. 44 06/01108 . Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 20,2008 from the Director of Environmental Health. . Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. . Colorado Division of Water Resources - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 8, 2008. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20,2008. . Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 16, 2008. . Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. . Emma Caucus - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 16, 2008. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Animal Services . Eagle County Assessor's Office . Eagle County Attorney's Office . Eagle County Road & Bridge . RE-1 School District Administration and Transportation . Eagle County Sheriff s Office . Eagle County Weed & Pest . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Colorado Water Conservation Board . USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service . Holy Cross Electric . Qwest/PTI/Centurytel . Basalt Water Conservancy . Colorado Historical Society . Eagle County Historical Society . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Postmaster . Roaring Fork Transit Authority Also, as of this writing, 16 letters and e-mails indicating concern and opposition has been received from concerned citizens and organized Home Owner's Associations in the immediate Emma vicinity. Copies are attached. c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: . The proposed development would provide eight new exclusive housing opportunities in the El Jebel / Emma vicinity. . Six acres of open space will be preserved in Pitkin County. . 67% of the land area in Eagle County will be designated 'Conservation Area' and be privately owned. . Up to eight new affordable housing opportunities would be created or a fee-in-lieu of affordable housing would help to fund future affordable housing projects throughout Eagle County. . The Emma area is a very desirable location to call home. . The additional development will generate additional property tax for the County; local sales tax revenue and will help to sustain local businesses and merchants. . The subject property is relatively flat and developable. 45 06/01/08 Disadvantaees: . The development, as currently proposed, does not satisfy the spirit and intent of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, The Town of Basalt Master Plan or all applicable provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. . The subdivision layout consumes the entirety of the 18 acres located within Eagle County with no common active or passive open space. . The development proposed is not clustered. . The proposal is not compatible with existing and allowed land uses in all directions from the subject property; exceptions being three 1970's subdivisions which received approval many years prior to adoption of the first and current Mid Valley Community Master Plan . The adjacent Rather Subdivision was approved by Eagle County in 2003 allowing only two residential/agricultural lots on 12.6 acres. This same application of the residential land use densities recommended in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan if applied on the subject property would result in two or three primary residences on the 18 acre property; retaining the right to certain agricultural uses. . The proposal does not satisfy the minimum road standard requirements for secondary emergency vehicle ingress/egress, turn around areas, cul-de-sac length or water distribution for firefighting purposes. . Regarding the proposed affordable housing mitigation plan; the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners must determine whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDS-00057] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [PDS-00057] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [PDS-00057] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PDS-00057] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval; 2. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department Memorandum dated May 21, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to Pun Preliminary Plan application; 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Department of Environmental Health Memorandum dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to Pun Preliminary Plan application; 46 06/01/08 4. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 must be incorporated as plat notes on the Final Plat and implemented at the time of building permit application for each of the primary and accessory residential dwelling units. 5. rfit is determined that the rural Emma area is not appropriate an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product then, a fee in lieu of affordable housing should be required of the development applicant at the time of Final Plat approval, not future lot owners. 6. All comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 7. All comments set forth in the Pitkin County Community Development Department letter dated May 16, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 8. All comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 9. A maximum development density of one primary dwelling unit per six to nine acres should be allowed on the subject property; 10. The PUD Guide must be revised to rectify the applicant's intent with regard to capping maximum home size versus no specified maximum floor ratio. The PUD Guide must also incorporate limitations on overall site coverage and maximum impervious surfaces. The PUD Guide should prohibit wood burning fireplaces. