No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/28/04 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Conunissioner County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board Commissioner Menconi was not present for the morning session, but was present for the Planning Files. Executive Session On Tuesday September 28, 2004 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the selection process for airport equipment and for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning developer proposed refinancing at Miller Ranch all of which are appropriate topics pursuant to C.R.S.24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Stone seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. It was noted for the record that Commissioner Gallagher was running a few minutes late and had asked the Board to proceed. At the close of the discussion concerning legal advice regarding the selection process for airport equipment Commissioner Gallagher joined the meeting and Commissioner Stone excused himself as the remaining discussion item related to Miller Ranch housing. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Gallagher moved that the board adjourn from executive session. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. After the work session and prior to the "on the record" items Conunissioner Menconi moved that the Board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning developer proposed refinancing at Miller Ranch which is an appropriate topic pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion at it passed unanimously. Commissioner Stone was not present for this discussion. At the close of the session Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board adjourn from executive session Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. During the lunch break Commissioners Menconi and Gallagher again went into executive session pursuant to 24~6-402(4)(b) for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning developer proposed financing at Miller Ranch. C01ll1llissioner Stone was not present. Commissioner Menconi made the motion which was seconded by Commissioner Gallagher. The motion carried. At the close of the discussion Conunissioner Menconi made the motion to adjourn from executive session and Commissioner Gallagher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. At the close of the planning discussion Commissioners Menconi and Gallagher again went into executive session pursuant to 24-6-402(4)(b) for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning developer proposed fmancing at Miller Ranch. C01ll1llissioner Stone was not present. Commissioner Menconi made the motion which was seconded by Commissioner Gallagher. The motion carried. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Menconi made the motion to adjourn from executive session and Commissioner Gallagher provided the second. The motion passed unanimously. This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 9/28/04 1 A.. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of September 27 and October 4, 2004 (Subject to Review by the Chairman of the Board of COl..lnty Commissioners and County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of Payroll for September 30, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for June 29, July 19, July 27, 2004 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder D. Change Order #6 to the Contract for the Miller Ranch RoadlHighway 6 Intersection Improvements Justin Hildreth, Engineering E. Change Order #1 to the Contract with Vogelman West Associates, Inc. for the Entrance Sign Berm at Miller Ranch Road & Highway 6 Pete Fralick, Engineering F. Change Order #3 between American Civil ConstrUctors and Eagle County Govemment for Instalhition of 1250 Linear Feet Extension of 36" Drainage Pipe at the Berry Creek Pond Project in Edwards, Colorado Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management G. Eagle County Ambulance Permit for Western Eagle County Ambulance District Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services H. Eagle County Ambulance Permit for Eagle County Health Services Ambulance District Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services I. Agreement between Eagle County and Summit County Concerning a Joint Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Purchase Order from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for Public Health Emergency Preparedness Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services K. Agreement between Eagle County and Laurie Beckel for Early Childhood Partners Kathleen Forinash, Health J& Human Services L. Resolution 2004-104 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle Cemetery District Board of Directors County Attorney's Office Representative M. Resolution 2004-105 Conferring Power of Attorney upon DianeH. Mauriello, County Attorney, Walter Mathews, N, Deputy County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County Attorney, and Debbie Faber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Letter of Credit No. 7835493-6001 in the amount of $63,684.03 for the Account of Jason Segal, David Broeker and Adriaan Van't Hoff for the Valley View Homes Subdivision Drawn on Vectra Bank Colorado and Expiring on September 30, 2004. County Attorney's Office Representative N. Contract Am(!ndment No. One between Carter & Burgess and Eagle County Government for Rehabilitating the Concrete Apron and Acquiring ARFF Vehicle and Snow Removal Equipment for AIP Project 3-08-002()- 36 at the Eagle County Regional Airport Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management . 9/28/04 2 Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that item N was moved onto the Consent Agenda. There were no other changes or revisions. Commissioner Gallagher inquired about the wording of Item N. He asked if the snow removal and equipment Were separate issues. Ms. Mauriello stated that these were separate items. Item 5 on the Agenda addressed the bid process involved with the purchase of the equipment. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for September 28, 2004, items A-N. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat and Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton of Community Development presented the following files. LIST OF PLATS TO BE SIGNED: 5MB-00341. Emerald Acres Townhomes. Lots 3 aud 4. Filin2 1 A Minor Type B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to vacate a C01ll1llon lot line between Lots 3 and 4 in the Eagle-Vail PUD, Filing I, and create "townhouse lotS" for the existing c01ll1llercial structures. The use will continue to be commercial office space. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve 5MB-0034l, Emerald Acres TownhoIl1es, Lots 3 and 4, Filing 1, a Minor Type B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to vacate a C01ll1llon lot line between Lots 3 and 4 in the Eagle- Vail PUD, Filing 1, and create "townhouse lots" for the existing commercial structures, incorporating stafffmdings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Selection of a Bid for Airport SnOw Broom Ovid Seifers, Airport Administrator presented the bids. Mr. Seifers stated that there were three bids for the piece of equipment. Chairman Stone stated that there was nothing in the commissioner's package. Mr. Ingstad informed Mr. Seifers of the infonna.tion needed. Mr. Seifers stated that the piece of equipment was a self-propelled snow broom used on runways and taxi ways for snow removal operations and would supplement the other two similar pieces of equipment to expedite snow removal during the busy seasons. The three vendors who submitted bids were: Kodiak Northwest ofldaho, McDonald Equipment in Denver, and OJ Watson in Denver. Low bid was Kodiak Northwest for $336,000, second low bid was McDonald for $350,000 and the high bid was from OJ Watson for $367,000. Mr. Seifers proposed the selection of the OJ Watson for the following reasons: 1) Kodiak Northwest had one broom in the field similar to the one specified for purcha.se, which is 15 years old. 2) The next bid was for a piece of equipment from McDonald that was still on the drawing board and there weren't any units in the field. He questioned the reliability of this piece of equipment, as McDonald was just getting back into the business after 10 years. 3) The high bid from OJ Watson had 110 units in the field and are the predominant snow broom manufacturer in the airport industry. Product and technical support from this vendor would be excellent and convenient. Parts availability would be better from this vendor, as well, according to Mr. Seifers. Chairman Stone opened public comment. There was no one present from any of these firms. He stated that the basis for the award was to go to the lowest responsible bidder whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, would be most advantageous to and in the best interest of the county, cost or price or other factors considered. He clarified that price is not the only determining factor when considering a bid. Ms. Mauriello stated that this was true. Consideration could include service and parts availability. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Seifers to clarify the maintenance issues for the three different outfits. 9/28/04 3 Mr. Seifers stated that there would be an 18 month warranty on any of the equipment including parts and labor. The service for Kodiak would come from Idaho; McDonald would come from Denver, as well as Watson. He believes that OJ Watson has outstanding service and technical support. They have a large inventory of parts in the immediate area. The disadvantages of startup companies, like McDonald, are that they have a tendency to not make it after previously going out of business. One of the last pieces of equipment purchased from this company had been difficult to maintain based on access to service and parts. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the existing fleet and whether any Watson equipment has been used. Mr. Seifers stated that this firm is used for parts support. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the bid from OJ Watson for the snow broom for Eagle County Airport. