HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/09/08
PUBLIC HEARING
December 9, 2008
Present:
Peter Runyon
Sara Fisher
Keith Montag
Bryan Treu
Robert Morris
Teak Simonton
Kathy Scriver
Chairman
Commissioner
Acting County Manager
County Attorney
Deputy County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Am Menconi
Commissioner
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
GENERAL FUND
PETER THEUNE
A&A SEPTIC SERVICES
ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
ADEL R WILLIAMS
ADP
AFLAC
AHLERS AND ASSOCIATES
ALEXANDREA WOLF
ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMP ANY
ALL PRO FORMS INCORPORATED
ALL V ALLEY WOMEN'S CARE
ALLEN H ADGER PC A TIORNEY AT LAW
ALPINE LUMBER
ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY
ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY
AMERICAN JAIL ASSOCIATION
AMERIGAS
AMY ARTHUR
AMY L. GORNIKIEWICZ
AMY LEE DA VEL
ANDERSON & KEIL
ANDIE NOAKES
ANDREW 1. DODD
ANDREW VESEY
ANIMAL HEALTH AND SANITARY SUPPLY
ANN LOPER
ANN LOUISE EGGERS
ANN MARIE SANDERS
ANN MORRIS
ANNA H. GOODMAN
Annie Egan
ANTLERS HILTON
ARDITH A KEEF ATIORNEY AT LAW
ASPEN V ALLEY HOSPITAL
ASSET VALUATION ADVISORS. LLP
A V TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$26.00
$700.00
$43.10
$393.25
$350.08
$2,026.52
$1,265.00
$279.50
$25.1 5
$25.15
$1,047.88
$1,875.00
$53.80
$144.52
$48.97
$56.49
$48.00
$859.87
$820.00
$240.50
$269.75
$40.90
$253.50
$315.25
$243.75
$953.13
$12.00
$630.50
$253.50
$208.00
$240.50
$160.00
$327.00
$3.40
$35.00
$7,200.00
$8,936.81
1
12/09/08
AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK I HOA
AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
BAND B EXCA V A TING
B. SUSAN RYCHEL
BALCOMB AND GREEN
BARBARA C. MOONEY
BARBARA J KASIEWICZ
BARBARA S MEESE
BARBARA WHITFORD
BECKY PETERSON
BERIC M. CHRISTIANSEN
BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS
BETHANY V AN WYK
BEVERLY ANN CHRISTIANSAN
BOYZ TOYZ AND SONZ
BRC/HARRIS INC
BRENDA L. GRAHAM
BRENDA WRIGHT
BURAK Y ALCINDAG
BUSCH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CAROL R. HAWK
CATHY KEIL
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
CDW COMPUTER CENTERS
CELESTE e. NOTTINGHAM
CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING
CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING
CENTURYTEL
CENTURYTEL
CENTURYTELOFEAGLE
CHARLES B DARRAH
CHARLES D JONES CO, INe.
CHERYL A BOTTOMLEY
CHIARA DEL PICCOLO
CHIEF SUPPLY
CHRIS EKREM
CLIFF SIMONTON
CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON OLDFATHER LLP
CO COUNTIES INCORPORATED
CO DEPT OF REVENUE
COLORADO COUNTIES INCORPORATED
COLORADO DEP ARTMENT AGRICULTURE
COLORADO DEP ARTMENT AGRICULTURE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENV WATER QUALITY
CT
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENV WATER QUALITY
CT
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ENV WATER QUALITY
CT
COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COLORADO PATHOLOGY CONSULTANTS, P.C.
COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH
2
12/09/08
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
$2,252.05
$2,245.43
$1,154.79
$260.00
$1,080.00
$227.50
$373.75
$237.25
$85.80
$250.25
$208.00
$1,040.58
$71.96
$282.75
$22.95
$1,250.00
$234.00
$73.71
$17.20
$34.60
$230.75
$13.00
$1,625.29
$4,504.73
$273.00
$280.82
$370.12
$180.10
$2,411.65
$68.21
$21. 60
$156.45
$237.25
$234.00
$94.97
$464.75
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$7.20
$184.25
$50.00
$335.00
$50.00
$65.00
SERVICE
$47.00
SERVICE
$500.00
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$698.75
$5,832.08
$199.68
$243.0 I
$776.96
$3,418.32
$5,049.76
$194.00
$350.00
CONSERVE A W A TI LIGHTING INCORPORATED
CORPORATE EXPRESS
COPY PLUS
COREA FIRM P LLC
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING
COWBOY CATERING
CRt ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
CRYSTAL BEYMER
CYNTHIA ERICKSON
CYNTHIA TERRAZAS
DAN CORCORAN PLS
DAN SPARKMAN
DANALEIGH POWERS
DANIELLE PIETERS
DAVID A BAUER
DAVID E. MOTI
DAVIDF.STAAT
DEANNA HENRY
DEBBIE JEAN KELLY
DEBORAH H. SARTHOU
DEBORAH LOUISE TRAVERS
DENNIS WILLEY
DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY
DIANA C CAROLINE CORDOVA ELLIOTI
DIANA JOHNSON
DIANE LYNN BRAATZ
DUANA KOZAR
DONALD J LAUGHLIN
DONALD R GREENE
DONNA MEYER
DORIS JEAN DEWTON
DUFFORD WALDECK AND MILBURN
EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE PHARMACY
EAGLE V ALLEY LAND TRUST
EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING
EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING
EARL O. SKILES
ED GRANGE
EDW ARDS BUILDING CENTER
ELAINE GELVIN
ELIZABETH THERESA SPETNAGEL
3
12/09/08
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
$56.40
$379.22
$9.48
$49.70
$47.96
$51.46
$75.44
$97.44
$117.64
$230.77
$535.75
$816.28
$1,546.14
$477.29
$378.75
$525.00
$188.50
$230.75
$247.00
$1,500.00
$970.20
$1,559.41
$125.41
$58.80
$383.50
$260.00
$256.75
$357.50
$29.09
$279.50
$30.00
$1,885.35
$237.25
$15.00
$386.75
$4.80
$141.00
$308.75
$162.50
$659.75
$1,378.00
$9,050.00
$78.21
$126.78
$653,650.23
$665,295.92
$21.10
$1,006.25
$360.00
$2,035.00
$757.25
$84.00
$89.90
$247.00
$224.25
ELLEN MATLOCK
ELLIOTI W. GERHARDT
ELMER L CHRISTIANSAN
EMILYKLOSER
EMILY MARIE BOYD
EMPLOYERS COUNCIL SERVICE
EPS DESIGN AND PRINT
ERNEST O. BROWN, JR
EVA WILSON
EVANS CHAFFEE
EVERETT F AMIL Y FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY
EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES
EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES
FALCON ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
FARRELL & SELDIN
FARRELL AND SELDIN
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED
FERGUSON SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC
FILTERFRESH DENVER
FLORIDA MICRO
FLOYD DUFFY
FRANK J BALL
FRANK P ALOWITCH
FRANK STRAUSS
FREDERIC M. MCLAIN
G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC
G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC
GAIL ZINK
GENI GARCIA
GEORGE P. LAURIE
GEORGE TITUS
GLENWOOD SPRINGS CHRYSLER DODGE INCORPORATED
GLOBAL SPECTRUM
GOVCONNECTION INCORPORATED
GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS LLC
GRACE FINNEY
GRACE T SANDOVAL
GRAINGER INCORPORATED
GRAND JUNCTION PIPE
GRANICUS INCORPORATED
GRAYBEAL, PEGGY
GREEN MURPHY MURPHY P A
GREENBERG AND ASSOCIATES
GREG SCHROEDER
GROUNDUP ENGINEERING
GUY AYRAULT
HANNAH JO RIGGAN
HART INTERCIVIC INC
HART INTERCIVIC INCORPORATED
HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL
HEATHER BURCHALL
4
12/09/08
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEM ENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
$237.25
$256.75
$240.50
$269.75
$247.00
$450.00
$578.59
$364.00
$510.02
$75,567.52
$505.00
$259.99
$3,265.91
$270.00
$150.10
$31.20
$137.1 I
$378.97
$750.1 8
$25.52
$328.18
$668.00
$1,038.47
$422.00
$240.50
$52.30
$15.80
$243.75
$607.75
$ I 0 1.28
$319.40
$62.65
$52.00
$247.00
$292.50
$208.95
$5,000.00
$47.84
$600.00
$159.00
$240.50
$371.34
$53.97
$3,039.12
$180.00
$21.20
$35.74
$255.59
$40.00
$269.75
$240.50
$388.28
$1,597.36
$375.00
$85.46
HELEN BECK WITH
HELP DESK TECHNOWGY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
HENRY SCHEIN
HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI
HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES
HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES
HOGAN AND HARTSON
HOLYCROSSELECTR~
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
HOME FOODS OF V AIL
HOROWITZ FORBES LLP
HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
HV AC SUPPLY
HVACSUPPLY
IAAO
IACREOT
IMAGE BASE LLC
INGA HAAGENSON CAUSEY LLC
INTERIOR PLANTSCAPES
ISC INC
JACQUELINE J. SCHLEGEL
JAMES ANTHONY BRIEGER
JAMES C. POTTER
JAMES H. STEANE II
JAMES R. DONNALLEY III
JANE A ST JEAN
JANET CONNORS
JANET G KLEINHARDT
JANET K. EWING
JANET K. EWING
JARA DIVERSIFIED SERVICES
JAY LEA VITI
JEAN M PHILBEN
JENNIFER M. MORRIS
JENNY WOOD
JESSA GIARRATANO
JOAN IE HANLON
JOANNE STRAUSS
JOES WALLBOARD AND SUPPLY
JOHN A. VICKERS
JOHN BURK CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
JOHN CORTEZ
JOHN FE LIZZI
JOHNNETIE PHILLIPS
JOSEPH BRANN AND ASSOCIATESN LLC
JOSH BENEDICT
JULIA ANNETTE RICHARDS
JUSTIN CURTIS EVANCHO
KARA BETTIS CORONER
KARA BETTIS CORONER
KARALEA PLATT
KAREN HAYES
KAREN LECHNER
KAREN M KERN
5
12/09/08
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$243.75
$257.83
$64.22
$5,250.00
$122.50
$260.78
$94,977.06
$210.45
$5,714.41
$17,821.50
$2,687.00
$140.60
$707.70
$122.24
$141.21
$875.00
$175.00
$26,151.85
$54.40
$125.00
$40,107.24
$263.25
$214.50
$247.00
$851.50
$253.50
$373.75
$39.60
$253.50
$286.00
$468.00
$88.83
$185.25
$217.75
$247.00
$15.78
$221.00
$837.50
$243.75
$141.85
$243.75
$4.80
$630.50
$169.65
$12.60
$4,312.50
$9.00
$266.50
$247.00
$55.58
$134.03
$227.50
$227.50
$256.75
$240.50
KARLA GALLEGOS
KATHY NACKE
KATHERINE SCHMIDT
KATHY DUNN LEWIS
KATHY HOZA-WITLER
KATHY SCRIVER
KEITH MONTAG
KELLY MADRID
KENDRA LANE SCOTI
KINETICO WATER PROS
KRABACHER AND SANDERS PC
KRISTINA WARNER
KRISTINE SINKO
KRYSTALFERNANDEZ
KYMBERLEIGH IGLESIAS
KZYR FM
LASER JUNCTION
LASER JUNCTION
LASER JUNCTION
LAUREN SCHMIDT
LAWRENCE C MOSS JR
LEDERHAUSE, EDITH
LEO SPAZIANI
LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS
LIGIA BONILLA
LINDA ANN CHRISTIANSEN
LINDA CARR
LINDA MAGGIORE
LORI SIEFERS
LORIE CRAWFORD
LOUETTE L. WILLIAMS
WZOY A VELEZ, CARMEN
LYNN GOTILIEB MA
LYNN KANAKIS
MAIN AUTO PARTS
MAKYLA MOODY
MARCEE JO RIGGAN
MARGARET BLAZEK
MARGARET JONES
MARGARET JONES
MARGARET S MCLAUGHLIN
MARl RENZELMAN
MARIA ANJIER
MARION F LAUGHLIN
MARK ARON BARKMAN
MARK DAMIEN NICHOLS
MARKLE AUSTIN
MARLENE ELIZABETH KUNKEL
MARLENE MCCAFFERTY
MARY C KERST
MARY HARDING
MARY JANE HESS
MARY JO ALLEN
MARY MOSTELLER
MBIA MISC
6
12/09/08
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEM ENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$221.00
$204.42
$243.75
$83.03
$243.75
$64.50
$12.00
$41.08
$253.50
$ I 77.68
$4.70
$247.00
$237.25
$31.59
$51.48
$1,700,00
$229.00
$319.00
$578.00
$243.75
$247.00
$69.30
$217.75
$20.10
$110.57
$208.00
$27.20
$137.48
$37.08
$81.90
$240.50
$489.06
$420.00
$94.50
$38.24
$22.20
$240.50
$237.25
$295.75
$477.75
$484.25
$32.76
$36.12
$144.00
$247.000$247.00
$30.00
$487.50
$182.00
$247.00
$27.20
$145.31
$1,127.75
$240.50
$6,325.77
MCCAULLEY,REBECCA,T
MCI WORLDCOM
MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING
MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING
MEGAN C MULROY
MEGAN JEANNE COTTER
MELINDA HAMMER
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC
METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC
METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC
MICHAEL BARCA
MICHAEL L SANNER
MICHELE M DARKEN
MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
MOFFET CONSULTING
MOLLY ANKER HUNSAKER
MOLLY SMITH
MONTGOMERY MATHIAS
MOTOSAT
MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS
MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY
MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY
NANCY ALEXANDER
NANCY MULLER
NANCY W NOTTINGHAM
NANETIE M KUICH
NARIS SA HUHMAN
NATALIE MARTINEZ
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
NEHA ENVIRONMETAL HEALTH
NELSON LABORATORIES
NEVES UNIFORMS
NICHOLAS F KUICH
NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED
NU CARE PHARMACEUTICALS
OC TANNER
OC TANNER
OCCASIONALLY KEEGAN
ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY
ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY
ORKIN EXTERMINATING
OSM DELIVERY LLC
OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMPANY
PAINT BUCKET
PAMELA THORN
PAPER WISE
PAPER WISE
PAT NOLAN
PATRICIA A SMITH
PATRICK JOHNSON
PATRICK WILLIAM HALL
PAUL JOHNSON
PAUL NUMEROF
PAULA A PALMATEER
7
12/09/08
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$272.17
$15.37
$890.00
$941.25
$247.00
$240.50
$247.00
$717.50
$382.00
$562.00
$412.75
$247.00
$240.50
$413.04
$3,964.48
$237.25
$234.00
$292.50
$1,133.60
$72.00
$361.40
$493.64
$260.00
$5.70
$780.00
$256.75
$247.00
$208.00
$800.00
$95.00
$266.12
$206.00
$256.75
$25.00
$416.67
$405.89
$98.13
$198.69
$3,000.00
$487.05
$533.34
$221.20
$159.93
$1,045.50
$495.66
$269.75
$1,748.25
$3,489.00
$112.32
$247.00
$30.00
$240.50
$234.00
$117.00
$68.70
PAULA THOMPSON
PEPPER BALL TECH INC
PETER FRALICK
PHYLLIS ROUNDS
PODlE DIXON
PRISCILLA A WILLE
PURCHASE POWER
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
QUILL CORPORATION
QWEST
RAND S NORTHEAST LLC
RADIO RESOURCE INCORPORATED
RANDY RUIZ SANCHEZ
RICHARD BROSE
RISK, HOWARD
RITA R. THOMPSON
ROBERT C TREZISE JR
ROBERT J ANDREOTTI ATTORNEY AT LAW
ROBERT J CALLlCRATE
ROBERT NARRACCI
ROBIN L BRAINE
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPROGRAPH
ROLF LIPPERT
ROLLY ROUNDS
ROSIE MORENO
ROWE B J
RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP
RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP
RUDY YBARRA
SACHA KOSTICK
SANDRA 10 ALBERT ROSE
SANDRA SUTHER
SARA A NEWSAM
SARA J FISHER
SAW A Y A ROSE KALPLAN PC
SCHINDLER ELEV A TOR CORPORATION
SCHUTZMAN COMP ANY INCORPORATED
SCHUTZMAN COMPANY INCORPORATED
SCOTT SHARP
SEAN H HARP
SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL
SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION
SHANNON CORDINGLY
SHANNON HURST
SHARON BAKEWELL THADEN
SHARON GREENE
SHAW ELECTRIC, INC.