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the proposal. The applicant wishes to subdivide a 24.16 acre, 'resource' zoned parcel into eight (8) single-family residential lots. Eighteen (18) acres of the property lie with Eagle County and six (6) acres are within Pitkin County. The six (6) acre lot in Pitkin County is to remain as private open space. Each of the lots would be served by individual wells and sewage disposal systems. Access to the property would be via Emma Road. The application proposes eight (8) Accessory Dwelling Units or a fee-in-lieu paid by future lot owners. The ADU's are intended to satisfy the applicant's affordable housing mitigation requirement however; the units cannot be sold separately and must be utilized for the owner's personal use or rented as a resident occupied unit. He stated that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy the requirement for dual points of ingress/egress. The land use regulations recommend a minimum 25% of use able open space with the PUD. The property in Pitkin County cannot be counted as Open Space for the purposes of this PUD. He indicated that the proposal was not compatible with existing and allowable land uses in all directions from the subject property. The minimum two- acre lot size proposed is not consistent with the currently adopted Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposal does not conform to the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan or Mid Valley Community Plan. No effort has been made to cluster the development on the Eagle County portion of the property. The development does not encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development. The Basalt and Rural FPD has indicated that the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access, or water supply for fire fighting purposes. The proposed subdivision does not focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissioner Recommended denial of the application in a vote of 5 to 1. The Planning Commission requested that the application be tabled to allow the applicant an opportunity to revise the proposal. He summarized the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal and provided a list of suggested conditions, based on referral responses. Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant responded. He stated that the applicant sees the sketch plan as a process of discovery and hoped to get some direction from the board. He presented the site plan and explained the proposed configuration. The applicant believes they have clustered the development as much as possible and Emma Road is the logical access point. They have agreed to allow public access to the Rio Grande Trail. They believe that the proposal is not an extension of suburban development but an infill of suburban development. The density is consistent with the surrounding areas. There is considerable distance separating the proposed 47 06/01/08 development from Emma Road. The intent of the development is to provide local area resident housing. The ADD's would not be sold separately and there was never any intention of doing so. In earlier discussions with the Fire Department, they were told that a single access would be acceptable however; it would be easy to add an emergency access connection if they are required to do so. Dan Coleman, owner of the property spoke. He stated that he had been working with staff on the project over the last year. They clustered development and provided open space area as directed by staff. The logic of the site plan was configured the same as the adjacent properties with open field up front and the houses to the back. He believes the proposal with the affordable housing component meets and/or exceeds the new guidelines. He would be willing to attach the 8 ADD's to reduce the building count onsite. He understands that the development means change to the area however; he believes his proposal is a fair minimum. He looks forward to being a good neighbor and asked the board to move the application forward. Spencer Schiffer spoke. He lives at 122 Crown Mountain Drive, immediately to the west of the adjacent subject property. He'd lived in Aspen for 36 years and now lives in Emma; he considers the area a little slice of heaven. He is interested in protecting and preserving the area for as long as possible. He is adamantly opposed to changing the zoning on this property. He believes in private property rights and believes the adjacent property owners have the right to rely on existing zoning to protect the value of their asset. He believes the applicant has no right under the land use code to tear down the existing nonconforming structure and increase the existing nonconformity. It is a basic premise of zoning law that it should never be changed except in the most compelling circumstances when the benefits to the community far outweigh any negative impacts to the community in general or the neighbors in particular. This is codified in Section 5-230 of the land use regulations. He spoke about the traffic, noise, pollution, and congestion generated by the proposal. He believes approval of the file would set a very dangerous precedent for the entire county not just the Emma area. He believes the board should compare the advantages of the proposal to the disadvantages. The zoning was never intended to permit someone to increase density so as to subvert or circumvent the underlying zoning on the property. He believes the