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone clarified that the reason that Mr. Seifers prefers this piece of equipment are well-noted, even though this firm did not present the low bid. The airport must be able to count on the equipment to keep the airport open. Early Head Start Application; Year 7 Jennie Wahter, Health & Human Services presented a slide show presentation. She thanked the board for their time and introduced seven parents who participate in the program. The slide show reviewed their mission, who they serve, and where they are served. She listed the types of services offered and their methods of working together with the participants in the program. She then presented some of the results of their programs. Two areas where they had excelled were in actively promoting literacy and caregivers being resources to others. Their plans for the future include increased fatherhood involvement, inclusion of disabled children, response to grant possibilities, program governance training, and implementation of state of art research of early brain development. In June of 2005 they will be having their tri-annual review. Nicki, single parent with two children stated that the program has helped her tremendously and expressed her support for the program. Africa, expressed her gratitude for the commissioner's time. She stated that her experience with the program had been excellent. Everything she had to say could be condensed to "Thank you" for the learning and the trust. She has been supported step by step and her home visitor had helped with well child care, health and social skills, with the intent to support her babies and families well being. She is a first time mother and her knowledge of child development has gradually increased and she is most thankful for her home visitor. She enjoys sharing what she learns at group socializations. She implored the commissioners to continue their support. Kathy Howard stated that she is raising her grandson. The program is a blessing in her opinion. She stated that the program had helped her learn all over again the skills needed to raise a child. Her grandson has grown tremendously because of this program. Commissioner Gallagher thanked all of the families for taking the responsibility for raising their children well. He asked how many children are involved in the program. Ms Wahter stated that they are committed to serve 45 per year. Over the past year they had served 66 children and six pregnant women. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the program was limited by federal funds. Ms. Wahter stated that indeed they are limited by these funds, but there is a possibility of additional funds being available in 2005. She told the commissioners that fathers' participation had increased as a result ofthe program. There is an active effort to include birth fathers. There is also an effort at group socialization. Chairman Stone commented that it is unfortunate that a lot of fathers don't choose to be responsible parents and be involved with their children. He expressed his appreciation to the mothers and grandmothers present for their efforts. Commissioner Gallagher asked how many dollars of this program come from Eagle County. Ms. Wahter stated that there were no hard dollars, but there was an in-kind donation of time which is 20% of the grant. 25% of the total is donated by parent's time. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Early Head Start Application for Year 7 (2005). Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 9/28/04 4 Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Clerk & Recorder's Office Consent Agenda-Liquor License Renewals A.. Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch 130 Daybreak Ridge A van, CO B. Ritz- Carlton Club, Bachelor Gulch 100 Bachelor Ridge Trail Avon, CO C. South Forty Liquors 47 Edwards Village Blvd. Edwards, CO Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor Consent Agenda of September 28, 2004, items A-C. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Other Liquor A. Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. DBA Black Diamond Grill APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: CONCERNS / ISSUES: Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. Black Diamond Grille Bob Nelson, General Manager 26 Avondale Lane Beaver Creek, CO None DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a temporary Hotel and Restaurant License for Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. dba Black Diamond Grille. Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. has applied for a Transfer of Ownership from Big Sky Restaurant Company, LLC dba Beaver Creek Chophouse. The applicant is requesting a temporary license to operate until the transfer of ownership process can be completed STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: 1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and local licensing authorities, and it was valid as of the date of receiving the application. 2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which the temporary permit is sought. 3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been filed. 9/28/04 5 4. The application for the temporary permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid. 5. Included is a copy of the Alcohol Management Plan of the Beaver Creek Chophouse and a map of the premises. This is in accordance with Section 12-47-302 (2) of the Colorado Liquor Code, which states, "Notwithstanding the provisions of this article to the contrary, a local licensing authority shall have discretionary authority to issue a temporary permit to a transferee of any retail class of alcohol beverage license issued by the local licensing authority pursuant to this article or article 46 of this title. Such , temporary permit shall authorize a transferee to continue selling such alcohol beverages as permitted under the permanent license during the period in which an application to transfer the ownership of the license is pending. " STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Treu why these requests for te1llporary license had only begun occurring in the past few months. Mr. Treu stated that he had never seen these requests in the past. He affirmed that these are allowed only with Transfers of Ownership. Commissioner Gallagher stated that this is not a new license, but wondered why the people who are buying a place get their temporary license at that time instead of asking for the entire license at the same time. Mr. Treu stated it is only a business decision to get the ball rolling more quickly and establishing relationships with potential vendors. Bob Nelson, manager was present. He stated that he is familiar with the alcohol management plan. He wondered about the statements related to the comments about type of people using the deck in the summer. He clarified that the facility is currently open under the same guidelines. He assured the board that the staff would be adequately trained to handle summer and winter customers. They intend to manage the facility carefully and cautiously. Commissioner Gallagher wondered about the qualification of the summer deck patrons compared to the winter patrons. Mr. Nelson stated that the deck isjust off the main restaurant facility on the 200 level of the building. He stated that stanchions and planters would delineate the space. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the room-service. Mr. Nelson stated that they had not determined whether a mini bar would be provided or not. Commissioner Gallagher asked for something in the management plan addressing the duties of the room service people related to intoxicated minors. Commissioner Gallagher moved the local licensing authority, incorporating staff fmdings, approve the issuance of a temporary hotel and restaurant license to Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. dba Black Diamond Grille, which will be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever occurs first; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one-hundred-twenty day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. . Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. B. Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. & Fandango Cordillera, LLC DBA Cordillera Mountain Club APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVES: Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. and Fandango Cordillera, LLC Cordillera Mountain Club Alan Dill, applicant's attorney Harold Rosenthal, applicant 1280 Village Road, Unit 333C, Strawberry Park Condominiums LOCATION: 9/28/04 6 TYPE OF LICENSE: CONCERNS / ISSUES: Tavern-For Private Use Only See Staff Report Findings DESCRIPTION: This is a new application for a Tavern retail liquor license. This establishment will located in the Strawberry Park Condominiums in Beaver Creek, and it will be for the private use only of the guests of the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera. It is intended to be open only during ski season from 8:00 am to 5 :00 pm, seven days a week. There were no members of the public present for comment. The only persons present were owners or tyanagers of the property. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: ESTABLISHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. During discussions the Staff determined that a dual neighborhood should be established, due to the nature of this application. It was decided that the best description of the proposed neighborhood should include the area around both the proposed establishment, and the area around the Lodge and Spa, as they would be the only users of this establishment. Staff recommends the following neighborhood: A on(! mile radius from the establishm(!nt's location ill the Strawberry Park Condominiums and a one mile radius from the Lodge and Spa at Cordill(!ra. Chait1llan Stone wondered about the reason behind the split neighborhood. Mr. Treu stated that the proposed users would be from the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera and as such would constitute the neighborhood, and allowed these folks to sign the petition. Commissioner Gallagher agreed with the reasons behind this split neighborhood. He finds that in as much as it is a private club, the premises should be the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera and the premises of the Strawberry Park condominium. Mr. Treu stated that if it would only be limited to the condominium, it would be a very small area, and it would limit the parties of interest ability to conunent. Commissioner Gallagher agreed. Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the neighborhood as the area within a one mile radius from the establishment's location in the Strawberry Park Condominiums and a one mile radius from the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS A...~,J"D DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. All members of the Board have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by the applicant. As of the date of the hearing, no protests have been filed with the clerk. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-347- 301 (2)(a). 