SHEAFFER KAREN
SHELLEY LUNDT
SIGNATURE SIGNS
SIGNATURE SIGNS
SILVERMAN LAW FIRM
SIMON PROPERTY SERVICES
SINTON DAIRY COMPANY
SNOWWHITE LINEN
8
12/09/08
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
$59.67
$864.99
$27.86
$24.00
$627.25
$230.75
$20,000.00
$610.42
$200.74
$4,409.5 I
$527.40
$114.00
$240.50
$24.20
$448.50
$302.25
$305.50
$16.80
$227.50
$59.67
$549.25
$71.98
$163.14
$57.00
$349.20
$25.74
$481.76
$1,139.64
$263.25
$237.25
$243.75
$42.12
$201.50
$953.55
$36.60
$1,804.20
$52.80
$171.30
$ I 98.25
$237.25
$2,991.00
$2,431.56
$701.25
$180.00
$331.50
$354.25
$50.40
$ I 93.88
$269.75
$40.00
$485.00
$38.00
$1,575.00
$394.68
$45.1 6
SONDRA MANSKE
SOS STAFFING SERVICES
SOS STAFFING SERVICES
SOS STAFFING SERVICES
SOURCEGAS
STACEY JONES
STACIBRUCE
STACY M LAKE
STANEK, DAN
STARRETTA WALLS
STEAMMASTER
STEPHANIE L. SAMUELSON
STEPHANIE M. HANSON
STEPHANIE McKINNERNEY
STEPHEN RICHARDS
SUMMIT COUNTY SENIORS
SUSAN MOTI
SUSAN MOTI
SUSAN RODGER MA
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
SUZANN LROSS
SUZANNE H MCKINNERNEY
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER
TAMARA HARRA
TARA A ARCOMANO
TAYLOR RYAN
TAYLOR, PEARL
TCC CONTRACTORS
TEAK SIMONTON
TEAK SIMONTON
TERRACOGNITO CONSULTING
TETRA TECH RMC, INC.
THE EARLY LEARNING CENTER
THE NORMANDY GROUP LLC
THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER, INC
THOMAS A KLEIN HARDT
THOMAS, CHERYL
THOMPSON WEST GROUP
TONI BERNS
TOWN OF EAGLE
TOWN OF EAGLE
TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
UNILINK
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
UNITED REPROGRAPHIC
US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED
V AIL BOARD OF REALTORS
VAIL DAILY
VAIL DAILY
VAIL DAILY
VAIL ELECTRONICS
V AIL LOCK AND KEY
9
12/09/08
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
$307.13
$773.62
$866.77
$970.05
$111.11
$240.50
$836.00
$279.50
$30.00
$221.00
$931.41
$266.50
$243.75
$243.75
$247.00
$2,379.75
$66.00
$370.50
$140.00
$233.46
$109,442.26
$11 1,609.74
$237.25
$260.00
$584.84
$ 17.20
$494.00
$ I 85.05
$136.80
$309.00
$167.90
$203.70
$5,000.00
$7,580.85
$16.00
$7,507.69
$180.00
$253.50
$246.1 5
$2,572.79
$83.70
$7,069.30
$15,000.00
$210.00
$51.80
$66.84
$ I 07.33
$315.74
$2,462.04
$300.00
$1,742.04
$2,026.04
$9,254.13
$142.50
$84.56
VAIL NET
VAIL RESORTS INC
V AIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
V AIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
VALERIEM WOLFE
V ALLEY LUMBER
V ALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL
VALUE CHECK, INC
V ANESA OOTY
VELASCO, GABRIELA
VERIZON WIRELESS
VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED
VERSIELLEN E DRIVER
VINCI LAW OFFICE
VISA CARD SERVICES
VISA CARD SERVICES
VISA CARD SERVICES
VONDA WILLIAMS
W ALZ POSTAL SOLUTIONS
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC
WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED
WELLS FARGO BANK
WENDY KIDDER BECKER
WESTERN SLOPE BAR
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES
WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL
WILLIAM G HORLBECK PC
WILLIAM H. DARKEN
WINNING ATIITUDE EMBROIDERY
WIRTH, COLLEEN
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
XCEL ENERGY
XEROX CORPORATION INC
XEROX CORPORATION INC
XEROX CORPORATION INC
XEROX CORPORATION, INC
XEROX CORPORATION, INC
XEROX CORPORATION, INC
Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOC
ZACHARY DINSMORE BAILEY
ZOBEYDA ARGELlA CANO
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL
ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND
ADARAND CONSTRUCTOR'S, INe.
AFLAC
BAND B EXCA V A TING
BAND B EXCA V A TING
BIG R MANUFACTURING
CARTER AND BURGESS INCORPORATED
10
12/09/08
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
$ 11.95
$11.580.00
$400.00
$409.54
$198.25
$193.36
$195.00
$4,250.00
$24.57
$205.92
$920.84
$8, I 14.56
$1,228.50
$21.20
$56,263.68
$966.43
$1.067.71
$302.25
$348.96
$ I ,534.83
$158.00
$1,000.00
$ I 95.00
$28.65
$67.00
$92.78
$135.73
$165.34
$234.00
$220.28
$240.50
$368.00
$30.00
$14.99
$251.16
$251.05
$246.30
$1,335.57
$1,519.18
$248.43
$251.24
$1,193.00
$76.66
$234.00
$400.00
$2,220,252.00
$1,568,681.37
PAYROLL 23&24
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
$54,238.00
$251.98
$1,292.77
$37,922.31
$7,538.00
$9,091.61
CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING
CHADWICK CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATE EXPRESS
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE PHARMACY
ELK LANE PARTNERS, LLC
FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG
GA TEW A Y CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
GMCO CORPORATION
GMCO CORPORATION
GRAND JUNCTION PIPE
GYPSUM CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL
HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI
HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
J&S CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO
KEMP AND COMP ANY INCORPORATED
M &M AUTO PARTS
MATRIX SYSTEMS, INC
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT
NEIL HERRIDGE
NICOLE WASSON
PAPER WISE
PST ENTERPRISES INC
ROCKVILLE CHEMICAL INCORPORATED
SOPRIS ARCHITECT
SOURCEGAS
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
THERESA LADEN BURGER
THERESA LADENBURGER
TOWN OF GYPSUM
UNITED RENTALS
UNITED STATES WELDING
V AIL DAILY
VISA CARD SERVICE
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC
WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATE
WESTERN SLOPE BAR
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX CORPORATION INC
Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOC
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL
EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND
AFLAC
DANIELLE PIETERS
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EVANS CHAFFEE
EVANS CHAFFEE
11
12/09/08
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
$292.42
$100.00
$42.21
$53,519.68
$53,943.47
$10.93
$2,000.00
$59,330.75
$374,842.92
$2,925.00
$9,855.30
$163.00
$150.00
$1,092.50
$35.05
$220.00
$28.80
$91.80
$5,124.85
$7,906.83
$75.00
$286.84
$61.52
$21.62
$1,748.25
$1,000.00
$3,784.53
$8,981.61
$8,986.02
$71.97
$161.60
$253.79
$268.59
$2,165.20
$80.10
$106.46
$104.42
$4.544.52
$42.95
$73.39
$102.50
$416.08
$661.69
$541.25
$80.80
$716,630.88
$126,799.31
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
PAYROLL 23&24
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$98.34
$17.55
$4,643.11
$4,697.14
$2.822.45
$84,046.48
GO PLAY, LLC
GYPSUM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLORADO
JENNIE W AHRER
KIMBERLY WALLACH
LUZ A VILA
OFFICE SCAPES
ROSIE MORENO
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
VIRGINIA TRUJILLO
VISA CARD SERVICE
NOVEMBER 200 PAYROLL
SOCIAL SERVICES FUND
AFLAC
BEVERL Y ANN CHRISTIANS AN
BORRE, RACHAEL
CALLY RYAN
CHARLENE WHITNEY
CHERRY CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT
CHRIS MORTON
CHRIS MORTON
CO COUNTIES INCORPORATED
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
DENVER COUNTY SHERIFF
EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COALITION
ERIK MARTINEZ
HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS
HOLIDAY INN DENVER WEST VILLAGE
ISABEL SANCHEZ
JAN GOVREAU
JENNIE W AHRER
JOHN FAY
JUANA GARCIA
KATHLEEN LYONS
KRIST ABELLE CHAVEZ -VAUGHAN
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INCORPORATED
LISA GRIGGS
MARGARITA PALMA
OSM DELIVERY LLC
PErry CASH ACCOUNTING
QUILL CORPORATION
QUILL CORPORATION
SCHUTZMAN COMP ANY INCORPORATED
SHERRY A CALOIA. LLC
SOS STAFFING SERVICES
STATE FORMS CENTER
12
12/09/08
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
$ I 2,323 .25
$ 106.06
$3,391.05
$21. 06
$163.80
$30.42
$5,253.57
$24.57
$838.18
$838.18
$35.69
$587.66
$119,938.56
$11,369.40
PAYROLL23&24
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
REFUND
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
$217.86
$131.04
$445.13
$22.23
$265.65
$582.50
$80.00
$160.00
$150.75
$3.60
$39.24
$78.83
$62.00
$62.23
$56,860.19
$61,394.70
$5.000.00
$29.26
$899.49
$316.00
$22.11
$3.16
$176.67
$110.61
$181.20
$63.18
$1,328.52
$46.00
$138.00
$938.68
$33.08
$320.07
$3,912.00
$164.25
$177.48
$140.15
$2,054.68
$6.91
$6.28
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
VERIZON WIRELESS
VISA CARD SERVICE
XEROX CORPORATION
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL
WRAP FUND
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS
JAMES H. DUM ESNIL MS, LPC
KELLY PAULSEN
EV TRANSPORTATION
AFLAC
ALPINE LUMBER
AT&T
BUFFALO RIDGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING
COLLETTS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS
COpy PLUS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN
DOCTORS ON CALL
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE EMBROIDERY
EAGLE EMBROIDERY
HI CRANES INCORPORATED
HIGH COUNTRY CUSTOM IMPRESSIONS INCORPORATED
IMPACT GRAPHICS AND SIGNS
KZYR FM
LAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
LANCE TRUJILLO
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC
MIKE HAGERMAN
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT
NEW DIMENSION CLEANING
NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED
PAINT BUCKET
PAPER WISE
QWEST
QWEST
SILVER CREEK DEVELOPMENT
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
TOWN OF AVON
TOWN OF GYPSUM
V ALEDA COMPANY LLC
VISA
13
12/09/08
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
$68.46
$9,436.47
$10,094.89
$67.37
$1,602.98
$1,210.69
$159,104.59
$142,065.12
PAYROLL 23&24
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$90.00
$720.00
$258.36
$1,068.36
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$285.12
$1,419.87
$172.62
$7,955.00
$ I ,221.63
$2.366.94
$144.72
$25.90
$609.59
$3,039.19
$1,260.00
$114,211.78
$138,138.19
$20.00
$25.00
$410.00
$15.00
$246.80
$364.00
$240.00
$49.73
$1,480.00
$5,878.75
$1,899.00
$25.09
$494.18
$398.40
$324.00
$5.72
$215.43
$50.22
$163.12
$2,300.00
$14,106.45
$14,504.79
$3,554.61
$888.73
$222.00
$4,900.30
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC SERVICE $167.1 7
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $28.65
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $82.50
XCEL ENERGY SERVICE $98.76
XEROX CORPORATION INC SUPPLIES $797.97
$324,806.92
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 23&24 $286,398.95
EV TRAILS
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE $108.54
COPY PLUS SUPPLIES $5.41
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $1,647.91
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $1,647.91
HA YW ARD BAKER INC SERVICE $4,500.00
LAF ARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED SERVICE $850.79
SAMUEL A BOLES SERVICE $2,842.80
SEEDING THE ROCKIES INC SUPPLIES $1,995.00
SHERRIE L. SEAGO SERVICE $3.100.00
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $200.99
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $200.99
VISA SERVICE $326.48
WATERSHED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC SERVICE $340.00
XEROX CORPORATION INC SUPPLIES $225.32
$17,992.14
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 23&24 $3,713.94
AIRPORT FUND
AFLAC SERVICE $223.80
AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC SERVICE $47.52
ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY SERVICE $60.48
ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY SERVICE $313.20
ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY SERVICE $1,385.92
BLUEGLOBES, LLC SUPPLIES $47.28
BLUEGLOBES, LLC SERVICE $3,662.21
C & H DISTRIBUTORS, LLC SERVICE $384.04
CLARA NOFZIGER REIMBURSEMENT $225.00
COLLETTS SUPPLIES $291.75
DISH NETWORK SERVICE $59.99
DIVISION OF FIRE SAFETY SERVICE $150.00
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $38,074.31
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $44,433.45
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED SERVICE $51.65
GRAINGER INCORPORATED SUPPLIES $154.06
GROUND ENGINEERING CONSULTING INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,250.00
INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER INCORPORATED SERVICE $107.45
1A Y MAX SALES SERVICE $110.50
1BT'S CUSTOM SILK SERVICE $334.00
lBT'S CUSTOM SILK SUPPLIES $3,060.00
LAF ARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED SERVICE $283.00
LAWSON PRODUCTS SERVICE $374.67
LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED SERVICE $161.62
MARY MOE REIMBURSEMENT $234.89
MCNEIL'S TRUCK AND SERVICE $1,760.00
MYSLIK INCORPORATED SERVICE $8,992.25