application does not address any demonstrated community need and does not result in any public benefit. Tom Waldeck, Emma Farm owner spoke. He spoke about the recent Emma Farm application and the compromises. They were allowed 1 home per 21 acres which also included over 50% of the land being placed into a conservation easement. He stated that the proposed site plan does not provide adequate area for open space or conservation of any kind. He endorsed everything said by the previous speaker. Mr. Clauson requested that the board ask the audience to reframe from applauding. Commissioner Menconi stated that it was a fair request of thoughtfulness. Chairman Runyon asked the audience to refrain from applause. Jackie Whitstit spoke. She doesn't believe that anyone should have the right to up-zone. She would like to savor what's left of the agricultural and rural areas still left. She believes the current citizens pay for the cost of growth. Shelly Gross, adjacent property owner spoke. She spoke about the purchase of her property. She spoke about her conversation with Bruce Sinclair, former adjacent property owner and his reassurance that his property would never be developed. She believes that the sale of the Coleman property was unfair. She believes the proposed zoning is incomprehensible. She is opposed to the proposal. She stated that any access from her property would not be for sale. She asked the board deny the file. David Slaybaugh, resident of 0191 Walter Road spoke. He's lived adjacent to the Coleman property for over 20 years. He believes that the area is rural. He stated that they are not served by city water. He is concerned with the high number of septic systems and possible negative affects upon the water table. He recommended that the board follow the existing zoning. Anne Austin Clapper, Emma Road resident spoke. She stated that she had read the staff report and the original application clearly stated that the applicant would contemplate selling the ADD's separately. She believes the infill map presented by the applicant is deceiving. Most of the buildings are agriculture buildings and garages. She believes the density would be much more noticeable than what is presented on the infill map. She stated that infill is not in the master plan for the Emma area. She believes it would be setting a terrible precedent for the area. She spoke about the wells proposed for each of the homes and wondered about the 600 ft requirement. She did not believe the application meets the minimum requirements for the area and urged the board to deny it. Wendy Lucas spoke. She supported Spencer Schiffer's earlier comments. She lives one lot over from the proposed development. She believes the infill illustration presented by the applicant misrepresents the actual buildings in the area. She is opposed to 8 homes and 8 ADD's on the property. She opposes any zone changes in the Emma area. She believes the selling process of the property was corrupt and hopes that this process does not have the same outcome. 48 06/01/08 Mike Simmons spoke. He endorsed everything that every previous speaker said. He believes the proposal is a violation of the land use regulations and contributes to the further destruction of the rural character of the mid- valley. He believes it's unacceptable to increase the use of Emma Road. He would like the rural area of Emma to stay in tact. He believes the proposal is outrageous and he hopes the board will deny the application. Ginny Parker spoke. She believes the developer should follow the rules and be permitted to have only one home on the property. Willard Clapper spoke. He stated that he agreed with the speakers before him. He's astounded by the application. He encouraged the board to look at the reality of the proposal and say no. The development is inappropriate, wrong, and doesn't fit in with the surrounding areas. He doesn't believe the ADD's should be the ultimate decision maker. Eric Cohen, Willits resident spoke. He supports the development and believes he speaks for all those who wish to live in Emma area. He doesn't believe the development would negatively affect the lives of the surrounding neighbors. He believes it is a great opportunity for those who wish to live in the Emma area to get a piece of the pie. Patsy Batcheldor spoke. She believes the proposal is not compatible with the surrounding area and encouraged the board to deny the zone change. Ken Larsen spoke. He believes that if someone buys a piece of property they should be willing to follow the rules. He asked the board to consider the rules on the books and play by the rules. George Newman spoke. He is in favor of preserving the rural area of Pitkin County. He represents the Emma Caucus group. The group represents over 200 households and property owners throughout the Emma area. The overwhelming majority of the caucus members endorsed the principal goal of the master plan. 91% supported low density and single-family homes of moderate size. He believes that zoning and master plans determine the size, density, and plan for the future. He believes that Emma Road would be negatively impacted by this proposal. He doesn't believe the proposal is appropriate for the area and the development would create traffic and safety concerns on Emma Road. Parker Maddux, resident of 1637 Emma Road spoke. He would like the Emma area to remain pristine and urged the board to deny the zone change. Hugh Zuker spoke. He wished to speak to the character of the applicant. He believes that some of the earlier