HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 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