PST ENTERPRISES INC SERVICE $438.11
14
12/09/08
PST ENTERPRISES INC SERVICE $628.05
PST ENTERPRISES INC SUPPLIES $815.21
SKYLINE MECHANICAL INCORPORATED SERVICE $850.50
SKYLINE MECHANICAL INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,096.00
SOURCE GAS SUPPLIES $2,228.82
ST A VELEY SERVICES FLUID ANALYSIS SERVICE $306.38
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,974.27
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $5,362.67
TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SUPPLIES $390.00
TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SUPPLIES $806.50
TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE $455.05
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SERVICE $16.29
US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $294.86
US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION SERVICE $499.64
VAIL DAILY SERVICE $1,945.94
V AIL HONEYW AGON LTD SERVICE $512.18
V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $5.15
V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES $21.61
VISA CARD SERVICE SERVICE $4,289.63
WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE $27.27
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC SERVICE $390.00
WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT SERVICE $1.320.00
WESTERN FIRE TRUCK, INC SERVICE $46.50
WESTERN FIRE TRUCK, INC SERVICE $318.07
WESTERN SWPE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $238.1 0
WYLACO SUPPLY COMP ANY $522.22
WYLACO SUPPLY COMP ANY SUPPLIES $946.64
XEROX CORPORATION, INC SUPPLIES $1,938.91
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES $126.12
$138,043.73
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 23&24 $94,216.14
800 MHZ FUND
CENTURYTELOFEAGLE SERVICE $91.84
HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC SERVICE $5,380.90
QWEST SERVICE $954.65
VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED SERVICE $3,250.60
$9,677.99
HOUSING LOAN FUND
FUNDING PARTNERS FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS SERVICE $89,351.00
$89,351.00
HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND
CENTURYTEL SERVICE $39.93
DESIGN WORKSHOP INC SERVICE $4,051.25
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $25,917.81
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE $26,028.06
ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF EAGLE SERVICE $4,521.06
MOUNTAIN REGIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION SERVICE $3,750.00
SELECT SURFACES SUPPLIES $5,886.25
SHERMAN AND HOWARD LLC SERVICE $6,573.00
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,344.31
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,573.81
TORI FRANKS REIMBURSEMENT $310.50
15
12/09/08
TORI FRANKS
VAIL DAILY
VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED
VISA CARD SERVICES
XEROX CORPORATION INC
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
ALPINE ENGINEERING INCORPORATED
AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS
TRACT ONE
CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING
CORPORATE EXPRESS
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES
GOLF ENVIRO SYSTEMS, INC.
GROUND ENGINEERING CONSULTING INCORPORATED
HART INTERCIVIC INC
MAVERICK FWORING
MAVERICK FWORING
MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC
NEILS LUNCEFORD, INC
RADER ENGINEERING, INC
V AG INCORPORATED
V AIL V ALLEY FOUNDATION
DEBT SERVICE FUND
US BANK TRUST NA
US BANK TRUST NA
US BANK TRUST NA CORPORATION TRUST DEBT MANAGEMENT
LANDFILL FUND
ACZ LABORATORY INCORPORATED
AFLAC
AMERICAN SCALE SERVICES AND SUPPLY
AMERIGAS
AMERIGAS
AMERIGAS
DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC AND DRAIN
DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC AND DRAIN
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS INCORPORATED
GRAND JUNCTION PIPE
GREAT AMERICAN LEASING
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
ICS - CO, LLC
JERRY SIBLEY PLUMBING
KELLY BERRY
KRW CONSULTING
16
12/09/08
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$ 1,357.14
$991.08
$37.49
$4,320.74
$591.72
$93,294.15
$62,808.19
PAYROLL 23&24
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
$8,190.50
$26,390.43
$68,921.40
$171.80
$4,571.00
$55.00
$4,247.60
$2.979.00
$250.00
$3,820.00
$6,208.00
$7,578.79
$2,373.74
$990.02
$52,530.36
$4,289.25
$2,585.58
$1,896.65
$198,049.12
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
$260,781.25
$760,374.13
$2,500.00
$1,023,655.38
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SERVICE
$1,817.80
$103.80
$58,256.00
$578.74
$730.41
$1,101.66
$515.00
$755.00
$19,308.55
$20,019.48
$361.50
$531.52
$302.00
$1,775.73
$5,610.01
$646.01
$155.00
$51.48
$10,582.30
MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY INCORPORATED
PSI CRANE AND RIGGING INCORPORATED
SUSPENSE FUND
SUSPENSE FUND
US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS
US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS
VISA
WESTERN SLOPE BAR
WESTERN SLOPE BAR
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL
MOTOR POOL FUND
A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED
A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED
AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC
BERTHOD MOTORS
BERTHOD MOTORS
BURT CHEVROLET
BURT DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP IN P ARKER INCORPORATED
BURT FORD ON ARAPAHOE INC
BURT FORD ON ARAPAHOE INC
CENTRAL DISTRffiUTING
CENTURYTEL
COLLETIS
COLLETIS
COLLETIS
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN
DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES
DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES
DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER
EC POWER SYSTEMS
FARIS MACHINERY COMPANY
FORCE AMERICA
GILLIG LLC
HENSLEY BATTERY AND ELECTRONICS
HENSLEY BATTERY AND ELECTRONICS
JOHN FAY
LAWSON PRODUCTS
LIGHTHOUSE
LAWSON PRODUCTS
M & M AUTO PARTS
MESAMACK SALES & SERVICE INC, DBA
MID WEST TRUCK PARTS & SERVICE
OJ WATSON COMP ANY INCORPORATED
PAPER WISE
PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL
PST ENTERPRISES INC
17
12/09/08
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
$50,315.70
$590.65
$1,567.50
$3,239.67
$3,239.67
$514.10
$514.10
$886.84
$56.25
$99.20
$17.70
$25.85
$241.47
$184,510.69
$46,559.31
PAYROLL 23&24
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SERVICE
SERVICE
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SERVICE
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
$2,465.76
$4,183.48
$49.66
$77.15
$325.24
$394.11
$335.13
$37.60
$218.22
$158.88
$75.66
$33,237.07
$39,671.05
$72,127.15
$99.52
$21.03
$25.67
$797.51
$946.05
$31,700.44
$32,745.44
$24.86
$856.37
$368.34
$791.30
$612.95
$619.40
$22.29
$75.21
$153.14
$279.78
$1,878.95
$228.63
$566.45
$1,001.83
$159.05
$2,243.09
$2,209.26
STEWARD AND STEVENSON SERVICE $75.68
STEW ART AND STEVENSON POWER SERVICE $1,666.41
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $3,985.39
SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE $4,057.84
TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS SUPPLIES $68.00
TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE $656.15
UNITED STATES WELDING SERVICE $28.77
VISA SERVICE $963.26
W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE $272.18
WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES $823.79
W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE $1,118.10
WASTE MANAGEMENT INC SERVICE $123.41
WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $137.35
WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES $1,441.32
XEROX CORPORATION INC SERVICE $100.68
$247,301.05
NOVEMBER 2008 PAYROLL PAYROLL 23&24 $74,565.06
INSURANCE RESERVE FUND
V AIL V ALLEY AUTO BODY, dba RICH'S AUTO BODY SERVICE $8,090.98
$8,090.98
HEALTH INSURANCE FUND
LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SERVICE $11,024.06
MUTUAL OF OMAHA SERVICE $4,077.3 7
$15,101.43
911 FUND
INTRADOINCORPORATED SERVICE $1,254.40
INTRADO INCORPORATED SERVICE $1,319.20
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES SERVICE $868.10
QWEST SERVICE $45.96
$3,487.66
BILL PAYING $5,570,356.63
PAYROLL $2,417,176.79
TOTAL $7,987,533.42
Executive Session
There was none.
Peer Recognition Awards - Eagle County Employees
Commissioners Fisher and Runyon recognized five employees who received peer recognition awards for
exemplifying the organization's core values of passion, respect, integrity, courage, and engagement. Each of these
individuals, in the course of their daily work, had been noticed by a colleague for service above and beyond the
norm.
Commissioner Fisher presented Spencer Broschinsky, Jill Hunsaker, Claudia Montes, John Ekelman., and
Keith Montag certificates of appreciation for their exceptional work. She also thanked Natalie Duck and the people
of the Breaking Down the Barriers Taskforce for their efforts
18
12/09/08
Consent Agenda
Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of bill paying for the week of December 8,2008 (subject to review by the finance director)
Finance Department Representative
B. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners meetings for September 30, October
7, October 14, and October 20,2008
Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder's Office
C. Ratification of the Purchase Contract for 131 Tames Creek in Miller Ranch, a deed restricted property, to
prevent foreclosure sale and for later resale to eligible household
Housing & Development Representative
D. Child Support Enforcement Purchase of Legal Services Agreement
Kathleen Lyons, Health & Human Services
E. Application for Community Services Block Grant for the Healthy Babies and Families Program
Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services
F. Resolution 2008-133 Designating Posting Location of Notice of Public Meetings and Agendas
County Attorney's Office Representative
G. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Eagle for the Provision of Animal
Services
Animal Services Representative
H. Ratification of Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Events, Inc. for Fairgrounds Events
promotion and coordination
Fair & Rodeo Representative
I. Final Settlement for Adarand Constructors, Inc. for 2008 Guardrail project
Road & Bridge Representative
J. Resolution 2008-134 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Miller
Ranch Phase I; File No. PDF-00077
County Attorney's Office Representative
K. Resolution 2008-135 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Miller
Ranch Phase I; File No. PDF-00079
County Attorney's Office Representative
L. Memorandum of Understanding between CSU Extension and Eagle County for provision of educational
programs
Glenda Wentworth, CSU Extension
M. Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding between CSU Extension and Eagle County Government for
provision of 4-H educational programs and resources
Glenda Wentworth, CSU Extension
N. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Hertz Corporation for overflow vehicle parking space for
winter 2008-09 flight season
Airport Representative
19
12/09/08
O. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC for overflow vehicle parking
space for winter 2008-09 flight season
Airport Representative
P. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and WSR Rental, LLC, DBA National Car Rental and Alamo
Rent A Car for overflow vehicle parking space for winter 2008-09 flight season
Airport Representative
Q. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Frontier Rental, Inc. for overflow vehicle parking space for
winter 2008-09 flight season
Airport Representative
R. Resolution 2008-136 for the Approval in the Matter of Adopting a New Fee Schedule Applicable to
Applications Pursuant to Chapter II of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Effective January 1,2009
Bob Narracci, Community Development
S. Minor Type B Subdivision / Fox Hollow PUD Lot 6 (Eagle County File No. 5MB-20M); The intent of this
Minor Type B Subdivision is to split lot 6 into two along the party wall of an existing duplex structure
Sean Hanagan, Community Development
T. Minor Type B Subdivision / Fox Hollow PUD Lot 7 (Eagle County File No. 5MB-2065); The intent of this
Minor Type B Subdivision is to split lot 7 into two lots along the party wall of an existing duplex structure
Sean Hanagan, Community Development
Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that he had no comments.
Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-T.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared
unanimous.
Public Input
Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none.
Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the
Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
Renewals
20
12/09/08
A. Willrain, LLC d/b/a Rimini
#42-54334-0002
This is a renewal of a Tavern License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in
the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's
Office and proof of server training has been provided.
B. Gashouse, LLC d/b/a Gashouse Restaurant
#04-66775-0000
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on
file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided.
Other
C. Big Sky Restaurant Company, LLC d/b/a Beaver Creek Chophouse
#07-59769-0003
This is a Manager's Registration for Beaver Creek Chophouse in Beaver Creek. Big Sky Restaurant
Company, LLC wishes to register Jay McCarthy as its new Manager. The application is complete and the
necessary fees have been paid. Mr. McCarthy was reported to be of good moral character, based upon both
the Sheriff and CHI reports.
D. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC d/b/a Ritz-Carton, Bachelor Gulch
#41-17214-0000
This is a Manager's Registration for The Ritz-Carton, Bachelor Gulch located in Unincorporated Eagle
County. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC wishes to register John Garth as its new Manager. The
application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr. Garth was reported to be of good moral
character, based upon both the Sheriff and CHI reports.
E. Gashouse, LLC d/b/a Gashouse Restaurant
#04-66775-0000
This is a Corporate Report of Change to replace Clay Irons, formerly a 50% shareholder with Andrew
Guy. Mr. Guy will become a 25% shareholder in the business. Mrs. Irons would then become a 75%
shareholder. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid.
F. Hyatt Corporation d/b/a Park Hyatt at Beaver Creek
#04-85070-0000
This is a request to modify the licensed premises. This is a permanent modification and will not enlarge or
decrease the license premises boundary. All documentation is in order and the necessary fees have been
paid.
Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for December 9, 2008
consisting of Items A-F.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as
the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
21
12/09/08
Quarterly Interest Report
Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer
Ms. Sheaffer presented the interest earnings for year. She estimated 2.7 million interest earnings for the
year for county genera fund, which would bring the revenue total up to 6 million dollars for the year. The budgeted
amount for interest on investments is 2.3 million. The interest earning for the third quarter report were down only
$50,000. She believed next year's interest earnings would be impacted by the short-term interest rate.
Chairman Runyon stated that the voters of Eagle County owed Ms. Sheaffer a dept of gratitude for the
great job she'd done.
Resolution 2008-137 adopting the Seventh Supplementary Budget and Appropriation
of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2008 and Authorizing the Transfer of
Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies
Finance Department Representative
Mr. Lewis presented the seventh supplemental request for an appropriation to the 2008 budget. The request
primarily involved transfers between funds and entries to properly set up the appropriations for the affordable
housing fund and the Housing Development Authority. The only other item was a $15,000 request from the
Sheriffs Office and IT Department to purchase tough books (computers) for the Deputy vehicles. He stated that
there would be approximately $235,000 left in the supplemental contingency in case it is needed between now and
December 31.
Commissioner Fisher move to approve the resolution adopting the supplementary budget and
appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2008 and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated
monies between various spending agencies.
Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
Planning Files
G-2012 KrueS!er Development Company Ltd.. LLC (KDC)EaS!le-Vail Subdivision FilinS! 1. Block 1.
Lot 50
Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department
The purpose of this file is for a partial vacation of a 35' wide drainage easement.
ACTION:
LOCATION: 285 Stone Creek Road, Eagle-Vail
Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. G-20l2 until December 23,2008
Commissioner seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan
Bob Narracci, Planning Department
Tabled from 06/17/08, 07/01/08,09/09/08, & 09/16/08
NOTE:
ACTION:
The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application is to allow the subject 24-
acre property to be subdivided into a three lot subdivision. The three lots are no less than two acres
each and are all proposed on the Eagle County portion of the site. That portion of the property
located within Eagle County is approximately 18 acres in area. The balance six acres, located in
Pitkin County, will remain as 'open space'.
22
12/09/08
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.
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC
Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC
Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. / Patrick Rawley
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
As revised, this PUD Sketch Plan proposal is to subdivide a 24.16 acre, 'Resource' zoned parcel into three (3)
single-family residential lots of 3-acres each and IS-acres of Common Private Open Space. 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:
North: Former Railroad R.O.W. 'R'
South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10'
East: Residential/Agricultural 'R'
(Sipido Subdivision)
West: Residential (Dreager Subdivision) 'RR'
West: Residential/Agricultural 'AL'
(Rather
Vacant Undeveloped
'R'
Residential/Agricultural
Residential (Crown Mountain
Estates Subdivision)
'R'
'RR'
Resource
PUD- Planned Unit Development
Single family residence and agriculture.
784,080 sq. ft.
62%
Individual Septic
N/A
N/A
B. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND:
June 8, 2007:
February 12, 2008:
April 29, 2008:
June 5, 2008:
June 17, 2008:
Initial discussion with representative from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc.
Initial application received by Eagle County.
Formal application referral process initiated.
RFVRPC Hearing # 1
BoCC Tabled to July 1, 2008
23
12/09/08
July 1, 2008:
September 16, 2008:
October 16, 2008:
November 20,2008:
BoCC Hearing #1
BoCC Hearing #2, remanded back to RFVRPC
RFVRPC Hearing #2
RFVRPC Hearing #3
C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION SUMMARY & MOTION:
On June 5, 2008, 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 ofthe 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, ADU's should be attached to the primary residence
and perhaps share a common entryway - better control over who rents the ADU'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.
The Board of County Commissioners conducted the first hearing on the Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan
proposal on July I, 2008 over in E1 Jebel. The following observations and direction were provided by the
Board:
Commissioner Menconi - Cannot support the application in its (then) current form;
Commissioner Fisher - The applicant must provide greater justification. The proposal is purely
speculative and do not see value in ruining the land use buffer that the subject property currently provides.
Commissioner Runvon - Agrees with Am and Sara. The Emma Character is a huge asset to everyone;
not just those who live here. This would just open the flood gates. Eight units not bad but is just the
beginning. Emma is unique; we have a mandate to protect it. Commissioner Runyon honors Pitkin
County and Town of Basalt letters of opposition.
Prior to tabling the application to September 16, 2008, the Board directed the applicant to work closely
with the Emma Caucus and surrounding concerned neighbors to reach consensus.
At the second Board of County Commissioner hearing on September 16, 2008, the applicant unveiled a
new three lot subdivision configuration. The Board acknowledged that the revised plan appears to be an
improvement over the initial proposal and expressed concern that the applicant did not meet directly with
the most impacted adjacent property owners residing in Eagle County in an effort to reach consensus. The
24
12/09/08
Board concluded their hearing by remanding the application back to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional
Planning Commission due to the substantial change proposed since the initial June 5th, 2008 Planning
Commission hearing.
On October 16, 2008, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted the first hearing
on the revised 3-1ot subdivision proposal and offered the following comments:
.
Questioned whether or not the 'Resource' zone district designation on the subject property is still
appropriate given changes in the Emma vicinity since the inception of zoning in Eagle County;
A majority of the site needs to be preserved in a conservation easement from the grade break in the
middle of the property toward Emma Road with 2 or 3 lots situated toward the back of the site;
The applicant and staff were directed to provide updated application materials, staff report, maps,
etc.;
Very worried about the precedent that would be set by approving this request;
Get rid ofthe proposed 'roundabout';
Questioned the public trail access proposed;
75 foot side and rear setbacks are unacceptable;
The building envelopes must be tightened-up;
Do not provide any new information at the next hearing;
Need to explore thoughtful solutions;
There are possibly some benefits associated with the revised proposal;
The neighbors clearly do not feel that a public benefit will arise from the proposed development;
The application needs to be further developed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At the conclusion ofthe hearing, the RFVRPC tabled the application to November 201\ 2008.
At the November 20,2008 RFVRPC hearing, the RFVRPC, in a vote of3:l, recommended denial of the
proposed three lot subdivision. The following deliberation was discussed prior to voting:
.
All neighbors in the Emma vicinity need to step-up to assist in the master planning process. Past
mistakes cannot continue. Mr. Coleman is not entitled to up zoning. Motion to deny.
Conservation easements are offsets to future development not an offset to development that is
currently not allowed.
Concern about raised leachfields due to high ground water table.
The property should remain zoned 'Resource'.
The one vote against the motion indicated that they were in favor of this particular application
because it includes agricultural uses, open space, trail access, etc. The proposed cluster of homes
will not detract from the Emma vicinity.
The subject property is already non-conforming in terms of lot size.
Over $400,000 would be applied to Housing mitigation.
50% to 62% open space, screening and landscaping, trail access.
Home size should be limited to 3,000 square feet.
No accessory dwelling units.
Provide trail access sign.
Affordable Housing Mitigation should be used in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Landscape buffer should be installed within one year.
Trail easement adjacent to Emma Road.
Conservation Easement to protect open space should be required.
Change the term 'activity envelope' to 'building envelope'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. STAFF REPORT
A. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
25
12/09/08
Section Purpose:
Standards:
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
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.
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 efJectfor the
property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be
authorized ursuant to Section 5-240 F.3. ., Variations Authorized.
Proposed Uses
Permitted in
Underlying
Zoning?
Normally Permitted As:
Nature of Variation
Yes
LR
26
12/09/08
Residential: Primary Single Residential as uses by right; only one (1 )
single family/primary unit is permitted on a
Family Dwellings with X X - X nonconforming, Resource-zoned property.
AccessOlY Dwelling Units One ADU is potentially allowable via
(ADU) 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.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X 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"Jor
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
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>.... .... , "
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.
Rru JR - .- .
\'
Setbacks: Ft
Front Per Building Envelope 25' Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement
Rear Per Building Envelope; 12.5' or '12 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement
> 150 feet tallest building
Side Per Building Envelope; 12.5' or ';2 ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement
27
12/09/08
Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification
(Proposed) Requirement
>150 feet tallest building
Minimum 005'
- 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
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 Loadinfl 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.
"0 "0 fa''E fa''E tn tn Ii c-.
bI)~ bI)~ bl)0 bl)0 c-. -"0
tJ tn .~ .S .5 ~ .5 ~ "0 i~
.5 8- C'- :08-
Proposed ._ ::l "00" "0 c.. "0 c.. "Ogp~
~J: ~ar ~J: ~~ c:l1ZJ <<l1ZJ 0._ 8- . 8-
Uses t:l..~ .3 c'E .3 c'E ~~J: go
<+-< tn <+-<tn <+-< tn <+-< tn <+-< 0 tn ~ ~'3
o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o > 0 1ZJt:l.. t:l..1ZJ
.~ tJ .~ (.) .:= ~
'c:I 'c:I .- 0"
o c.. o c.. o c.. o c.. ~~~ o 13 ~
Z1ZJ Z1ZJ Z1ZJ Z1ZJ Z:!2~ Yes No Yes No
Minimum 2 car
garage per 3 spaces
Residential residence; guest per - - - - X X
parking spaces in dwelling
driveways; no on unit
street parking.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
f---
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
-
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
-
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
-
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply
with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and 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
Develo ment:
o
>
o
bl)U
o
bI) bI).
.5>
"'0 0"0 0 "OE!o~'J:ltnc..
..; N ,.. ~ a::: ~A c .c (.) ... c:I
:::Ei:i3 of-ttn &::"0 ;::(ij~025i;l0
"0 C
:~
28
12/09/08
Xl
X
X
X2
X3
X
X
Comments/Description:
XI - 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
perimeter landscaping on sides and rear of site as well as trees along private driveway.
~ 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, Sif!n Ref!Ulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed
in a Planned Unit Develovment (P UD) , 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.
5
.ti
Go)
'0
Q:;
~
ii:
X
Xl
X2
X
29
12/09/08
Not ApplicableINo ECLUR
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
R uirements
DeviationNIS Requested
X4
X3
--~~~
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 proof refuse station.
X3 - The proposal for three lots means that the access is considered to be a driveway and not a road. As
such, at the time of building permit issuance for each of the three home sites, the building permit applicant
will be required to satisfy all Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District requirements for access, vehicle turn
around areas. The application still does not address ad water supply for fire fighting purposes.
X4 - The proposed access is a driveway and not a road.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM ST ANDARDS
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 parkin~ areas.
Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal St'l(>wStorage
Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts
Exceeds ECWR Requirements
30
12/09/08
Xl
X2
X3
X4
X
X4
XI - The proposed access is a driveway and will be required to meet all requirements of the Basalt & Rural
FPD at the time of building permit issuance.
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 - The proposal for three lots means that the access is considered to be a driveway and not a road. As
such, at the time of building permit issuance for each of the three home sites, the building permit applicant
will be required to satisfy all Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District requirements for access, vehicle turn
around areas. The application still does not address a water supply for fire fighting purposes.
X4 - Dual points of ingress / egress are required per the ECLUR's for all new subdivisions. The proposed
subdivision will be served by a private driveway. The Board of County Commissioners will need to grant a
variation from the dual access requirement.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development
proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Potential Compatibility
.... Issues
(z,o~~.
Yes No
North: Fonner Railroad 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' X
R.O.W./Regional Path
South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10' Xl
East: Residential/Agricultural 'R' Residential/Agricultural '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
31
12/09/08
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 ".
Pitkin County has not commented on the current 3-lot proposal.
The Town of Basalt response dated October 16, 2008 notes that the proposal is much improved over
the initial effort. The Town does recommend that if three lots are to be approved that the maximum
FAR that should be allowed on each lot is 3,000 square feet.
