No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/23/2021 PUBLIC HEARING February 23, 2021 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner-Remote Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Beth Oliver Deputy County Attorney Holly Strablizky Assistant County Attorney Christina Hooper Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Updates Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that it was "National Invasive Weed Week." She thanked the Ruedi Water and Power Authority for all they did to keep invasive species out of Ruedi Reservoir. Commissioner Scherr spoke about an announcement in the Vail Daily regarding Cameran Douglas,a restaurant owner in Vail,who had started a fundraising event called"Gather Around Week." A number of restaurants in the community had donated all the proceeds from the sale of Bonfire Beer for the week to the families of Adam, Seth, and Andy who perished in an avalanche a couple weeks ago. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll gave a shout out to Eagle Valley Behavioral Health for all the support they've given to the entire staff/team at Eagle County. He spoke about the county moving into"yellow"on the COVID dial. Cases were continuing to go down and county offices would be opening back up to the public on March 1st. COVID-19 Update Birch Barron,Emergency Management Director, stated that he had good news to report. There was a continuing case decline across the state. The disease level had declined in areas where the cases were high back in November. The move to"yellow"was significant. The state's vaccine dashboard provided info about vaccine availability across the state. The county's drive-thru clinics had been very successful,however, due to the severe weather the vaccines didn't arrive this week. This was incredibly frustrating, and he hoped it was only temporary. There were many high risk individuals still waiting and groups working on the front lines still not eligible. Although the county was moving into"yellow," he encouraged people to be extra vigilant about wearing masks. 1 02/16/2021 Consent Agenda 1. Agreement Between Walking Mountains Science Center and Eagle County for Energy Smart Colorado Holly Strablizky,Attorney's Office 2.Agreement Between Walking Mountains Science Center and Eagle County for Services-Climate Action Collaborative Holly Strablizky,Attorney's Office 3. Roaring Fork School District Agreement for Professional Services with Eagle County for School Based Counselors Kim Goodrich,Public Health and Environment 4.Amended and Restated Hanger Ground Lease with Northside Hangar,LLC for Hanger Structures on Airport Property David Reid,Airport 5. Resolution 2021-012 approving 10 Acre PUD -Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan for PUD and Zone Change -File Numbers PDSP-9012 and ZC-9017 Morgan Landers,Planning 6. Execution of PUD Guide - 10 Acre PUD- Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan for PUD and Zone Change-File Numbers PDSP-9012 and ZC-9017 Morgan Landers,Planning 7.Approval of PUD Agreement- 10 Acre PUD -Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan for PUD and Zone Change- File Numbers PDSP-9012 and ZC-9017 Morgan Landers, Planning 8.Approval of the Minutes for the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for October 6, October 13, October 20, and October 27,2020 Kathy Scriver,Clerk&Recorder's Office 9. January 2021 Payment Report Jill Klosterman, Finance 10.Public Trustee Fourth Quarter 2020 Transaction Report Anissa Berge,Public Trustee's Office 11. Quarterly Interest Report Teak Simonton, Treasurer's Office 12. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Impact Assistance Grant Application Mark Chapin,Assessor's Office 2 02/16/2021 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for February 23,2021, as presented. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Constituent Input Chairman Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Business Items 2. The Board of County Commissioners will meet as necessary to review and take action on any issues related to the COVID-19 Local Disaster Emergency. There were issues related to COVID-19 to address. Site Visit/Planning File - Gypsum 1. Planning File Site Visit: ZS-9014,Gypsum Marijuana Cultivation/TNT Botanicals Tez Hawkins,Planning DESCRIPTION: The Applicant seeks approval for a Special Use Permit to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor marijuana cultivation facility from 2 acres to 40 acres. The expansion also includes adding a 5,000 sqft. Marijuana infused product(MIP) extraction facility, a 3,500 MIP storage structure,two barn structures, and thirty shipping containers to the property. Site Visit 11:00-12:30 Tez Hawkins, Staff Planner,presented the application. Earlier today, staff and commissioners visited the site. The project was located south of the Town of Gypsum. The existing parcel zoning was Resource. The total acreage of the property was 383.960 acres. The first approval was in 2015 and included two acre marijuana outdoor cultivation and 8,500 sq ft. of greenhouses used for processing/extraction. The applicants were requesting a total of 40 acres of outdoor marijuana cultivation,25,600 sq ft. of processing/extraction facilities, two new water storage ponds, a 20 kilowatt hydroelectric turbine, and new on-site wastewater treatment systems The applicant was not in compliance with four of the nine conditions of approval relating to site plan and building types. The applicant had chosen to address the non-compliance issues through the special use permit process, ZS-9014. He reviewed the operation plan,which included year-round operations with about 20 employees and 15 vehicles during the process of marijuana plants and extraction facility. The applicant was proposing a site phasing plan for the upper and lower bench of the property. He reviewed the comments received during the notification period. The Town of Gypsum provided comments to staff on January 4, 2021 expressing concern with water use and the effect on the town's existing water supply. Gypsum Fire Protection District,Division of Water Resources, Eagle County Sheriff's Office, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife concerns had been adequately addressed by conditions. As of February 16, 2021,no additional public comment had been received. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the standards and indicated that the staff found that the proposed special use was in conformance with the standards and recommended approval with conditions. The Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Taylor Ryan, Staff Engineer,reviewed the standards related to the site development. Staff recommended condition 5 (five), ensuring a geological assessment be submitted at Building Permit. It was determined that 3 02/16/2021 Gypsum Creek Road was a rural minor collector adequate for this use. The existing driveway was deficient for grade and vehicle pullouts,variations could be requested for road,driveway and access standards. Staff did not support approval of the variation requests at this time. Condition 6(six)was added to address the driveway design to be reviewed at building permit. The access through the lower bench had not been reviewed. Condition 10 (ten)allowed for a secondary access from Gypsum Creek Road and would be reviewed. Condition 7 (seven) was added requiring a bridge maintenance plan and design for appropriate standards at time of rehabilitation or replacement. Mr. Hawkins reviewed the remaining standards. The applicant requested that Condition 1 (one)be removed. Staff did not agree. Chris Green with Ago Studio spoke on behalf of the applicant. He introduced the applicants Rob and Linda Trotter,TNT Ranch/Pot Zero. He reviewed the details of the existing Special Use Permit. The applicant hoped to expand the use area and add non-combustible steel structures to the upper bench; they would be primarily used to store, dry, cure and protect the harvested cannabis. Pot Zero had been featured in the magazines both locally and nationally and was recognized in the industry for their highest quality of cannabis and 100% sustainable branded marijuana products. The applicant believed this was an agricultural operation and the staff report supported that. Since the original special use approval,there had been a minor adjustment to the Eagle County Building Resolution that had significant implications to the agricultural operations. The implications to the applicant included: fire sprinkler systems, flushable toilets,water based hand washing,potable water requirements, and Fire District Access and Response concerns. The applicant had continued doing improvements to the farm/ranch road, and a road survey had been provided to the county. Improvements included,widening where possible, grading with road base, grading equipment upgrades, and improvements to pull out areas. He believed the staff report did not accurately represent the actual commentary of the Planning Commission's comments regarding the roadway standards. Portable bathrooms would be available for employees. The applicant had submitted an electrical permit for electrical improvements, and they did egress improvements to comply with applicable code requirements for exiting buildings. They have not submitted a building permit for improvements to the buildings because they had been working to understand and address the fire sprinkler issues with both Eagle County and Gypsum Fire Protection District since September 2019. The applicant had been working connually to come up with a solution to address emergency service issues. The applicant had committed to non-combustible steel buildings on the upper bench. The buildings were placed in an open defensible space and had cameras installed. They continued to work with the Gypsum Fire Department. He believed Condition 9 (nine)was not a realistic demand. They had been working to acquire approval of this application since February 13, 2019. For the last 18 months,they have been trying to work through the process. They were unable to meet Condition 9(nine),requiring they meet a 90-day requirement. The applicant was seeking approval of the application with the ability to work with Gypsum Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Building Department to come up with a solution to the fire issues that would allow Pot Zero to moderately expand the cultivation area so they could put plants in the ground by May of this year. They understood the code issues and the remaining issues, as they saw it,were building code and fire code related issues,not planning issues. They believed that the county should give them the opportunity to complete the process of coming to a solution in a common sense manner outside the umbrella of special use. The applicant was in substantial compliance with the Eagle County requirements. The applicant had demonstrated that they had water rights to provide for this application and they were working to meet the building code requirements. He suggested approval with modified conditions. The applicant requested that Conditions 1 (one),2 (two),4(four), 6 (six), and 7(seven)be deleted and