2. There are no other Eagle County-licensed taverns within the proposed neighborhoods. Currently held licenses within the proposed neighborhoods include: 23 Hotel and Restaurant Licenses, 4 of which are "For Private Use Only"; 1 Retail Liquor Store License; and 1 Arts License. In total, there are six licenses in Eagle County that have the designation of "For Private Use Only". OTHER STAFF FINDINGS 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 9/28/04 7 2. Mr. Rosenthal is reported to be of good moral character and is over 21 years of age. 3. Mr. Bailey is reported to be of good moral character and is over 21 years of age. 4. Mr. Shoaf is over 21 years of age. Mr. Shoaf does have an alcohol-related violation on his record, occurring on February 1, 2004. Please see the attached abstract of the violation and the resulting letter from Mr. Shoaf. This violation does not represent a crime of "moral turpitude" as defined by Section 24~5-1 0 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. 5. No concerns about this application have been received from the following Eagle County Depart1llents: Sheriff, Cotnnlurtity Development, Environmental Health, Building, Road & Bridge, and Engineering. 6. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises and by publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on September 16 and September 23,2004. 7. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the date of the application, a license has been denied at the same location for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 8. These findings have been made known, in writing, to the applicant and other interested parties, five (5) days prior to this hearing. Max Scott from Oedipus Incorporated stated that his firm has previously circulated around 3500 liquor petitions. He circulated his petition in both one mile radiuses. He informed the board that two maps were generated using a petition format allowing for or against comments, a briefing sheet was attached and the circulators went door to door to obtain signatures. The results indicated 49 in favor out of 51 respondents. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the circulation dates. Mr. Scott stated that it was circulated Friday and Saturday the 10th and 11 th of September. Chairman Stone asked for other reasons that the needs of the neighborhood are not currently being met. Mr. Dill stated that he would cover this question in his presentation. Ann Mobrick stated that she resides at 510 Brush Creek Terrace and is the General Manager of Strawberry Park Condominiums. She told that Board that the application for the Tavern License had come before the Strawberry Park Board and they had no opposition to it. Harry Rosenthal spoke to the board. He is the managing member of the Pharos Group and Fandango Cordillera. The proposed facility would fall under his direct supervision. The commercial space that had been acquired in Beaver Creek would be used as a hospitality center for their guests as Cordillera is approximately 15 minutes from the lifts. An optional premises addition to the license was not an option as it wasn't contiguous with the Hotel's property. The 1700 square foot facility is only used as a hospitality center to house guest's equipment, child care and food would be provided, and liquor would be available as well. Transportation would be provided back and forth to the lodge by Cordillera. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Rosenthal whether the Strawberry Park condominium owners would be able to use the facility. Mr. Rosenthal stated that only the guests of the Lodge and Spa can use it and Strawberry Park owners would not be able to access it. 9/28/04 8 Commissioner Gallagher asked about the reason for asking for a tavern license instead of a restaurant license. Mr. Rosenthal stated that a full kitchen would not be available. Only light snacks would be provided. Matthew Bailey, Executive Vice-President of Fandango Resorts, the Lodge's Management Company was present. He has a degree in Hotel and Restaurant management and has been in the hospitality business since 1976. None of the establishments that he has ever been involved with have had any alcohol-related incidents. He informed the board that this would be a place for guests to rest during the day with hot and cold snacks. He described the staffing that would be provided. There is no formal bar, but beverages would be served, not self-served. He indicated that all employees would go through a Tips-type training cailed "Learn and Serve". The food service manager is certified as a trainer in this program. He stated that his company feels that to be competitive with slope-side establishments, this type of operation is necessary. Commissioner Gallagher asked about Mr. Bailey's experience with the Colorado Liquor Code. Mr. Bailey indicated that he has read and understands the code. He stated that there would always be at least one full-time employee present, and two will be present on weekends. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the location of the restrooms. Mr. Rosenthal stated that the restrooms are located just off the lobby of the condominillm. Mr. Treu presented a letter from William Shoaf related to his alcohol-related incident in Utah. Commissioner Gallagher wondered about Mr. Shoaf's role. Mr. Dill stated that he is strictly an investor. Mr. Treu stated that he had spoken to State liquor enforcement related to this license. He wants to make sure that the needs and desires are being established based on it being a private club. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. Conunissioner Gallagher moved the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license and that the existing licenses do not adequately satisfy these needs and desires and, therefore, approve a new tavern license, for private use only, for Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. and Fandango Cordillera, LLC, d/b/a Cordillera Mountain Club based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Such license is to be issued upon the written findings and decision of this Board and upon a final inspection of the premises by our Clerk and Recorder to determine that the applicant has complied with the site information provided today and as may be required by the Colorado Liquor Code. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of COl111ty Commissioners. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files Conunissioner Menconi was present for the afternoon session. PDS-00041 Edwards Desil!D and Craft Center PUD Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, Community Development NOTE: ACTION: Request to table to 11/9/2004 Approval of a mixed use PUD comprising of approximately two (2) one bedroom, employee residences and approximately 52.685 sq. ft of commercial/light industrial spaces to be used as: office, showrooms and shop spaces for constrUction wholesale suppliers (e.g. wholesale tile; lighting; flooring) and craftspeople (e.g. cabinet makers; custom furniture makers, etc.); commercial uses such as a commercial laundry, bakery, specialize sporting goods assembly shop & appliance service and repaIr. 32466 Hwy 6, West Edwards; South ofHwy 6 (this is the remaining lot to the Woodland Hills PUD) LOCATION: 9/28/04 9 Commissioner Gallagher moved, at the applicant's request, to table File PDS-0004l Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD until November 9, 2004. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0056 - Town of Ea2le Water Pre-treatment Facility Clifford Simonton, Planner, Community Development ACTION: The Town of Eagle is requesting a permit for the constrUction of pre-treatment facilities at the existing Town of Eagle domestic water treatment plant. ~'-. LOCATION: 9125 Brush Creek Road; directly adjacent to the Town of Eagle Water Treatment Facility; Tract 86, Section 36, Township 5S, Range 84W FILE NO: TITLE: APPLICANT: CONSULTANT: REQUEST: 1041-0056 Town of Eagle Pre-treatment Facility Town of Eagle DLD Engineering A permit for the construction of a Pretreatment Facility at the existing Town of Eagle domestic water treatment plant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions SUMMARY This 1041 application is for the constrUction of a new Pretreatment Facility south of and adjacent to the existing Town of Eagle Water Treatment Plant. This pretreatment upgrade is necessary to meet new regulatory requirements under the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTlESWTR), promulgated January 14,2002. Compliance to these new standards, which address turbidity levels prior to filtration, is required by January 14,2005. The Applicant anticipates construction this fall pending the approval of this permit. The Town's water treatment plant is located adjacent to Brush Creek Road approximately 7 miles south of town. The new pretreatment facilities would be installed on a five acre parcel ofland that extends south of the existing plant, boooded to the east by Brush Creek Road and to the west by the Brush Creek stream corridor. The five acre parcel is within the boundaries of the Frost Creek Planned Unit Development, and is zoned PUD. As a part of its water service agreement with the Kummer Development Corporation, the Town of Eagle will acquire fee simple ownership of this parceL For the moment, the Town is leasing the property from Mr. Kummer through an agreement that specifically allows the proposed use. Since this portion of the Frost Creek PUD has not yet been platted, the five acre tract was recently created through the County's Exemption from Subdivision process (File No. SE-00037, approved August 3 i, 2004). An 80 x 45 foot building is proposed to house new sedimentation and flocculation pretreatment equipment. This building will be located just south of the existing treatment plant's water tank, and will be painted the same dark green color to lessen visual impacts. By-products of the sedimentation/flocculation process will require the additional construction of a series of concrete drying beds and several water storage lagoons, all of which would be placed further south between the road and the creek. A landscape plan has been submitted which provides tree and shrub plantings to help further screen the facility from the road. The portion ofthe subject lot where the new building is proposed is narrow, and encroachments into both the road setback and stream setback are required. A variance allowing the building to be constrUcted 15 feet into the 50 foot road setback and 5 feet into the 75 foot stream setback was granted on September 8, 2004 (file ZV -00029). The proposed improvements will not increase the treatment capacity of the plant, will not result in additional diversions from Brush Creek, and no new development is proposed. However, the building and drying beds will be 9/28/04 10 visible to those traveling on Brush Creek Road, and mitigations are proposed to reduce visual impacts. A site/landscape plan and architectural renderings of the proposed building are attached. REFERRALS This 1041.proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies and homeowner's associations with a request for C01ll1llent: Eagle County Engineering Eagle County Attorney's Office Eagle County Environmental Health Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Eagle County Planning Commission Colorado State Department of Health As of the writing of this report, the following responses have been received (please see attached). Eagle County Environmental Health verbal response of September 22, 2004 . Noted the staging and storage of chemicals and other potentially hazardous materials on site, and reco1ll1llended that a Hazardous Material Management Plan be developed for the facility. . Indicated a need for a provision ensuring the long term maintenance of all erosion control and dust suppression measures proposed as a part of an for a grading permit. Northwest Colorado Council of Gov(!rnments (NWCCOG) September 17,2004 . The prbposal is in general compliance with the policies and recommendations of the 208 Water Quality Management Plan. The applicant has adequately addressed water quality, impacts to riparian areas, chemical handling and storage and regional management structures. Eagle County Planning Commission Verbal response at work session of September 15, 2004. 