Loading...
Minutes 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