Condition 9 (nine)be amended to allow one year rather than 90 days to obtain applicable permits for all existing structures, including mechanical,electrical,plumbing, and grading permits. The applicant requested the right to increase the cultivation area, enclose/fence the expansion, and work out the remaining fire code and sprinkler issues. They responded to the land use regulations and were responding to the Gypsum Fire District, and they met the requirements of Colorado Water law. They were in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,the zoning was correct,and believed the application met the intent of the Development Standards. Chairman Scherr requested a motion from staff to continue the file. 4 02/16/2021 Mr. Green requested continuing the file at the earliest possible time if an approval would not be granted today. Morgan Beryl,Planning Director,requested an assurance from the applicant that they didn't intend on supplying any new information to be analyzed. There were a couple of statements made that were concerning in terms of new information. Mr. Green confirmed that there was no new information. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that in the past they had not limited themselves to Tuesday hearing dates. Sarah Baker, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant had been in the process for more than two years and they were bumping up against cultivation issues this spring. The board's understanding in allowing them to get this scheduled as soon as possible was sincerely appreciated. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. ZS-9014 until March 1,2021 at 2:30 pm. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning File - Eagle County Room 1. Edwards RiverPark-Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan,Zone Change, and 1041 Permit- PDSP-9050/ZC-9029/1041-9030 DESCRIPTION: Application for a Consolidated Sketch/Preliminary Plan for a mixed-use PUD,to include approximately 540 residential units(100 of which are currently proposed as deed restricted workforce housing)and 56,500 square feet of commercial uses. This application includes single-family and multi-family residential, deed restricted workforce housing, hotel, conference and retail uses, active and passive recreation, and open space areas. Also included is a Zone Change application to rezone the Subject Parcel from Resource to PUD and a 1041 permit application for the extension of water and sewer services. The application is subject to change throughout the review process. Chairman Scherr opened the meeting. This was a continuation of the hearing for the Edwards River Park Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan,Zone Change and 1041 Permit. This meeting was scheduled for public comment. Morgan Beryl stated that currently there were 46 people signed up for public comment tonight. She reminded everyone that they had the ability to share their comments. Public comment was limited to three minutes unless someone had ceded their time. Chairman Scherr asked that people be respectful of one another and the board would base their decision on the facts. Kris Miller,Edwards resident, spoke. She expressed concern with the proposed workforce housing affordability and believed the development could create additional housing problems. This was not affordable housing and did not conform to the Edwards Area Community Plan. She also expressed concern for the water use. She believed that this would be a potential disaster and was not a benefit to the community. Malia Nobrega spoke. She thanked everyone for their input and respectfulness. She grew up in the Vail Valley and believed there was a tremendous need for housing. There were few parcels remaining that allowed for this level of density. She was concerned about the increase in road traffic but was also excited about the proposed roundabout. She was excited about the proposed amenities. 5 02/16/2021 Bobby Lipnick spoke and stated that the proposal had exceeded the Eagle County Housing guidelines. He believed that the money generated by the development was huge. The traffic impact fees, the sustainable measures of the project,the wetland protection, and wildlife mitigation all benefited the community. The community plan identified the area for a higher density. Chris Neuswanger spoke. He stated that over 1,300 people had signed the petition against the development. hundreds more had written and submitted their views. He also noted that even though the applicant had eliminated the 100 lock offs,they were still projecting over 150,000 guest nights. When considering the impact of the tax revenues,he asked that the board look at the projections carefully. Steve Lindstrom spoke as an Eagle County Resident for 20 plus years. He was a business owner in Eagle County and an employer. He had been on the Vail Housing Authority for several years. He believed the project was another way to partner with the private sector. The project offered housing and there were significant upsides to this project. Casey McDaniel spoke. He believed this project would benefit the traffic on Highway 6 by putting in the roundabout. The project would offer more restaurants,housing, and a place for visitors to stay when their homes were full. The project had plans to protect the wetlands and wildlife. He believed there would be growth in the valley,and the project would enhance life and opportunities for local residents. Jay Nobrega spoke. He supported the project and believed that Edwards needed more restaurants and commercial properties. Affordable housing was needed, and