1 Noted that the preponderance oflandscape screening proposed along Brush Creek Road was of deciduous nature, and suggested increasing the number of evergreen trees in that area to provide year round screening. FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION 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 for the Town of Eagle Pretreatment Facilit'j, the following analysis is provided. Note: The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with the resultant recommendation indicated in the fIndings box. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will hav(! obtained all necessary property rights, p(!rmits 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. The Town of Eagle has indicated that all necessary property rights, permits and approvals will be obtained prior to site disturbance. The proposed improvements will occur within existing easements and/or on property leased from the owner by the Town. A grading permit and a building permit will be required for the facility (see condition # 1). 9/28/04 11 [+] FINDING: (1) Riflhts. Permits and Approvals The Applicant HAS obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals, with the exception of a grading permit and building permit, which will be required prior to constrUction of the pretreatment facility. (2) The project will not impair property rights held by others. The proposed improvements will occur on property currently owned by the Kummer Development Corporation, property which will soon be conveyed to the Town in fee simple. In the interim, a lease agreement exists that allows the property to be used for the pretreatment facility. This new facility will not result in any additional depletion in Brush Creek. As a result, no injury to downstream water users is anticipated. [+} FINDING: (2) Propertv riflhts of others The project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. The purpose of the proposed pretreatment facility is to upgrade domestic water treated by the Town of Eagle in conformance with the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTIESWTR). No new development will result, and as such those portions of the Eagle County Master Plan that address new development concerns would not be applicable. Best management practices are proposed, including silt fences and straw bale dams, to prevent runoff from the site from entering the nearby stream both during and after construction. In their referral response of September 17, 2004, NWCCOG indicated compliance with the policies and recommendations ofthe 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan. Portions of the improvements will be visible from Brush Creek Road and from several of the home sites proposed for the Frost Creek Development. The Applicant acknowledges the potential for visual impacts, and has submitted plans indicating landscaping that would be installed to mitigate the same. In their referral response of September 15,2004, the Eagle County Planning Commission suggested evergreen trees be used in addition to the deciduous trees planned along the road to improve visual screening (see condition # 2). [+] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with plans The project IS consistent with relevant provisions 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 requirements and conditions. The Town of Eagle has significant experience owning and operating its existing water treatment facility. The proposed pretreatment facility will be constrUcted and installed by qualified contractors. The Town will fund the project, which is expected to cost $3.7 million, through the issuance of water improvement bonds. No increase in water rates or tap fees is proposed in conjunction with this project. The repayment of the bonds will be the responsibility of the Town. 9/28/04 12 [+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial ca1!abilitv The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. The applicant has submitted a Design Report which demonstrates the technical and financial feasibility of the project. The Town will fund the project through the issuance of water improvement bonds. [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazard. A Flood Plain study has been conducted, and the proposed improvements will all be located outside the flood plain of Brush Creek. No other natural hazards have been identified as potential concerns. All reconunendations of the geotechnical study performed by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical (May 17, 2004) will be followed during constrUction. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk from Hazards The project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natural hazard. (7) The project will not have a significant adverse effect 011 land use patterns. The proposed pretreatment facility is required to meet new water quality standards, and will not increase diversions from the creek or the treatment capacity of the existing treatment plant. No new development is proposed, and as such no impact to existing land use patterns will result. [+) FINDING: (7) Land use Patterns The project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on 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 is necessary for the Town of Eagle to provide drinking water consistent with new water quality regulations. No adverse effect on the capability of local governments to provide services is anticipated, nor will the capacity of service delivery systems be exceeded. [+) FINDING: (8) Service capacities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the capability oflocal governments affected by the project 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 of the County. 9/28/04 13 The proposed water system improvements will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and source development area. The Town will fund the project through the issuance of water improvement bonds. No increase in water rates or tap fees is proposed in conjunction with this project, and the repayment of the bonds will be the responsibility of the Town. [+] 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 of the local economy. The installation of a pretreatment facility to provide cleaner drinking water to existing development should not "degrade any current or future sector of the local economy" as contemplated by this standard. [+] FINDING: (10) Protection of Local Economv The project WILL NOT significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. The quality of recreational opportunities and experiences should not be affected. The site is privately owned and remote, and is not used for recreation. Landscaping is proposed to reduce the visibility of improvements from recreational users traveling on Brush Creek Road. Some short term impacts and nuisance factors may be encountered by users of Brush Creek Road during the construction phase. These impacts will cease once the pretreatment facility is completed, and reclamation of disturbed areas and landscaping will immediately follow construction. [+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and expenence. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. No new development is proposed. The Town of Eagle currently works to promote efficient water use and conservation throughout its water system through metering, enforcing a progressive rate strUcture, restricting lawn sizes in new developments, encouraging odd/even day watering, using raw water for irrigation whenever possible and an aggressive leak detection and repair program. No changes to these policies and/or practices are proposed. [+] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation The planning, design and operation of the Project SHALL reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. 9/28/04 14 (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. No new development is proposed, and no adverse air quality impacts should result. Best management practices will be utilized to prevent air borne dust from dispersing into the atmosphere during the period of constrUction. [+] FINDING: (13) Air Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The new pretreatment facility will involve the constrUction of a new building and a series of concrete drying beds immediately adjacent to Brush Creek Road just south of the existing water treatment facility. The building will be painted the same dark green color as the existing water tank, and landscaping is proposed-to. screenthe.slte [rom iheroadtotheeast,. and.(utureresldehtlaflots inihe Frost.CreekpUD to . the west. In their referral response of September 15,2004, the Eagle County Planning C01ll1llission noted the general lack of evergreen trees in the proposed landscape plan, and suggested that evergreens be used to provide adequate screening year round, especially along the road (see condition # 2) [+] FINI)ING: (14) VisualOualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade existing visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. During constrUction, possible short term increases in suspended sediment in Brush Creek will be minimized through use of erosion control strUctures such as silt fences and straw bales. These construction practices, along with re-vegetation after constrUction, are required as a part of the grading permit, and should minimize and filter runoff from the construction site. [+] FINDING: (15) Surface Water Oualltv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface water quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade ground water quality. As indicated in the design report, the proposed improvements involve the installation of water treatment equipment that will be enclosed in a new building and a series of outdoor drying beds and water storage lagoons. The drying beds are shallow poured-in-place concrete structures and the lagoons will be lined to prevent infiltration into the ground. No activities or improvements that might result in the degradation of ground water are anticipated. [+] FINDING: (16) Ground Water Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground water quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. 