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 ofthe 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 of two 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.
The Rather Subdivision adjacent to the west of the subject property was the most recent land use approval
to occur on the east side of Hooks Spur Road and it was intended to establish a transition in development
density from the larger acreage lands located west of Hooks Spur Road. That portion of the Rather
Subdivision located within Eagle County works out to a net density of one dwelling unit per 6.342 acres.
Applying this same density to the Coleman Ranch works out to 2.84 dwelling units on the 18 acre portion
of the property located within Eagle County. Since it is not possible to construct 0.84 dwelling units, the
net density is rounded down to a total of two primary residences on the 18 acre portion of the site.
This Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan proposal for three lots of three acres each on 18 acres is
nevertheless generally compatible with existing and allowable land use in all directions from the subject
property. 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.
The three lot subdivision proposes to maintain agricultural uses-by-right which will further enhance
compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent land uses.
32
12/09/08
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.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
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
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 3 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". Affordable local
resident housing will not result from the proposed development although a fee-in-lieu is proposed to
mitigate the housing impact.
. "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
33
12/09/08
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; the revised 3-10t application does meet the
intent of a clustered subdivision by preserving a majority of the site as commonly owned private open
space.
. .
..
Not an acceptable Cluster Layout.
,":-1"-..
/.... ,.." .~
~'" . .,/~ \.
"---" .---..---~
: I . I
. L.. ___.. .. ___..--:
:. .. I
L III1rl1 Alllt
~~w:.'W-"'~.~_~--;:-;W:>.'i~""><<&<:,~~_''''._"W..<<''.N'~W<-;:<<.-~__
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". The proposed
development does endeavor to 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
set forth in the application is satisfied 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 buffered from surrounding properties". Not applicable.
34
12/09/08
. "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that
serve the basic needs of nearby 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 EI 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 El 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. Per
the revised Affordable Housing Mitigation Plan, "No Local Resident Housing Units are proposed for this
development. Cash-in-lieu mitigation for Local Resident Housing, based on 3,000 square feet of new
development shall be provided by the applicant prior to the sale of Lots 2 and 3. A financial guarantee
acceptable to the County shall be provided at the time of plat recordation guaranteeing payment at the time
of the sale of each lot. Mitigation of any additional square footage of new development in excess of3,000
square feet shall be paid by the property owner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each
residence, based on the actual floor area of the residence as calculated by the Eagle County Land Use Code.
A voluntary adoption of a 1.5% Transfer Assessment shall be placed on the second and all subsequent sales
of these properties (excluding properties re-sold to eligible householdes). Staff is of the opinion that the
PUD Guide should be revised to cap maximum allowable home FAR at 3,000 square feet per home unless
the applicant for this land use application pays housing mitigation fees-in-lieu for larger residences.
. "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all
new development applications". The revised Local Resident Housing Plan meets the requirements of the
Local Resident Housing Guidelines.
. "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local
Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The revised Housing Plan as
provided in the application satisfies the requirements of the 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". If this 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.
. "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 streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts,
landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable.
35
12/09/08
. "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". This is
a PUD Sketch Plan application.
. "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.
. "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". The application still does not address how an
adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes will be provided.
. "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". Not applicable.
. "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 approximately 30.
. "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. Ifthe 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
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 ofgroundwater 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 storm water will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This
must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.
36
12/09/08
. "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 storm water 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 ofnatural 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 of impervious 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.
. "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-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The ECLUR's require
the use of wildlife-proof refuse containment.
X7- Sensitive Lands
37
12/09/08
. "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.
. "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form 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 incremental 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 EI Jebel / Willits community center.
. "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 EI 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.
38
12/09/08
. "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
Exceeds
Recommendation
Satisfies
Recommendation
Incorporates Majority
of Recommendations
Does Not Incorporate
mendations
Applicable
~
3i
~
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN
Transportatio Communit Open Space EI Lower Ruedi Missouri
Housing y I JebeV Frying Reservoir Heights
n Facilities Environment Basalt Pan
Conformance X
Non
Conformance
Mixed Xl X2 X3
Conformance
Not X X X X
Applicable
XI - The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied per the proposed Housing
Plan submitted by the applicant.
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
39
12/09/08
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 15 acres of
open space, albeit not entirely in Eagle County. The 'Conservation Area' is located around the three proposed
individual lots. The draft PUD Guide proposes to retain agricultural uses on the property.
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 October 16,
2008.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
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.
lei Phasing Plan Provided?
o Yes n No II
This is a one phase development.
~ 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 of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted
to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for
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.
(/) 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
40
12/09/08
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 non rofit cor oration shall be mandato or all landowners within the PUD.
(24 acres) 18
acres in Eagle
Coun
Calculation Not
provided
Building Envelopes are
proposed at 0.75 acres each.
No maximum FAR or
impervious area is
s ecified.
Total impervious is less than 25% of total site.
NA
6 acres in Pitkin
County and 9
acres in Eagle
Coun
Private
Owned and maintained by HOA.
Total Open Space
on Open
Yes
Commonly owned landscaped area.
HOA
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
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.
c .5 01) -g~
.~ ~ ....~...............Q c
GJ GJ (.) 5.g, ~ 's ~~
8 :E"5O 8 -@ = :::l GJ 6
p,.:::lo", g.lZl ~ ~ ~,;a .5.-
OlZl-"Q "8~ ~~ .g ~
o5g~ ] 5~ ~
i') 0 o 0 "Q'Q ~ l
O'<:.s::c O.<:.sX ~u PZ&:: w
ITR
.
Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X 1 X X4
Does Not :SatIsfy hL~111l X2 X3
.
Nnt .. . ~T TO.....
Xl- 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
41
12/09/08
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):
15. (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(t)
(g)
(h)
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-l School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the
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.
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
Pitkin County. Fire Protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural FPD.
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.
Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan has
been provided.
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.
Employee housing plan. The employee housing plan submitted satisfies the intent of the
Housing Guidelines.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM 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.
42
12/09/08
Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above.
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
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 Develovment Standards.
...~ I
I Conditions
\1 J~
....~
X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
Detailed
Landscape Plan
X Landscaping and l11umination Standards (Division 4-2) and Lighting Plan
Required with
Preliminary Plan
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 (Section 4-450)
X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) As conditoned
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)
Water Quality
X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Report Required
with Preliminary
Plan
X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620)
X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630)
X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Required at
Preliminary Plan
X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650)
X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660)
X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670)
43
12/09/08
'5
B~ ~ .Q~ u
tIJ._
...l tIJ .- ::l ~ Article 4, Site Development Standards Cctnditions
uii ui:: 'ail 0-
we WU ~~
tIJ e ~~ 8:
~ ~ U U
u,- tti '3 <(
u ::l ~...l
() 0- "i g '0
~~ ou
00 IX Ow Z
X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680)
X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) As conditioned
X Imoact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) 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
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 Ea/de 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.
44
12/09/08
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
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. The Engineering Department did not issue a revised memorandum.
. Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached memorandum
dated May 20,2008 from the Director of Environmental Health. The Department of
Environmental Health did not issue a revised memorandum.
. 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 October 16, 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.
A revised letter has not been provided. Although the issue of road standards is no longer
applicable due to the fact that the access will serve only three lots, the applicant still must satisfy
the District's requirements regarding a water supply and distribution system for fire fighting
purposes.
. Emma Caucus - Please refer to the attached e-mail dated October 8, 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-l 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
45
12/09/08
. Roaring Fork Transit Authority
C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS:
Benefits/Disadvantages
Benefits:
. Depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development would provide three new exclusive
housing opportunities in the EI Jebel / Emma vicinity.
. Six acres of open space will be preserved in Pitkin County and nine acres in Eagle County.
. 50% of the land area in Eagle County will be designated as commonly owned private open space.
. 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 with minimal site disturbance.
Disadvantae:es:
. 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 primary residences on the 18 acre property; retaining the right to certain agricultural uses.
. Any new development in the Emma vicinity will incrementally degrade the inherent quality of place.
. The proposal has not addressed the minimum standards for water distribution for firefighting purposes.
. Depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development would provide three new exclusive
housing opportunities in the El Jebel / Emma vicinity.
. The PUD Guide should incorporate maximum impervious area calculations.
. The PUD Guide should cap maximum FAR to 3000 square feet per residence.
D. RFVRPC and 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 ofthe 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).
46
12/09/08
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 PUD 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 PUD Preliminary Plan application;
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. All comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated October 16, 2008 must be adequately
addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application;
6. 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;
7. All applicable 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;
8. The PUD Guide must be revised to cap maximum home size and to incorporate limitations on
overall site coverage and maximum impervious surfaces. The PUD Guide should prohibit wood
burning fireplaces.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Runyon offered the applicant the option of tabling the file until all commissioners could be
present.
Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant wondered if it would be possible to have a portion of the
hearing take place, allowing testimony, and allowing the board to provide any feedback without completing the
process.
Commissioner Fisher wondered if in the course of giving direction it became clear that there might be a
split vote, how they would proceed.
Mr. Morris stated that it would be inappropriate to proceed to that point.
Mr. Clauson stated that they were only interested in making a presentation with the intention of continuing.
Mr. Morris stated that he saw no point in doing a partial presentation.
Chairman Runyon suggested continuing the file until there was a full board.
Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. PDS-00057 until January 6,2009.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
1041-1547 Ewine: Parcel Sewer Main Extension
Sean Hanagan, Planning Department
ACTION:
The purpose of this 1041 Permit is to allow the extension of an existing Town of Eagle sewer line
to be extended across the Green Acres Mobile Home Park property to serve the Ewing Parcel
(AKA West Eagle Addition property).
47
12/09/08
LOCATION: The Ewing Parcel is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and
Sylvan Lake Road in Eagle.
FILE NO.:
TITLE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
CONSULTANT:
REQUEST:
1041-1547
The Ewing Parcel Sewer Main Extension 1041 Permit
The Town of Eagle
Tom Gosiorowski
Alpine Engineering, Kent Krien or Gary Brooks
A 1041 Permit to allow sewer main extension across unincorporated Eagle County
to serve the West Eagle Addition property (The Ewing Parcel).
STAFF CONTACT:
Sean Hanagan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
MAJOR EXTENSION OF A SEWER LINE WEST EAGLE ADDITION
The application is for approval of a 1041 Permit for the extension of an existing Town of Eagle wastewater
treatment system across the Green Acres Mobile Home Park parcel to serve the West Eagle Addition
property (The Ewing Parcel).
The Ewing Parcel is located on the southwestern quadrant of the intersection of US Highway 6 and Sylvan
Lake Road in Eagle. The land is owned by East West Partners dbA West Eagle Ranch LLC (see Vicinity
Map).
The proposed sewer extension will include approximately 260 linear feet of 8" sewer main (SDR35 PVC and
C900 PVC) and 2 concrete sanitary sewer manholes. Only 171 linear feet of sewer main is on the Green
Acres Parcel which is in unincorporated Eagle County and would therefore be subject to the 1041 Permit
process. The sewer main will tie into an existing manhole located on the adjacent Green Acres Mobile Home
Park. The sewer will cross Brush Creek and terminate in the West Eagle Addition property.
The proposed wastewater collection system will be deeded over to the Town of Eagle upon completion of
construction and Town acceptance. The Town will operate and maintain the proposed sewer main as an extension
of the Town system and provide wastewater treatment at the existing Town of Eagle wastewater treatment plant.
The sewer system components will be installed in accordance with the applicable Town standards and all entities
with jurisdiction over the service district, including the Colorado Department of Health. The intent of this project is
to provide sanitary sewer service to Lot I, West Eagle Addition, Filing 2 (Ewing Parcel). All alternate options to
provide sewer service have been analyzed and this option as proposed is preferred. With sewer service, Lot I will
become viable for development as an infill project within the Town of Eagle under the current zoning of residential
multi-family. Any proposed residential development on Lot 1 will be subject to the Town's local Employee
Residency Program which creates workforce housing for local residents.
1. BACKGROUND & CHRONOLOGY
A pre-application meeting was held with Eagle County Planning and Environmental Health staff on
November 30,2007. Specific submittal requirements that are relevant to whether the project complies with
the approval criteria are included in this application with the remainder deemed to be waived by the
Director of Community Development. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting a waiver of the Special
Review Use permit allowed under Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Article 3-310 (I) 2. b. for this
sewer project as it would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective.
48
12/09/08
2. REFERRALS
This 1041 Permit Application was referred to the following departments and agencies with a request for comment:
· Eagle County Engineering Department
· Eagle County Attorney's Office
· Colorado State Health Department - Water Quality Division
· Water Conservation Board
· U.S Army Corp of Engineers
· Colorado Division of Water Resources
· Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
· Greater Eagle FPD
· Eagle County Planning Commission
· Colorado Department of Public Health and Water
As of this writing, the following agencies have responded:
Eagle County Engineering Department: Reviewed this file and had no comment.
Colorado Division of Water Resources: Reviewed this file and had no comment
Eagle County Planning Commission: Reviewed this file and had the following Comments:
I) All straw bails used during the proj ect for erosion control should be of a weed free variety.
2) In agreement with staff conditions for approval the applicant re-establish the riparian zone located on the
southern side of the project area within the deeded easement. This reestablishment shall be constructed to
meet the minimum standards outlined in the proposed revegetation/mitigation plan for the North side of the
project area contained in the applicant proposal.
3) Ifwork within the deeded easement can not be negotiated within the current easement agreement an
alternate site on Brush Creek shall be chosen and the equivalent riparian mitigation work shall meet the
minimum standards outlined in the proposed revegetation/mitigation plan for the North side of the project
area contained in the applicant proposal.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for
Matters of State Interest. and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following analysis
is provided. The ATJTJroval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with
the recommendation indicated in the findings box.