the roundabout would address the current traffic situation. The project would positively impact the property. Spencer Blair spoke. He grew up in the valley and believed it was a great place. He supported the project. It seemed like the developer was going above and beyond. The developer was being environmentally responsible. He'd known the developer for a long time and believed he was a good person who loved nature. Matt Fitzgerald spoke. He'd been a resident of Edwards since 1999. He expressed support for the project. The applicants were respectable people,and the project offered community benefits. Matt Szmyd spoke. He thanked the staff for all their work. He was impressed with the process. He asked the board to deny the request. It would have a devastating effect on the community. The transfer fee was not a public benefit. He believed there would be no wildlife left in the area if the development was approved. Kerry Wallace, South Fork Meadows resident, spoke. She was a long time resident and business owner. She'd lived in Edwards since 1992. The project was not in line with the community plan nor with the residents of the community. She was baffled how the applicant had been able to proceed offering so little benefit. She believed the applicant has glossed over the Edwards Community Plan which only allowed only for four-story buildings outside the core. The building heights were too high,and the PUD was massive.The wildlife herds would be gone in time if the development was approved. The increased traffic concerned her. She also expressed concerns for loud music and light pollution. She requested that the board deny the application. Melissa Ebone,new Brett Ranch resident, spoke. She asked the board to consider the area. The parcel was one of the last large parcels on the river corridor. She understood the need for affordable housing and would like to see the developer to do more for people looking to live and work in the area. Anni Davis spoke. She lived in South Fork Meadows. She believed that the developer needed to show respect for the Edwards residents. The project would not address the affordable housing shortage and would not contribute to the"small town feel." There would be a huge negative impact to the wildlife and the wetlands. There was no rationale to have an amphitheater near a wildlife preserve. Wendy Greshko spoke. She echoed the comments by Kerry Wallace and asked that the board deny the file. Susie Cunningham spoke. She believed it was hypocritical of people to try to block a business development when they purchased homes near a property that was zoned for business development. She believed the developer had bent over backwards to provide amenities and to address affordable housing issues. Lydia Woodard,Lake Creek resident, spoke. She believed the plan was a net loss in terms of addressing affordable housing. There were way more people needed for the hotel and would further cause more strain on the workforce housing. It appears that the land was designated mixed use,not high density. She supported responsible development and removal of the hotel. Scott Divonas spoke. He was in complete support of the development and believed it was a community benefit. 6 02/16/2021 Johanna Kerwin spoke against the development. She sat through all the Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission expressed concern for the scope, scale, and product mix and was surprised that staff had not spent more time reviewing those comments. She suggested the board deny the application and ask that the developer come back with a better plan. Susie Cunningham spoke again in favor of the project. She found it difficult to understand the inflammatory statements made by some citizens. Dave Schlendorf spoke. He was a full time resident of Edwards and spoke against the development. He believed that the natural riparian buffer should remain intact. The development would destroy the riparian area along the river. He spoke about the current traffic and parking issues. Rachel Lach spoke. She had seen 30 years of change in the area. She did not see how this development was beneficial to the community. She felt it was way too big. Teri Lester spoke. She spoke in opposition of the project for three reasons: density, sound, and the bald eagle nest. The public benefits were clearly for private gain. She opposed the amphitheater,the boardwalk, and the disturbance to wildlife. Evan DeMuth spoke. He opposed the development. He opposed development of all the open space. He recommended denial of the application. He thought this was American greed gone wild. Mathew Blake spoke. He was in favor of the project. He believed it was a great team, and he had a tremendous amount of respect for the developer. He believed this was one of the better proposed developments. Spence Dennison spoke. He was opposed to the project. He believed it was out of character and out of place. There was no net benefit in terms of affordable housing. The building would look like a wall of buildings from Highway 6. Kat Haber spoke. She thanked the commissioners and staff for their endless hours of work. She expressed concern with traffic on Highway 6 and asked the commissioners to make an effort to protect the area around the river. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table the file until PDSP-9050/ZC-9029 and 1041-9030 to the March 2,2012 hearing of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 4 EAGtecOG There being no further business t• s the meeting was adjourned until March 2,2021. 1 Attest: Clerk to the Board Chairman 7 02/16/2021