statements about the thought process were an unfair characterization of Dan Coleman. He is a local resident concerned with the availability of affordable housing. Lucy Cerise, Emma Road resident spoke. She stated that the property had been excellent agricultural land for many years and hopes the board will deny the application. Drew Sakson spoke. He believes the proposal is the right type of infill and great use of the property. He recommended approval of the application. Don Barr spoke. He suggested that the board consider the current laws and rules that have come into play over the years. He's lived in the area for over 20 years and is aware of the rural feel of the area. He believes that zoning is important and intended to protect the area. He asked that the board honor the decisions made by previous commissioners trying to get a handle on growth. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Mr. Clauson responded to the comments made during public comment. He stated that there was no intention on the applicant's part to offend anyone or be outrageous. He stated that they understand the general drift of all the planning going on to preserve the rural areas however, it seemed to the applicant that it was an appropriate request. With respect to the water, they believed the plan would not cause any problems and don't foresee any problems. They are happy to work out any details with water, septic, fire, etc. It's really a question of does this degree of development fit within the area or does it not. Bob Narracci responded to Mr. Schiffer's comment regarding non-conforming uses. He stated that there was another section in the regulations that relates to non-conformities, which addresses non-conforming lands. It addresses lands that are not the minimum lot size. The regulations allow on non-conforming parcels zoned resource such as this property, one primary residence and all the agricultural uses that are normally permitted in the resource zone, anything else would require a special use permit. Commissioner Menconi stated that in his many years oflistening to testimony, Mr. Schiffer's testimony was very well done. He believes Mr. Schiffer spoke to the ongoing debate of land use in Eagle County. He believes this development does not come close to providing any kind of community benefit. The applicant has done an admirable job of representing himself and character. However, these type of properties that are seen going 49 06/01/08 into up zoning are looking to benefit or find housing for primarily a second homeowner or higher end homeowner. For many years, the board of county commissioners has been trying to say no to second home/high-end development. He feels the applicant would have a hard time meeting the criteria laid out in the comprehensive plan of the land use code. Commissioner Fisher stated that as she read the staff report she put herself in the shoes of the Emma area residents. She wondered if Mr. Coleman was fully aware of the land use regulations and the policies in place before he purchased the property. She finds it difficult to find reason to be supportive of a development that is out of character and done for a speculative purpose. She believes there is real value in trying to maintain some of the historical perspective of the area. Chairman Runyon stated that preserving the Emma character area is a huge asset to everyone not just the people who live in the Emma area. He believes the development would be setting a negative precedent. He moved to the Eagle Valley in the 70's and was in favor of growth at that time however now; he's witnessed some of the historic valley has been lost along the way. He honors the opinions of the Pitkin County Commissioners, the Basalt Town Councilman and all the letters submitted by the public. Mr. Clauson asked if the board would be willing to entertain a modification of the application along the lines suggested by staff. Chairman Menconi spoke about the county's need for affordable housing, affordable commercial, and childcare. He believes the main pieces are missing in this proposal. He encouraged the applicant to meet with the Eagle County Housing Director. Bob Morris suggested that Chairman Menconi not get involved in the planning of the project. Commissioner Fisher stated that the county was in the preliminary stages of the mid valley master planning. She encouraged everyone to participate in the planning process. Commissioner Runyon stated that the development had a long way to go and it would be best if they work through the Planning Department. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicant would be willing to work with staff. He requested that the board continue the file to allow the applicant time to work with the neighbors. Bob Morris stated that the file would have to be continued to a specific date. If there were any substantial changes, the application would have to go back to the Planning Commission. He suggested that the hearing be continued to a specific date. Bob Narracci stated that given the amount of work needing to be done a realistic time frame would be close to 6 months. Mr. Morris suggest the file be tabled to the next board meeting to allow the applicant time to determine how much time they might need. Mr. Clauson stated that he would be in favor of tabling the file for 60 days. Commissioner Menconi moved to table File No. PDS-00057 until Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at the applicants' request. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: v,~'. 50 06/01/08