This 1041 Permit Application is somewhat unique in that the development driving the need for this 1041 Permit
review and approval by the Eagle County Permit Authority is located within and has already received approval
by the Town of Eagle. Given this arrangement, the Permit Authority should focus on the site specific impacts
caused by infrastructure construction, as well as, related regional impacts that will be generated as a result of
the development.
(1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all
necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a
final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are
obtained.
49
12/09/08
The applicant is in the process of obtaining the necessary property rights (easements) to build the sewer on
the adjacent Green Acres Mobile Home Park. All permits will be obtained before the project begins.
These include a County Grading Permit, the US Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide 404 Permit and the
Construction Dewatering Permit. A Best Management Practices (BMP) plan for storm water discharge
related to construction activities is required for the Construction Dewatering Permit.
[+] FINDING: (1) Ri1!hts, Permits and Approvals. The applicant WILL HAVE obtained a I necessary
property rights, permits and approvals prior to site disturbance.
(2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others.
The Town of Eagle currently has an easement for the existing sewer line across the Green Acres Parcel.
The developer will acquire an additional easement for the proposed sewer line from the owner of the Green
Acres Property and convey that easement to the Town of Eagle. The proposed easement will fall within the
75' stream setback and will therefore not impair property rights held by others.
[+] FINDING: (2) Prooertv ri1!hts of others. The project WILL NOT impair property rigl ts
held by others.
(3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans.
The Project will provide sanitary sewer service to a parcel ofland that is within the Town of Eagle's
municipal boundary and is considered an "infill" parcel and is currently zoned as Residential Multi-Family
(RMF).
[+] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with olans. The Project IS consistent with relevant provisi ns of
applicable land use and water quality plans.
(4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project
consistent with all the requirements and conditions.
East West Partners has successfully completed many land development projects within Eagle County,
demonstrating that they have both the technical expertise and financial means to finance and build the
proposed sewer main to the development. The Town of Eagle will maintain, own and operate the sewer
main once completed.
[+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial caoabilitv, The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise
and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and con ~itions.
(5) The Project is technically and financially feasible.
East West Partners will finance and build the proposed sewer main. The Town of Eagle is satisfied the
developer has the technical and financial capability to complete the project within all requirements and
conditions.
[+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv, The Project IS technically and financially feasible.
(6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards.
50
12/09/08
The proposed sewer main will be buried for its entire length and therefore will not be subject to significant
risk from natural hazards.
[+] FINDING: (6) Risk from hazards. The project IS NOT subject to significant risk from na ural hazard.
(7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns.
The Project will not have a significant impact on land use patterns. The Project consists of extending an
existing sewer main approximately 260 feet to provide sewer service to a parcel ofland within the Town of
Eagle municipal boundary the site is considered as an "infill" tract and is currently zoned Residential
Multi-Family according to the Town's current zoning map. A positive finding will have no adverse affects
on land use patterns.
[+/-] FINDING: (7) Land use oatterns. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse ef~~ct on the
land use patterns.
(8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected
by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems.
The Project will not have a significant impact on land use patterns. The Project consists of extending an
existing sewer main approximately 260 feet to provide sewer service to a parcel ofland that is within the
Town of Eagle municipal boundary and is considered an "infill" tract and is currently zoned as Residential
Multi-Family according to the Town's current zoning map. A positive finding will have no adverse affects
on land use patterns.
[+] FINDING: (8) Service caoacitv. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect 0 the
capability of the Town of Eagle to provide services, NOR WILL it exceed the capacity of service delivery
systems.
(9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County.
The sewer main extension will be paid for by the Owner. The cost of sewer service will be collected from
occupants of any future development to pay for the use/maintenance of the sewer main.
[+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden. the Project WILL NOT create an undue financial burden on existing
or future residents of the County.
(10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector ofthe local
economy.
The Proj ect will be paid for by the Developer of Lot I (East West Partners) without public financial burdens
and when completed, the sewer main and associated easements will be conveyed and dedicated to the Town of
Eagle, the municipal service provider. A positive finding for this application will have no undue financial
burdens for the current or future local economy.
[+] FINDING: (10) Protection oflocal economv. The project WILL NOT significantly degn de any
current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy.
51
12/09/08
(11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational
opportunities and experience.
The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreation. Brush Creek
is used recreationally as fishing waters and the proposed sewer extension will require a section of Brush
Creek to be temporarily excavated. However, the section of Brush Creek that will be disturbed has never
been a public fishing stretch, due to the private land surrounding the proposed project.
[+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities, The Project WILL NOT have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience.
(12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation,
energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.
Based on alternatives analysis, this Project as defined by being the preferred alternative is the shortest route
to connect to an existing sanitary sewer line in order to serve Lot 1. The preferred alternative is the most
efficient design and therefore reflects the principles of resource conservation. In addition the future
residential development incorporate low water consumptive fixtures.
[+] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation, The planning, design and operation of the Proje t DOES
reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.
(13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality.
Air quality impacts will occur in the source development area during construction. Project construction
activities will cause a minor incremental short term increase in fugitive dust and diesel emissions, which
will be controlled in accordance with the project specifications and standard construction practices.
[+/-] FINDING: (13) Air lIualitv, The proposed sewer main extension will NOT significant!, degrade
existing air quality
(14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality.
The proposed sewer main extension will be installed completely underground, thereby causing no visual impact
once completed
[+] FINDING: (14) Visual lIualitv, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade visual q~ality.
(15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality.
The project will temporarily divert a section of Brush Creek during the installation of the sewer main under the
creek bed. A Best Management Practices Plan will be in place to protect surface water quality (from pollutants
and sediment) prior to excavation. Sediment control measures will be implemented during construction to
minimize erosion of soils from the site as it is being constructed. Eagle County's Erosion Control Standards
will be adhered to. Silt fence and straw bales dams will be constructed to minimize soils from leaving the site
as it is being developed. The proposed sewer main extension will have negligible if any impact on the salinity
or total dissolved solids in Brush Creek
[+] FINDING: (15) Surface water lIualitv, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade sun ce water
quality.
52
12/09/08
(16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality.
The Project will be subject to a Stormwater Management Plan\Best Management Practices Plan (SWMP\BMP)
in conjunction with the State mandated Stormwater Discharge Permit and Construction Dewatering Permits.
Sediment control measures will be proposed, reviewed and approved by the State as a part of the permit process
to insure that groundwater quality is not significantly degraded
[+] FINDING: (16) Ground water qualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade urface water
quality.
(17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas.
The proposed sewer main extension will not have any permanent impacts to the wetlands or riparian habitat
of Brush Creek. The project will only temporarily disturb 249 square feet of wetlands on the south bank of
the creek, which will be revegetated. The native riparian vegetation has been eliminated from the work
area south of the creek by the land owner. Staff feels this is an opportunity for the permit authority and the
applicant to consider a revegetation plan for this portion of the area of disturbance.
The proposed sewer line crossing was designed to minimize the temporary impacts to wetlands and the
aquatic habitat of Brush Creek. In designing the crossing, several alternative sewer alignments were
evaluated. As shown by Figure 2, the proposed sewer line crosses the wetland in a narrow area between
two lobes of the wetland that extend north from the channel. One alternative considered that would have a
smaller wetland impact would locate the sewer line farther to the west near the small bridge over Brush
Creek. However, this alternative was eliminated because the configuration would not provide the
minimum amount of soil cover required on top of the pipeline due to scour concerns in the creek bed. The
preferred sewer alignment minimizes the temporary impacts to wetlands while meeting the requirements of
the Town of Eagle to provide sufficient soil cover on top of the sewer line.
Where the sewer line crosses Brush Creek, a trench box will be used to minimize the width of the trench to
20 feet and hence the area of disturbance to the streambed. Best management practices will be utilized to
minimize siltation into Brush Creek, including the use of silt fencing, straw bales, and other procedures
outlined in Eagle County's Erosion Control Standards. As illustrated in Attachment A, two sediment traps
with sump pits or removable pumping stations will be used to filter ground water encountered during the
excavation before it is pumped to Brush Creek. Pumps will also be used to convey water from the
cofferdam back into Brush Creek downstream of the work area to maintain the stream flow. It is
anticipated that work in Brush Creek will be completed between July 15 and September 15, between the
two sensitive time periods for rainbow trout (March 15- July 15) and brown trout (September 15 - March
15), thereby reducing potential impacts to spawning fish.
[+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and rioarian areas. The Project WILL NOT significanth degrade
wetlands and riparian areas.
(18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats.
During the sewer line installation, there will be a temporary impact to the aquatic habitat of Brush Creek,
which is a spawning area for brown and rainbow trout. However, as described above, it is anticipated that
the work will be completed between July 15 and September 15, thereby avoiding the most sensitive time
periods, specifically March 15 - July 15 for rainbow trout and September 15 - March 15 for brown trout.
In addition, several mitigation measures will be employed to reduce impacts to fish. First, a trench box will
be used to limit the area of the streambed disturbance. Second, there will be no interruption of the stream
flow downstream of the work area. A temporary cofferdam will be used to dewater the work area for the
sewer line installation, and pumps will be used to convey the water from above the cofferdam back into the
53
12/09/08
creek below the work area. Third, best management practices will be employed to minimize sedimentation
into the creek that could negatively impact fish. For example, turbid ground water encountered in the
sewer line trench will be filtered through one of two sediment traps with sump pits or removable pumping
stations before being pumped into Brush Creek below the work area. Silt fencing, straw bales, and other
measures will also be employed to prevent sediment-laden runoff from entering the creek.
[+] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or aquatic animal life, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade
terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats.
(19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat.
The proposed sewer main extension will not significantly degrade terrestrial plant life or habitats. All
native riparian vegetation has been removed in the work area south of the creek by the current land owner.
Staff feels this is an opportunity for the permit authority and the applicant to consider a revegetation plan
for this portion of the area of disturbance.
[+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrialolant life, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial
plant life or plant habitat.
(20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions.
The sewer line installation will require trench excavation. The depth and width of the trench will be
minimized so that impacts to the existing wetlands are as negligible as possible. The excavated trench will
be promptly backfilled once the sewer is installed. Best management Practices will be used during
construction to ensure minimal erosion and sedimentation of soil.
[+] FINDING: (20) Soils and 1!eolo/dc conditions, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate
soils and geologic conditions.
(21) The Project will not cause a nuisance.
During construction of the proposed sewer main, some minor adverse nuisance factors will be encountered.
These impacts will be typical of construction activities including noise, diesel fumes, and traffic associated with
the movement of equipment. These factors should be resolved upon completion of the project
[+/-] FINDING: (21) Nuisance, The project will not cause a significant nuisance outside of typical
construction.
(22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological
importance.
There are no indications of any historic, archaeological or paleontological features within the construction
zone ofthe Project. The south bank of Brush Creek is a trailer park with sod up to the creek edge and the
north bank has been impacted by man placed fill related to Highway 6 and Sylvan Lake Road construction
activities
[+] FINDING: (22) Paleontolo1!ical, historic or archaeolo1!ical areas, The Project WILL NOT
significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance.
54
12/09/08
(23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials.
No hazardous toxic or explosive substances will be a permanent part of this project. However, it is possible
that during construction some fueling and maintenance of necessary construction equipment may take place.
These temporary hazards will ultimately be the responsibility of the contractor that is awarded the bid for
construction of the project. The contractor is required to have contingency and mitigation plans in place as part
of the Best Management Practices Plan
[+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials, The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of
releases of hazardous materials.
(24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any
natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County,
or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources.
There are no real losses associated with this Project except a temporary loss of wetlands vegetation during
construction activities. The impacted wetlands and riparian areas will be restored in place and monitored to
insure compliance with the 404 Wetlands Permit.
[+] FINDING: (24) Benefits outweiJ!h losses, The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens WILL
outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources
within the Count or the losses of 0 ortunities to develo such resources.
B. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to
Municival and Industrial Water Pro;ects, and as more specifically described in the application materials,
the following additional analysis is provided.
(1) The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and
conservation of water.
By tying into the existing Town of Eagle sewer lines the proposed project will be as efficient as possible.
[+] FINDING: (1) Efficient use, The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of water,
including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water.
(2) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or
create duplicate services.
Neither the proposed development nor the associated sewer infrastructure will serve to create duplicate
servIces.
[+] FINDING: (2) Excess capacitv / duplicate services, The Project SHALL NOT result in excess
capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services.
(3) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas
to be served by the Project.
The Project site being served by the proposed sewer extension is within the Town of Eagle
municipal boundary and is considered an "infill" parcel. It is currently zoned as Residential Multi
Family (RMF) and the site could support up to approximately 25 condominiums or 12 to 15 town
55
12/09/08
home units. This property will be subject to the Town's Local Employee Residency Program
(LERP) which is the Town's workforce housing program and would therefore provide additional
units to the pool of residences available to the local workforce. The Town of Eagle supports the
proposed application based on the benefits provided by the project to the Town in the form of
additional moderately priced free market housing and the additional LERP units being added to the
workforce housing pool.
[+] FINDING: (3) Necessitv, The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and
population demands in the areas to be served by the project.
(4) Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation
systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas.
The Project will be subject to a Stormwater Management Plan\Best Management Practices Plan (SWMP\BMP)
in conjunction with the State mandated Stormwater Discharge Permit and Construction Dewatering Permits.
Sediment control measures will be proposed, reviewed and approved by the State as a part of the permit process
to insure that groundwater quality is not significantly degraded
[+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer Rechar1!e Areas, , Site layout, design and Best
Management Practices for the development of the proposed wastewater system SHALL BE
accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas.
C. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New
Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems and Major Extensions of Existinf! Domestic Water and
Wastewater Treatment Svstems. and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following
additional analysis is provided.
(1) The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population
demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological
requirements.
The Project will provide sanitary sewer service to a parcel ofland that is within the Town of Eagle's
municipal boundary and is considered an "infill" parcel and is currently zoned as Residential Multi-Family
(RMF).
[+] FINDING: (1) Necessitv or re1!ulatorv / technolo1!ical comoliance, The Project SHALL be
reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas
to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements.
(2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing
facilities within the area.
The proposed sewer main extension is intended to tie into existing infrastructure and provide for the most
efficient use of existing systems. No new wastewater treatment facilities are needed to accommodate the
proposed project.
[+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation offacilities, To the extent feasible, wastewater transport SHALL
be consolidated with existing facilities within the area.
56
12/09/08
(3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in
the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water
and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities.
[+] FINDING: (3) Prover utilization of existinf! treatment vlants.
Not Applicable
(4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that
may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental
capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development.
The Town of Eagle supports the proposed application based on the benefits provided by the project
to the Town in the form of additional moderately priced free market housing and the additional
LERP units being added to the workforce housing pool.
[+] FINDING: (4) Financial and environmental cavacitv. The Project SHALL be permitted in
those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such
extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain
such growth and development.
D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.12, Waiver Provision.
of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer
projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by
the applicant showing that:
3.310.I.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County
Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle
County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use
permit application.
3.310.I.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably
burdensome for the applicant.
The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would
serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Hanagan presented the application. The application was for a 1041 permit to extend an existing Town
of Eagle wastewater treatment system across the Green Acres Mobile Home Park parcel to serve the Ewing Parcel.
The sewer extension would include 260 linear feet of 8" sewer main and 2 concrete sanitary sewer manholes. Only
171 linear feet of sewer would be on the Green Acres Parcel, which is in unincorporated Eagle County. He
presented the suggested conditions. The only agency that had referral comments was the Eagle County Planning
Commission.
Chairman Runyon asked the intended use of the Ewing parcel.
Mr. Hanagan stated that the parcel was zoned for residential multi-family and was slated for workforce
housing within the Town of Eagle.
Chairman Runyon wondered about the number of units and if the project had gone through the approval
process with the town.
Mr. Hanagan stated that he was not sure whether the actual proposal had gone through the approval
process.
57
12/09/08
Chairman Runyon stated that there seemed to be somewhat of a disconnect ifthere wasn't a clear
understanding of the intended use of the property.
Jim Adams with East West Partners spoke. He stated that the property was currently owned by the same
development company that developed Eagle Ranch. Their intent was to get sewer service to the property and then
sell it. Once the property was sold, the developer would submit a development plan through the Town of Eagle.
Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Morris if he understood his concerns.
Commissioner Fisher stated that all the conditions address the approval of the project associated with the
1041.
Gary Brooks, Alpine Engineering stated that there was no current application for development and no
development plan. The current project is the installation of a sewer line. Technically the Town of Eagle is the
applicant because they would be the owner of the sewer line. East West Partners is paying for it because it
increases the value of the property and makes a viable infill parcel. The parcel would be either sold or developed at
some future date.
Chairman Runyon wondered about the general findings of a 1041 and whether the board should be looking
at the project in its entirety.
Mr. Morris stated that it was not something that struck him as a concern when he first saw the file. He
believed that infill projects were usually done in segments and to appraise the whole project was practical. He
didn't believe that Chairman Runyon concern was a real concern in terms of his responsibilities under a 1041.
Commissioner Fisher explained her understanding of the file.
Chairman Runyon stated that because this was the board's only opportunity to weigh in and he believed
there should be some specific details regarding development.
Mr. Morris stated that he understood Chairman Runyon concerns. However, he doesn't see a solution to
the problem or better explanation for the concern.
Commissioner Fisher stated that she didn't see the Town of Eagle being a referral agency.
Mr. Hanagan stated that they were the actual applicant.
Mr. Brooks explained the process and stated that everything was in place.
Chairman Runyon stated that because the applicant was the Town Of Eagle he had faith that they would do
a smart job in the planning.
Mr. Brooks explained the permit process and presented various photos of the site. He stated that their goal
was to minimize any impact to the riparian and wetland vegetation, maintain water quality, and they would begin
construction between July 15 - September 15th to protect the fish habitat. This was one of 5 creek crossings they'd
done as part of Eagle Ranch. He explained the wetland mitigation plan and the community benefit.
Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Commissioner Fisher wondered ifthere had been any interaction with the owner of the Green Acre
property.
Mr. Adams stated that he had spent a better part of a year negotiating the easement. The owner agreed to
allow them to do some work in area other than the grass area.
Chairman Runyon stated that he was still had concerns and wondered if the permit would run with the land.
Mr. Morris confirmed that the permit would run with the land.
Chairman Runyon stated that he'd rarely heard a 1041 application that didn't have a very specific project
attached. He asked Tom Gosiorowski to explain the Town of Eagle's perspective of the proposal.
Mr. Gosiorowski of the Town of Eagle stated that it was a unique situation because there was not an
associated development attached. From the Town's perspective, it was a fairly normal situation. In essence, the
applicant is just trying to get utilities to the property. In the future, a sub-developer would come in with a
development plan. The property was annexed to the Town many years ago and is currently zoned residential multi-
family, which would allow for 10 units per acre. The Town hopes for infill development on the parcel in the future.
Chairman Runyon stated that he totally understood the benefit to East West Partners but asked the benefit
to the citizens ofthe Town of Eagle.
Mr. Gosiorowski stated that the Town was trying to promote infill type development and they hope to see
development that complies with the Town's zoning plans on the parcel in the future. He stated that there was never
a clear vision for the parcel but they knew they'd need to cross Brush Creek to get utilities to the property
eventually.
58
12/09/08
Chairman Runyon stated that he didn't mind having the benefit going to the Town. However, usually one
of the benefits was input on the project as a whole.
Mr. Gosiorowski stated that the Town had already received some value from the East West ownership of
the property through the right-of-way to access the Eagle Ranch Subdivision. The right-of-way was also dedicated
to the Town of Eagle that allowed construction ofthe Sylvan Lake roundabout.
Chairman Runyon expressed some concern with giving an approval prior to selling the property to a
developer.
Mr. Gosiorowski stated that it was not a big deal. However, most developers and builders they'd spoken
with weren't interested in submitting an application until utilities were brought to the property. He stated that the
property was already annexed and zoned. The property was infill because it was in town already and in proximity
of most of the other infrastructure.
Commissioner Fisher stated that she had no real reservations if the application had the support ofthe Town
of Eagle.
Chairman Runyon stated that he was comfortable moving the application forward with conditions.
Commissioner Fisher moved that the Eagle County Permit Authority approve File No. 1041-1547, waiving
the requirement for Special Use Review Permit and incorporating the following conditions:
I. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in
this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
2. The re-establishment of the riparian zone located on the southern side ofthe project area within the
deeded easement [Eagle County] shall be constructed to meet the minimum standards outlined in
the proposed revegetation/mitigation plan outlined in the applicant proposal.
3. If work within the deeded easement can not be negotiated within the current easement agreement,
an alternate site on Brush Creek shall be chosen and this equivalent riparian mitigation work shall
meet the minimum standards outlined in the proposed revegetation/mitigation plan for the North
side of the project area contained in the applicant proposal.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
PR-1471 Bellyache Road Use/Access
Adam Palmer, Planning Department
NOTE:
Tabled from 07/08/08
ACTION:
The purpose of this Planning Review is to discuss recommendations for improvements and winter
motorized closure of County Road 31 'Bellyache Road'.
FILE NO./PROCESS:
LOCATION:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PR-1471/ Planning Review
East of Town of Eagle and Bluffs Subdivision
BLM/Eagle County
Staff
Staff
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SUMMARY:
59
12/09/08
Eagle County Road #21 is a dirt road accessing BLM property from the Bluffs subdivision which is in the Town of
Eagle. The road is Eagle County right-of-way on BLM property. The road travels 4.9 miles from its beginning
where it meets a locked gate at private property and is classified as a rural access road by Eagle County
Engineering.
The 1984 Glenwood Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource
Management Plan restricted vehicle use to designated roads and trails year-round except for snowmobiles operating
on snow. The designation was aimed at protecting soils and vegetation in an erosion hazard area. The supplemental
travel plan did not designate any motorized use off County Road 21, which bisects the area from east to west. The
BLM initially signed the area and published maps showing the area without designated motorized routes off County
Road 21. Eventually BLM management fell behind the fast-paced population growth and the subsequent heavy use
which destroyed signage and closures.
In the fall of2002, the ECO-Trails backcountry subcommittee submitted a management
proposal for the 1 683-acre area that limited motorized vehicle use. The proposal spawned a January
meeting of concerned stakeholders. The stakeholders agreed to make the area more aesthetically
appealing and develop a system of non-motorized trails. Four action items arose from those discussions:
1. Clean-up the trash and litter.
2. Close unauthorized motor vehicle routes.
3. Rehabilitate the hill climbing scars on the hillside in view of the Town of Eagle.
4. Develop a hikelbike trail system
In May of 2003, the stakeholders organized a trash cleanup that removed over 50 tons of debris from the
management area. The stakeholders also signed and barricaded unauthorized motorized routes. Hundreds of
volunteers and an estimated $500,000 made this effort possible.
Historic uses in this area include hunting, mountain biking, motorized recreation (including motorcycles, ATVs,
and 4x4s), hiking, and camping. In addition, 2 utility easements exist in the area: one is for a Holy Cross Energy
power utility line, and the other is for a cellular communications facility located on a spur road roughly I-mile up
Bellyache Road.
During Memorial Day weekend this spring, an off-road vehicle drove over closed areas, damaging blockades,
signage, and vegetation. This spawned homeowners in the Bluffs to request a work session with the Board of
County Commissioners and they voiced the following concerns:
Safety
litter/trash! carcass dumping
vandalism/partying
erosion into Bluffs Road and private property
illegal motorized use on roads in the Bluffs and in town
motorized use in closed areas/non-motorized trails
user conflicts
At the June 3rd work session the BOCC proposed a temporary closure to motorized vehicles on Bellyache Road to
protect the homeowners in the Bluffs until September 15, 2008; after which a permanent long-term solution could
be attained. The BOCC requested additional information from the BLM, CDOW, Town of Eagle, and other
stakeholders and users of the area. They also requested a public hearing to further discuss the issue.
The Town of Eagle placed this item on the Town of Eagle Board of Trustees hearing agenda June 24th. At this
meeting, significant public comment was received regarding the issue. The Board of Trustees recommended
against a seasonal motorized closure, and outlined increased enforcement, education, and potential realignment of
the road as mitigation efforts/potential solutions to the issues identified.
60
12/09/08
At the BOCC hearing July 8th, staffwas directed to facilitate a task force to meet and develop recommendations to
the BOCC at a later date. Staff met with a task force on August 27th which consisted of the following participants:
Craig Westcoatt, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Brian Hopkins, BLM
Joe Hoy, Eagle County Sherriff
Terry Simpkins, Police Department, Town of Eagle
Terry Quinn, Eagle resident
John Bailey, Eagle resident, mountain biker
Debbie Wilson, Bluffs homeowner next to BLM access
Scott Schlosser, Bluffs HOA member
Maryann Michealis, Bluffs HOA
Jeff Place, Bluffs resident
Greg Schroeder, Eagle County Engineering
Chris Juergens, Bluffs vacant lot property owner next to BLM access
Ryan Vanderlin, Eagle resident
Ray Long, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Derrick Wiemer, Eagle resident
Glenn Padgett, Gypsum resident, Mule Deer Hunters Association
Tom Ehrenberg, Eagle resident and former Town Trustee
In addition, a letter from the Bluffs HOA and a letter from the Town of Eagle have been received since the last
hearing and are attached.
2. STAFF REPORT
The 2007 Eagle County Quality of Life survey highlighted outdoor recreation as a primary contributor to quality of
life in the area. The 2007 Town of Eagle Community Survey identified types of recreation enjoyed by the Eagle
community specifically. The top activities included hiking (78%), walking/jogging (76%), alpine
skiing/snowboarding (71 %), mountain biking (56%), road/bike path cycling (56%), golf (56%), fishing (44%), and
snowshoeing (41 %). Motorized vehicle recreation use was mentioned by 19% of respondents (hunting was not
listed, although fishing (44%) was).
The intensity of use has increased on public lands in general and in the East EaglelBellyache area in particular as
population growth continues. Eagle County total population grew 22% from 2000 to 2006. The Town of Eagle
population grew 67% during the same period, and dwelling units increased 70%. As the Town of Eagle continues
to grow, so will uses on public lands, impacts on the environment and conflicts between users.
Eagle County Road and Bridge currently grades the first 2 miles of Bellyache Road for maintenance and repair to
ruts created by vehicles. A set schedule does not exist but this is normally done once a year at an estimated cost of
$6500.
Staff has researched other areas in Eagle County facing similar issues as the Bellyache/East Eagle area. One such
location is Berry Creek Road north of Edwards. In 2002, articles were in the Vail Daily regarding this issue.
Similar issues were identified:
1. Rutting of the road,
2. cost to the USFS for grading/re-grading,
3. increase in intensity of use from multiple user groups,
4. construction of mid-to-high density homes nearby,
5. trash/litter/vandalism
In this instance the Forest Service gated the road from the end of rifle season (mid-November) through May I sl to
mitigate these issues but still allow for motorized access through summer and fall.
At the August 27th meeting, the task force identified the following goal for the area:
61
12/09/08
"Maintain existing uses in a responsible manner while promoting safety and peaceful enjoyment of adjacent
properties. "
Minutes and recommendations from Bellyache Task Force:
Re-alignment of CR-21 access: Greg Schroeder presented a basic draft realignment plan which would reduce
the grade of the access and potentially provide a staging area and access outside the bluffs subdivision. However,
estimated cost started at $400,000, and may cause more drainage problems than it solves, as well as maintenance
costs. It would also require a large cut/fill area and visual impact to the hillside which was revegetated by BLM.
Also, adjacent property owners in the townhomes and single family homes would most likely strongly oppose it.
Suggested was to exhaust other options and look at road alignment as a last resort if those efforts didn't work.
Grading/road base on existing route: This is the preferred alternative from the group to improve the drainage
of the existing road, grade it, and improve it with roadbase and gravel to prevent erosion, dust, and degradation of
the road. The attached proposal from road and bridge to make these improvements to the first .5 miles of the road
are attached and total $77,000.
Parking/staging area(s): There is limited parking which accommodates around 4 vehicles at the access. Also,
the vacant private lot next to the access has been used as parking. The area at the first switchback is being used for
some parking as well. Parking for non-motorized users can be accommodated with some better information
signage showing additional parking areas designated at the park in the Bluffs as well as at the school. However,
parking for OHV users (non-street legal motorcycles and ATVs) is limited. The owner of the vacant lot next to the
BLM access was going to put up signage to discourage people from using it for parking since he had been receiving
some complaints from neighbors about the use.
It was discussed that originally the plan for the Bluffs subdivision was to provide more parking at the
trailhead/access point. However, according to Tom and the BLM this was removed to intentionally limit parking
there, since apparently there was not seen a need for parking at that location and it wasn't seen as compatible with
adjacent homes.
Discussed were some options to address this issue:
1. Improve the 'switchback area' after the first approach of the access road as a parking area. This would allow for
additional parking. However, there is a utility easement running across this area conveyed to Holy Cross Energy,
so access to the gated double track, if blocked, would need permission/some written agreement with them. Also,
the 200-300 feet of road to this point is steep and to be done properly would need road base and improved water
diversion bars which would make access to this area difficult with a trailer. Also, it would bring more traffic up
this grade rather than less. After the meeting BLM mentioned concerns with this design in that it may encourage
uses next to the Bluffs subdivision which would be legal but not necessarily compatible (drinking, target practice).
Also BLM mentioned this was discussed as well as a park/parking area at the trailhead as part of the original
subdivision approval, but was intentionally removed.
2. Encourage parking/staging at the existing parking lot next to the park/ballfield in the Bluffs. While this is an
existing option for non-motorized users, currently this does not provide a legal access for OHV users unless they
drop off vehicles at the trailhead and park vehicles similar to a boat ramp drop-off scenario, which is feasible
although not necessarily convenient and may negatively affect properties adjacent to the BLM access.
3. Encouraging parking/staging at the existing parking lot next to the park and creating an OHV access
route/easement from there along Bluffs Drive to access BLM property and CR-21. This seems like a potentially
viable option which takes advantage of an existing underutilized parking resource, however includes some
questions regarding feasibility/enforcement from Town of Eagle perspective. Also, it does not remove OHVs from
the streets of the Bluffs subdivision which has been identified as a public nuisance and safety concern. This option
requires additional input from the Bluffs HOA and Town of Eagle.
62
12/09/08
Due to the complexity of any parking arrangement changes, it is recommended that any such changes be
implemented by the Bluffs HOA as well as the Town of Eagle, since they would be changes to the use and design
of the Bluffs neighborhood as it was originally approved.
Seasonal closure: Recommended is a seasonal closure to motorized vehicles from December I st through April
30th to reduce rutting of the road, additional repair/grading costs, erosion, vehicles getting stuck/towed out, and
safety. Snowmobiles operating on snow and non-motorized users would be allowed during this time.
Emergency/utility access would be allowed. A 48" opening would be left to allow for snowmobile and non-
motorized access. The closure dates comply with other seasonal closures on BLM property for similar reasons.
Flexibility to the proposed dates on each end is recommended on a seasonal basis to allow for late hunts, late
winters, and/or early spring thaws respectively. Access for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles would be
retained.
Enforcement plan: Sheriff Hoy requested that they be contacted for any crimes/infractions on the county road
outside the town. Best is to simply call 911. Those who had called said response was good. The group requested
random patrols of the road on late Friday/Saturday nights as deputies are available to reduce potential for underage
drinking parties/trash of the area. Regular patrols are not necessary but random patrols as officers are available are
requested/ recommended.
Officer Terry Simpkins from the Town of Eagle was present and stated that they had stepped up patrol of the Bluffs
area and installed a speed check trailor and have issued some citations and warnings for OHV use on town roads.
There was some discussion regarding discretion of OHV use and if responsible OHV use on the roads was allowed;
however, the law is in place for safety and would be enforced accordingly. There are some street-legal on-off road
motorcycles which are allowed. The TOE will continue to provide reasonable patrol presence and will respond to
any calls as well. The group appreciated a stepped up presence but realized a high police presence was most likely
not realistic or appropriate for the indefinite future. Discussed were some additional Town police powers in the
process of being finalized as part of an agreement with the County Sheriff which would allow some town response
to crimes reported/witnessed in adjacent unincorporated lands.
Education plan: Per the letter dated August 5th, 2008, from Ed Woodland, Mayor, Town of Eagle, the Town is
working on an educational campaign that may include signs, newspaper articles and leaflets explaining the
Bellyache user's responsibilities, information, and education. A user philosophy of 'abuse it and lose it' would be
emphasized to promote responsible use. Also recommended by the group would be parking information (once plan
is finalized), a trail map of the area, and a pet pickup station.
Clean-up plan: There was not time to discuss this item, however it was suggested that an annual cleanup be
scheduled to clean up the area, as well as promote/support individuals such as Mr. Wiemer who frequently clean up
the area on their own. Also it was suggested that a sign discouraging dumping at the first switchback be erected.
Any BOCC Action can be done through resolution as it pertains to use or access of the county right-of-way.
DISCUSSION:
Adam Palmer presented the file. He presented an overview of the staff report. He spoke about some of the
recent meetings with stakeholders about this issue. Feedback about response to complaints had been too slow.
Cost estimate for realignment of the road came in at around 400,000. Realignment would alleviate traffic impacts
and reduce the grade of the road. This would change the use character of the area and require additional drainage
culvert maintenance. Revision of the existing access would cost around 77,000 and would improve erosion, dust
and rutting, and seasonal closures should help make the revisions last. He showed some photos of the erosion and
some views of the erosion work that had been done. He spoke about parking at the access point and some possible
options for improving the current parking area. The clean up plan included recommendation for an annual spring
cleanup and a "no dumping" sign. He summarized the recommendations which included seasonal closure, grading
improvements, education, enforcement and clean up plan.
63
12/09/08
Chairman Runyon opened public comment. He thanked members of the task force present for their work.
Commissioner Fisher asked if the recommendations reflected the agreements that were made. She asked if
there had been any improvement in traffic or other activity with the increased police enforcement.
Mary Ann Michealis spoke as secretary and treasurer of the homeowner's association for the Bluffs. She
stated that there had been improvement recently. She supported the proposed changes.
Chairman Runyon closed public comment.
Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Palmer about the investment and whether there was any discussion of cost
sharing with the various stakeholders.
Mr. Palmer indicated that the discussion had not occurred. He stated that since it was a county right of way
it made sense for the county to take responsibility. It is possible to reduce the length of the drainage improvements
to reduce the cost. It is also possible to use the mill tailings as road base.
Chairman Runyon stated that the cost was appropriate to consider as part of the capital improvement
budget, which has about 2.5 million remaining for next fiscal year. In terms of the other plans; education and
enforcement, he wondered what the board would need to do to implement these programs. He wondered if the
Town of Eagle volunteered to be first responders with violation calls.
Mr. Palmer stated that the Town of Eagle had committed to provide efforts towards signage, articles and
leaflets explaining responsibilities for users. The philosophy of abuse it and lose it would be communicated as
well. He stated that the only significant budget items would be the improvement to the road drainage and the cost
of the gate. The clean up would be accomplished by volunteers so there would be no cost to the county.
Commissioner Fisher wondered about what the ongoing maintenance costs might be.
Mr. Palmer stated that the road was typically graded once per year, and with the seasonal closure, this
might not be necessary as often.
Chairman Runyon expressed his comfort in committing to the cost of the gate for seasonal closures
following the committees' recommendation for the times of closure. He preferred looking at the county committee
for guidance on the $77,000 expenditure for drainage improvement.
Commissioner Fisher stated that although this was a county road the developer of the property led people to
believe that the traffic and drainage would not be problems. She asked that a partnership be explored with the
homeowner's association or the Town of Eagle related to the initial costs, annual cleanup, and ongoing educational
efforts.
Chairman Runyon stated that in the global sense the review and consideration of capital improvement
requests were bolstered by funding partnerships.
Mr. Palmer presented a recommended motion the 5 conditions/recommendations by the stakeholder
taskforce
1. Seasonal motorized closure ($4,000 gate)
2. Grading/ drainage/ roadbase first Y2 mile ($77,000)
3. Education plan
4. Enforcement plan
5. Clean-up plan
Commissioner Fisher encouraged the partnership to improve ownership in the solution. The access is both
a curse and a blessing to the Bluff's owners. She wondered if closing it to motorized vehicles yet leaving it open to
snowmobiles might cause difficulty with motorcycles.
Both commissioners agreed on the seasonal motorized closure but requested more details about the type of
gate.
Commissioner Fisher agreed that it was reasonable for the county to pick up the cost of the first gate and
then to submit the capital request to the Capital Improvements Committee.
Chairman Fisher moved to approve file no. PR-1471 regarding use of County Road 21 including
conditions 1-5 and setting aside the $77,000 investment pending Capital Improvement Fund approval.
Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
64
12/09/08
Public Hearing - 2009 Budget
Eagle County Room
John Lewis, Finance Director made the presentation. He thanked the department heads for their
participation and assistance on the proposed budget. The process started with the board's goals and objectives and
considered new programs requested. Guidelines included a balanced budget, maintaining the 15% reserve
requirement, substantial support for any line item expense increase over 3%, the airport revenue could support its
expenses, or a shut down that related to the new runway completion. Additional guidelines include money for
airport runway improvements, providing a supplemental contingency of 1,000,000, all CIP and new staff requests
went through respective committees and that funding was adequate for most department goals and objectives. He
spoke about key accomplishments in 2008, including; the Justice Center remodel, a 3 notch upgrade in the county's
credit rating was achieved, the Cooley Mesa road was widened, the Road and Bridge shop in EI Jebel was
completed, the runway reconstruction was funded by the FAA, and sustainable communities initiative was started.
He spoke about the economic slide and its impact on the county. Preseason bookings at county resorts are down by
20%. Foreclosures have begun to hit Eagle County, but sales taxes were not expected to decrease significantly
based on historical evidence, and property taxes should be stable for the next two years. Some possible reactions /
pro-actions included additional budget cuts to be transferred to the contingency, possibly salary compression, and
market adjustments, decreasing community grants, reorganization of the motor pool, and implementation of proper
cost allocations. Some revenue assumptions included a projected decrease in sales tax revenue of 5%, maintaining
the mill at its current rate, property taxes would be flat, licenses, permit revenue expected to decrease by 14%,
interest earnings would be kept flat, and the county would receive an additional $20 million from the FAA.
He spoke about property taxes and showed a comparison of mill levies. He addressed the questions about
where the extra funds collected went from last year. Some of these revenues went to Road and Bridge due to
increased costs of supplies. Some went towards open space and into public safety and health services. In 2006,
there was a deficit due to decreased revenues in some areas. He clarified that county government is not like a
business because the service needs do not change when revenues decrease. Cuts were made in almost all
departments. The Sheriff's department had no decreases. Total expenditures would increase due to the airport
runways and the Justice Center.
He showed an expenditure graph, with personnel costs at around 39% of the total expenditures. He showed
a graph with the General Fund revenues and expenditures and it showed a slight surplus projected for 2009 with
approximately $2,000,000. He did not expect revenue to increase dramatically over the next three years. He
believes the county has a sustainable budget for the next two to three years.
Chairman Runyon recognized the fact that Commissioner Menconi was away due to a family emergency.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the budget process has been a tremendous challenge this year. With the
economic uncertainties, she believes the county needs to be very cautious.
Commissioner Fisher read a letter of apology from Commissioner Menconi. He believed that next year's
budget was the most fiscally responsible in his tenure. The budget looked forward to future years and represented
some difficult choices. The budget doesn't require layoffs, but also does not allow for salary increases at this time.
Commissioner Fisher stated that although she wanted to take care of the county employees, the first and
foremost responsibility of the commissioners was to the tax paying constituents. There are many issues and
challenges before the county, but realism is needed. There is a lot of work to do as to how issues would be dealt
with in the near future.
Chairman Runyon stated that the year had been very tumultuous in terms of retirement savings and the
difficult economy. He agreed with his fellow commissioners in his appreciation of the county directors and other
elected officials for their budgetary projections. He preferred to be more conservative and hoped to have additional
funds available rather than planning short.
Chairman Runyon asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. There was no one. He
closed public comment.
65
12/09/08
Sustainable Communities presentation to Eagle Town Council
Eagle Council Chambers
Recorded
Attes: '
Clerk to the ard
~~'.~-
There being no further business before t
~l
cJA/1 C) 7&J,~
Chairman
I OU VI'
66
12/09/08