9/28/04 15 The Applicant has obtained a variance from setback which allows for a minor encroachment into the 75 foot stream setback, and approximately 0.11 acres of identified wetlands will be impacted by construction. With this exception, and reference the referral response from NWCCOG dated September 17, 2004, the plan adequately addresses the protection of the adjacent stream corridor through use of silt fencing and best management practices. With mitigation measures proposed, there should be no significant impacts to wetlands or riparian areas. [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and Riparian Areas The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. An environmental and biotic systems report concluded that no threatened or endangered wildlife exists on the subject parcel, and it is not mapped as significant for elk or deer. Best management practices should protect aquatic environments in the nearby creek. No threats to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife or habitats are anticipated. [+] 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 site consists of a vacant former pasture, with vegetation consisting of meadow grasses and shrub oak, with several aspen trees. A biotic systems report indicated no Harrington Penstemon or other rare or endangered species on the site. Ground disturbance will be minimized and the site will be promptly revegetated following constrUction. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial Plant Life The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. A geotechnical investigation revealed no conditions that would preclude the constrUction of the pretreatment facility as proposed, and identified no negative geologic conditions that would result. All reconunendations of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical will be followed. [+J FINDING: (20) Soils and Geologic Conditions The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. (21) The project will not create a nuisance. Some short term impacts and nuisance factors will be encountered during the constrUction phase, with truck traffic being most noticeable. There are no residential units in proximity to the site, however, and these impacts will cease once the project is completed 9/28/04 16 [+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance The project WILL NOT create a nuisance. (22) The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. The submitted historical resource report (Metcalf Archeological Resources) shows no sites of aleontolo ical, historic or archaeological importance. Therefore, no adverse im act is expected. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontoloeical. Historic or Archaeoloeical areas The project WILL NOT significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in u.nreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. All hazardous materials associated with domestic water treatment and pretreatment will be handled and stored per accepted standards, and all related regulatory requirements will be followed. The facility will be located outside the 100 year flood plain. In their referral response of September 22, Eagle County Environmental Health noted the potential fro a spill, and recommended a Hazardous Materials Management Plan be required for the facility (see condition # 3). [+] 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, COllllnercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. As described above, the anticipated losses of natural or cultural resource are minimal. The benefit of improved drinking water for all users on the Town of Eagle domestic water system is significant. The proposed pretreatment facility is necessary to meet the requirements of the Long Term I Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTIESWTR). [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits Outweieh Losses The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the project DO 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. B) Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects. and as more specifically described in the application for the Town of Eagle Pretreatment Facility, 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. No new development is proposed. The Town of Eagle currently works to promote efficient water use and conservation throughout its water system through metering, implementing a progressive rate strUcture, restricting lawn sizes in new developments, encouraging odd/even day watering, using raw water for 9/28/04 17 irrigation whenever possible and its on-going leak detection and repair program. No changes to these policies and/or practices are proposed. [+] 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 shall not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The project is proposed to provide pretreatment to Eagle's existing water treatment system only. No change in capacity will result. No other water systems will serve the affected area. [+] FINDING: (2) Excess CalJacitv/DulJlicate 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 will improve the quality of treated water, and is necessary to meet the requirements of the Long Term I Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTlESWTR), which the Town must conform to by January of2005. No change in treatment capacity is proposed. [+] 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 sanitatiou systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas No new development is proposed, best management practices will be used to control and treat storm water runoff and plans are in place to promptly re~vegetate and reclaim areas disturbed during the construction of the pretreatment facility. The related drying beds and water lagoons will all be impervious to infiltration into the ground. [+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer Recharf!e Areas 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. C) Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Applicable to Ma;or New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems and Ma;or Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Svstems. and as more specifically described in the application for the Town of Eagle Pretreatment Facility, the following additional analysis is provided. 9/28/04 18 (1) The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LTIESWTR) requires the proposed pretreatment be added to the Town's existing water treatment plant. [+] FINDING: (1) Reasonablv Necessarv to meet demands The Project IS reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. (2) To the extent reasonable, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. The proposed pretreatment facility will be located inunediately adjacent to the existing water treatment plant and will be an integral expansion of the existing water treatment system. [+J FINDING: (2) Consolidation with Existin1! Facilities The proposed water treatment facilities SHALL BE consolidated with existing facilities within the area. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be construct(!d in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatm(!nt systems of adjacent communities. The proposed pretreatment facility has been designed and located to fully utilize and compliment the existing filtration facilities ofthe Town of Eagle Water Treatment Plant. The development of water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities will not be impacted by this proposal. [+] FINDING: (3) Proper Utilization of Existin1! Facilities The Project SHALL BE constructed in an area which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic vv'ater and sev/age treatment systems of adjacent c01ll1llunities. (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. No new growth or development is anticipated from the proposed "extension", which will simply improve the quality of water being treated. There will be no impact to the financial and environmental capacities of the area. 9/28/04 19 (+] FINDING: (4) Financial and Environmental Capacitv 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. Special Use Permit Waiver In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, 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 Review Use permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Permit requirements as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. Cliff Simonton presented this file to the Board. His slide show detailed the project and illustrated the applicant's request. He stated that the Town of Eagle is requesting a 1041 permit. The site is 7 miles south of town on Brush Creek Road. He next showed various pictures of the property, detailing where various buildings would be placed. Much of the facility would be hidden due to the slope of the road and the existing landscaping. The town has erected fences to keep people off-site and minimize erosion. The site plan showed where, specifically, the building, water tanks, and drying beds would be located. All buildings and equipment on the site will be painted dark green to minimiZe their visual impact on the surrounding area. All water will be returned to the system, causing no release of water into Brush Creek. The building is within the 35 feet of the Brush Creek Road right of way, but the variances for this were approved earlier by the Board. All 32 findings listed in the staff report are positive and staff reco111l11ended approval with conditions. Da.vid Duspo, William Powell, and Dusty Walls ofthe Town of Eagle were present to answer the Board's questions. William Powell, town manager, stated that the town will address and comply with all four conditions. There were no members of the public present forcomment. The only persons present were owners or managers of the property. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the function of the drying beds Was. Dusty Walls of the Town of Eagle stated that they are for separating solids from the water and to allow them to be hauled away. He stated that this is the upstream terminus of the water system. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they plan to go further upstream for construction in the future. Mr. Powell stated that they do not, that they are focusing further downstream, in the lower basin, for future projects. Their Water Master Plan indicates construction at the confluence of Brush Creek and the Eagle Rivers. Commissioner Gallagher asked why this 1041 has conditions, as this is not usually thecase. Chairman Stone stated that it is possible to have external conditions that ate separate from the findings. The only restriction to these conditions is that they can not turn a negative finding into a positive finding. He then went through all 32 findings given in the staff report to make sure that the Commissioners agree with them. The other commissioners all agreed that these were positive findings. C0111l11issioner Menconi moved to approve File No. 1041-0056, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review and incorporating Staffs findings, with the following conditions: 1. That a grading permit be obtained from Eagle County Engineering for the preparation of the site and a building permit be obtained from the Eagle County Department of Community Development for the construction of theppretreatment facility. 9/28/04 20 2. That a Hazardous Materials Management Plan for the treatment plant be submitted and approved by Eagle County Environmental Health prior to issuance of a building permit for constrUction of the new facility. 3. That a landscape plan indicating additional evergreen trees of appropriate size in the area between the proposed drying beds and Brush Creek Road for the purpose of visual screening be submitted with and made a part of the application for a building permit. 4. 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. Commissioner Gallagher offered an amendment to the second condition, that the Emergency Preparedness Director f01" Eagle County also approve the Plan, which Commissioner Menconi accepted, and then seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00120 - Ea21e-VailWarehouse Adam Palmer, Planner, Community Development NOTE: This file is tabled from 9/14 ACTION: To constrUct a warehouse distribution facility to serve Vail and Beaver Creek TITLE: Vail Resorts Eagle-Vail Warehouse FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-00120 / Special Use Permit LOCATION: 40819 US Highway 6 OWNER: Vail Resorts/Beaver Creek Metro District APPLICANT: Vail ResortslMauriello Planning REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello STAFFRECOM'Ml3NDATION: Approval with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. (7-0 vote). PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: As for the condition to require applicant to construct sidewalk along frontage of property: Question validity of placing sidewalk in the middle of nowhere, but since a fund to place cash in lieu of for future construction does not exist, nor does a tool to force reconstrUction at a later date, support sidewalk constrUction as a condition. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Special Use Permit application to allow construction of warehouse distribution and office facility to support Vail and ISeaver Creek mountain operations. Facility to be 2-story 29,750 fe (14,875 if footprint). B. CHRONOLOGY: 1974: Lots 6,7,8 platted and recorded with Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 1974: Xce1 Energy purchased lots 6,7,8 for office and storage. Finished offices in existing building and added addition. 2004: Lots 6,7,8 sold to Vail Corporation and Beaver Creek Metro District collectively as shared ownership. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Gorsuch Ltd. office/warehouse, Shaeffer ConstrUction yard/commercial general zoning West: Beaver Creek Metro District (amended final plat required)/commercial general zoning North: Traer Creek LLC/resource zoning South: Eagle-Vail Business Center, various retail/restaurant/service businesses/commercial general zoning 9/28/04 21 Existing Zoning: Total Area: Access: Commercial General 2.95 acres US Highway 6 STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle River Fire Protection District . Please reference attached letter dated September 7, 2004. Eagle County Engineering . Please reference attached Memorandum dated August 24, 2004. Eagle County Housing Authority . Please reference attached letter dated August 10, 2004 . Please reference applicant response letter dated August 24, 2004. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . Please reference attached letter dated July 28, 2004. Eco Trails . Please reference attached Memorandum dated August 20, 2004. . Please reference applicant response letter dated August 24, 2004. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District . Please reference attached letter dated August 23, 2004. Adjacent Property Owners: Dr. Chris & Hillary Roth . Please reference attached letter dated August 16, 2004. AdditionalReferral A!!encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Sheriff, CDOT, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Bureau of Land Management, QwestlCentury Tel, Public ServiceIKN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Natural Resource Conservation Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, Eagle River Fire Protection District. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN 9/28/04 22 The proposed development and use is in keeping with the intent of the commercial zone district in Eagle Vail as recognized by the Master Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatihility [Section 5-250.B.2] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The subject property is located adjacent to and ingress/egress is via US Highway 6. This vicinity of Eagle County has historically served commercial businesses since at least 1974 when the subject property was initially subdivided for such purposes. The use proposed is not anticipated to negatively impact the subject site or the character of the surrounding area. [+] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5'-250.BJ] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular uSe, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource UseS and Section 3- 330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. This proposed warehouse distribution and office facility will comply with all applicable commercial and industrial performance standards. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-320, Review Standards Applicable to Commercial and Industrial Zone Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] B The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Proposed use will increase traffic, service delivery, parking and loading at the subject property. These impacts, however, are considered to be within allowable levels given the zoning district, surrounding uses, and access routes. Structure design is to reduce visual and auditory impacts of service delivery vehicles accessing site. The warehouse/ distribution center also eliminates need for large tractor/trailer service delivery vehicles to access resort centers for such uses. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid 9/28/04 23 significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] B The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The existing site has been previously developed, graded, and partially paved. The applicant requests postponing completion of the final drainage plan until final building plans are completed. It is staff s recommendation that this be a condition of approval. Engineering comments (see attached memorandum dated August 24) will be met as part of the building permit approval process prior to issuance of a building permit for the subject property. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5~250.B.5] The proposed Special Use must minimize environmental impacts that MAY cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed site modifications WILL BE mitigated. . STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] B The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The site is adequately served by public facilities. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staffhasfound that the proposed development meets the ~4rticle 4 standard ([ +]) or does not meet the standard ([ '" ]), or the standard does not apply ([n/a]). [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards The proposed parking lot improvements will increase the total parking beyond the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces. [+] Division 4-2. Landscaping and Illumination Standards The site was previously developed with little to no landscaping. Additional landscaping will be installed pursuant to the submitted landscape plan. [+] Division 4-3. Sign Regulations All signs identifying the facility will be required to conform to the Sign Code. 9/28/04 24 [+] Division 4-4, Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The site is not located in any mapped critical wildlife areas. Existing Eagle River Easement and Walk Access as identified in the final plat are not to be impacted. Proposal complies with lOO-year floodplain and 50 feet setback from high water mark. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subject to Geologic Hazards Potential geologic hazards were evaluated prior to the time the building permit was issued for the existing facility. No geologic hazards have subsequently been identified. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards The County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist notes that the site is located in a Low Wildfire Hazard area. He further notes that the site is in compliance with the Eagle county defensible space requirements. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards although it is not anticipated that the warehouse facility will be equipped with a wood burning device. [nla] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map as having possible ridge line impacts. [n/a] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this Special Use Permit. [+] Division 4-5, Commercial and fudustrial Performance Standards. The operation of the proposed facility shall comply with these standards as they apply to noise and vibration; smoke and particulates; heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference; hazardous and non- hazardous material storage; and water quality standards. [nla] Division 4-6, Improvements Standards The site is already improved with established infrastructure. No additional infrastructure improvements are required. [+] Division 4-7, Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [nla] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not result in a net increase in dwelling units, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees Road Impact Fees are applicable pursuant to Section 4-710. 9/28/04 25 [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed use complies with this standard as it pertains to Special Uses. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Adam Palmer ofCornmunity Development presented this request for a Special Use Permit to the Board. He stated that the lots were platted in 1974 and were sold to Vail Resorts and Beaver Creek Metro District, as a collective ownership, early in 2004. The easements were vacated on this property at a board hearing earlier this month. Aerial photos of the property were shown to the commissioners. The internal lot lines are to be eliminated and create two parcels, and the amended final plat is still being worked on. There is an existing 50 foot high water setback and Eagle River Easement, which were pointed out on the maps. There is one point of access proposed, along with a turnaround easement. The applicant proposes adding significant landscaping to screen the parking area from Hwy. 6. A final drainage plan has not been approved but will be part of the final building permit. All staff findings are positive and staff recommends approval with conditions. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, was present and agreed with the presentation. lIe stated that the applicant is in agreement with the six conditions for approval. There were no members of the public present for comment. The only persons present were owners or managers of the property. CornmissionerMenconi asked what the purpose was for Condition 3, concerning the sidewalk construction. Mr. Palmer stated that while a sidewalk doesn't currently exist, it was decided to have the applicant build it now so that it will be in place for future re-development that occurs in the area. Mr. Mauriello stated that the applicant is prepared to put the sidewalk in, but would prefer not to, at this time. They are willing to listen to alternatives to this, such as putting the money aside for trail construction, as they don't think any additions will be made to the sidewalk in the future. Commissioner Gallagher asked for various items on the site plan be pointed out to him. He asked if the two \.~/arehouses \-vill be consolidated to this area or if only one was being moved. Mr. Mauriello stated that they are consolidating; however for Vail, it may only be a temporary move. This is primarily for the Beaver Creek warehouses. Commissioner Gallagher asked if anyone knew what Beaver Creek Metro District had planned for its parcel. Mr. Mauriello stated that the plans include maintenance facilities, a bus wash, materials storage, and vehicle parking. These are permitted uses, which is why they are not part of this PUD. Commissioner Gallagher asked for clarification as to why there is a sidewalk being built. Justin Hildreth stated that this is to try and improve pedestrian access on Hwy. 6, based on the Highway 6 Corridor Study. The specifications here will be adhered to by succeeding applicants. Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant how they plant to dispose of the existing building on site. Bob McIlween of Vail Resorts stated the proposal with Eagle River Fire District for this was basically dead. Commissioner Gallagher moved that to approve File No. ZS-00120, incorporating the staff findings with the following conditions: I. Approval conditional upon final signature and recording of the associated Amended Final Plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder which creates the subject property. An Amended Site Plan will be 9/28/04 26 required concurrently with the Resolution signature of the Amended Final Plat if the site is significantly altered therein. Amended Site Plan is to be approved by the Director of Community Development. If plat amendments significantly alter the proposed application originally approved, a subsequent application submittal will be required. 2. Applicant to accommodate the construction of a section of the core trail through the pedestrian easement at the rear of the property, if necessary. The core trail will be designed by Eagle County to minimize site disturbance but may also need to be located to avoid hazards (e.g. steep slopes) and costs related to those hazards (i.e. railings and walls). If the core trail is constructed at the rear of the property within the existing pedestrian easement, applicant will work with Eagle County to relocate or mitigate obstacles to the construction (e.g. boulders, fencing) at the applicant's expense if those items are constructed within the easement. 3. Applicant to construct pedestrian sidewalk at frontage of subject property along US Highway 6 as recommended in the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study. 4. Applicant to complete final drainage plan to Engineering for approval prior to issuance of a building permit for development of subject property. 5. New property line utility and drainage easements are to be dedicated to the public on the accompanying Amended Final Plat. 6. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00113 Hobbs Processin2 Plant Joseph Forinash, Planner, Community Development ACTION: Special Use Permit for a concrete and asphalt crushing and recycling operation LOCATION: South of US Hwy 6, between Gypsum and Dotsero (aka 06024 Hwy 6) TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hobbs Processing Plant ZS-00113 / Special Use Permit Frankie .LA,... Vl ard Stewart Hobbs Stewart Hobbs Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Denial (6-1) With concern expressed regarding [1] industrial/residential conflict; [2] visual impacts; [3] dust problems in the area; and [4] a lack of a storrilwater management plan, dust control plan, reclamation plan, and a detailed weed control plan. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: · Requirement for acceleration / deceleration lanes. . Whether the existing trailer is in the floodplain. · Size of the proposed area ofre-cycling operations. · Whether any "retail" operations would occur on-site. · Proposed signage or security lighting. . Total amount of materials to be stockpiled on-site. 9/28/04 27 . Frequency of the crushing operation. . Hours of operation. . Applicant's intent to implement weed control. . How concerns of adjacent property owners have been addressed. . Nature of any waste materials that would be generated, if any. . How will noise concerns be addressed, and whether a berm would be sufficient. . Potential contamination, including oil and grease, of the floodplain and the Eagle River. . How dust from stored materials and crushing operations would be minimized. . Willingness to limit the amount of time of crusher operations. . What size of stockpile would trigger bringing the crusher to the site. . Number of crushers in the valley. . Source of water and related water rights. . Re-cycling is needed in the west end of the valley; very important due to the more limited sources for gravel in the valley. . Time limit on a special uSe permit, similar to mining operations, would be appropriate. . Setback from riparian areas of 75 feet, per comment from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, is appropriate. . Whether any hazardous materials would be generated. . Whether this kind of operation is appropriate at the entrance to Eagle County, and whether an 8 foot berm would be sufficient to visually buffer, given the elevation ofI-70 above the site. . CDOT stockpiles similar materials along 1-70. . Nature of proposed stormwater management plan. . Review on progress of weed control efforts is necessary. . A stormwater management plan is necessary. . The industrial vs. residential aspect is important. . There are significant other light industrial uses in this area, but not the same level of noise. Established residential uses must be considered. . Important to clean up the site and move the existing mobile home out of the floodplain. . Prior code enforcement problem is a concern. . Concern regarding long-term impacts on wildlife. . Inadequate efforts to work with adjacent property owners regarding impacts. . Area designated rural on Future Land Use Map. . Other more appropriate areas should be considered for this type of operation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Special Use Permit application to allow a concrete and asphalt re-cycling operation. Scrap concrete and asphalt would be brought to the site and, from time to time, a portable crusher would be brought in to process the scrap materials. The processed materials would be stored on-site until trucked off-site for use. B. CHRONOLOGY: 2003 - Stop-Work Order issued by Code Enforcement in response to a complaint that truckloads of dirt were being brought onto the site, some of which were being dumped within the floodplain. 2003 - Grading Permit issued for overlot grading in anticipation of approval of this Special Use Permit. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Single family residential; Bureau of Land Management / Resource West: Single family Residential/Resource North: Hwy 6 & 1-70 / Resource 9/28/04 28 South: Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: Bureau of Land Management / Resource Resource 45.5 acres Surface water diversion for dust control (individual well for residence?) Portable latrine (individual sewage disposal system for residence?) U.S. Highway 6 STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering . The application proposes a diversion berm to control runoff. Details of the berm and how it will prevent runoff from discharging directly into the Colorado River is requested. . The physical extent of where the Special Use activities are allowed on the property should be accurately defined to prevent the uses from migrating into the floodplain and wetlands. Eagle County Housing . The Applicant states that he wish to retain an older double-wide mobile home to be used for employee housing, but there is not other statement regarding a housing plan. This is not enough information for the Housing Department to comment on at this time. . The Applicant is referred to the Housing Guidelines for guidance in preparing a housing plan. Another document which the Applicant may find useful is titled Housing Your Workforce: A Resource Guide for Colorado Rural Resort Emplovers. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The site will rate in the Low wildfire hazard category. . No mitigation will be necessary for the proposed use. . If additional structures are to be added at a later date, it is recommended that defensible space be developed around them. Eagle County Road & Bridge . This project is not accessed by any County roads, nor are there County roads in the vicinity. . Road & Bridge Department has no issue with the application. Eagle County Weed & Pest . Salt cedar (Tamarix chinesis, T. parviflora, and T.ramosissima), a Colorado List B Noxious Weed Species, currently infests several acres on and adjacent to the proposed crushing location (the private parcel and the CDOT Highway 6 right-of-way). . This plant's current distribution within the Eagle River Watershed is rare above the Town of Gypsum. . Salt cedar spreads by wind borne, or vehicle transported seeds and vegetative plant parts. Material stock piles located within close proximity would most likely be contaminated with salt cedar seeds. . The distribution throughout Eagle County of recycled material(s) infested with viable salt cedar seeds from the proposed site is of concern to Weed & Pest Staff. . Prior to storage of materials for recycling or the distribution of materials from the proposed site, eradication of the salt cedar infestation would curtail the possibility of spreading this plant off-site. Cut stump applications using an approved herbicide would be the preferred control method to prevent re- growth slash should be piled in a dry area or chipped. . Eradication would be considered successful if no salt cedar sprouts produced a seed-head or bloomed throughout the subsequent summer seasons. . If this file is approved, Weed & Pest Staff requests permission to enter the site during "normal" business hours to ensure no salt cedar remains. 9/28/04 29 · Eradication is defined in the Colorado Noxious Weed Act to mean reducing the reproductive success of a noxious weed species or specified noxious weed population in largely uninfested regions to zero and permanently eliminating the species or population within a specified period time. Once all specified weed populations are eliminated or prevented from reproducing, intensive efforts continue until the existing seed bank is exhausted. ECO Trails [Verbal comments from Ellie Caryl, Trails Planner, on 27 August 2004] · If road improvements are to be made on Highway 6, widened shoulders for bike riders would be useful. COlorado Department of Transportation [Verbal comments from Keith Powers, CDOT Engineer, on 12 August 2004] · The application indicates that traffic will include 40 vehicles per day. No information is provided regarding the time of day of the anticipated trips. · At the projected traffic level, no pavement widening is required. · Application is being referred to the local CDOT Maintenance Supervisor to review potential impacts of the proposed truck traffic on the Highway 6 roadway. · StraW bales are proposed for erosion control. Better devices are available, such as erosion logs. · Proposed improvements, including grading and placement of the eight foot straw bale wall, are proposed to be in the Highway 6 right~of-way and adjacent to the roadway. All improvements should be outside of the Highway 6 right-of-way. [Note from CDOT Traffic and Safety Section in Grand Junction] · Access permit application will go through Eagle County as Permit Issuing Authority. ColoradO Water Conservation Board · Any development within an identified Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) will require a Floodplain Development Permit. · It was difficult to determine exactly where the limits of construction are placed, but if ANY activity occurs in the Eagle River floodplain, a Floodplain Development Permit should be applied for and issued. The conditions of the permit will be dictated by your local ordinance. Colorado Division of Water Resources · No comment - the Division comments only on proposals for subdivision. Colorado Division of Wildlife · This area is classified as both elk and mule deer winter range and severe winter range. · Impacts can be minimized by providing seventy-five foot setbacks from the riparian areas and insuring that wildlife continues to have an unimpeded travel corridor through the project site. · The Division applauds the applicant for employing bear-proof garbage disposal. US Army Corps of Engineers · In accordance with Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act, a Department ofthe Army permit is required for any discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States. Additional Referral A2encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Assessor, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Western Eagle County Ambulance District, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Colorado Dept of Health & Environment (Air & Water Quality), Colorado State Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), US Bureau of Land Management. B. DISCUSSION: 9/28/04 30 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. Xl = The proposed use does not avoid critical wildlife habitat areas, however, conditions of approval are recommended which are intended to minimize adverse impacts on these critical wildlife habitat areas. Recommended conditions of approval are also provided to preserve surface water quality. x? - No land would be preserved as open space as a result of this Special Use Permit. The proposed uSe is contrary to any desire to preserve an open space corridor between Gypsum and Dotsero to promote its individual physical identity and to maintain the character of the County. There is no provision which would provide public access to public lands and the Eagle River. x3 ~ Approval of this Special Use Permit would tend to support and encourage the diversity of the County's economic base and with the recommended conditions of approval, may strike a balance between protection ofthe County's natural environmental assets and the quality of life for residents and visitors, and economic development. The recommended conditions of approval may adequately mitigate the potentially adverse impacts of the proposed use. x4 - The proposal does not provide local resident housing as that term is used in the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. XS - The proposed use would expand recycling services within Eagle County and would encourage businesses to use recycled products. x6 ~This site is located in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Rural. The Rural designation includes lands which are used as ranch lands and for other agricultural or resource-oriented purposes. Commercial activities are to be "limited to isolated uses which are permitted by special review when they are compatible with the character of adjacent uses and meet the other criteria of the Land Use Code". The proposed use mayor may not fully satisfy these criteria. 9/28/04 31 Xl - The recomlTIended conditions of approval are intended to maintain surface water quality on and downstream of tht. site. x2 - The proposed use would avoid potential wetlands and riparian zones. The recommended conditions of approval are intended to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife. x3 ~ No public access to the Eagle River is proposed as a part oftms Special Use Permit. x4 ~ With adequate mitigation, the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent Eagle River. Xl - The proposed use may be sensitive to the open space values of enhancing community identity and maintaining a rura.l atmosphere, protecting natural and social resources, maintaining visual quality, controlling development in unsuitable areas, and providing areas for recreation. x2 - The proposed use may be compatible with the preservation of the high visual quality along the 1-70 corridor, although certain conditions of approval are recommended to mitigate visual impacts. x3 ~ The proposed use may be appropriately located in and around an existing cOmlTIunity in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas x4_ The proposed use may be compatible with the wildlife in the area and not adversely affect the viability of wildlife groups, although certain conditions of approval are recommended to mitigate potentially adverse impacts. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue · Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . · Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county · Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: I ITEM YES !. NO !. N/AI 9/28/04 32 ITEM I. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . Xl 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl - The employee housing included as a part ofthis proposed use does conform to the standards for local resident housing as that term is discussed in the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. (+/-J FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.I] The proposed Special Use MAY BE appropriate for its proposed location and IS, IN PART, consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Immediately to the northeast and west of this site are, at least in part, single family residential uses. However, the residential use immediately to the west is a greater distance from this site than is the residential use to the northeast. Further to the west are other industrial and commercial uses. Further to the east is an RV park. The most significant adverse impacts are likely to occur to the residents and owners of the residential property to the northeast, and to a certain extent, to the public in terms of potentially adverse visual impacts from 1-70. However, the residents of the dwelling located on-site, intended to be retained as housing for an employee of the Applicant, is also subject to significant adverse impacts. The conditions of approval proposed in this staff report are intended to adequately mitigate adverse impacts. However, the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures is subject to the review of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. 9/28/04 33 [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avplicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The site is located in the Resource zone district. "Processing" is allowed subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. Processing is further defined to be an industrial operation in which there is a change in the physical state or chemical compositions of matter. Section 3-310.P., Exploration. Extraction and Procession Operations, also provides certain requirements which are applicable in this case. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required, and it has been determined that the EIR submitted as part of this application is sufficient. In addition, it must be demonstrated that the proposed operation will comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the county, state and federal governments and not adversely affect the existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution, adjacent land uses, or wildlife and domestic animals. A sufficient landscape plan, collateralized if necessary, is required. And, materials stored out of doors are required to be obscured by an opaque fence. Recommended conditions of approval intended to satisfy these requirements are provided elsewhere in this staff report. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5'-250.B.3] With the recommended condition, the proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] - The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. The site plan and other drawings indicate that grading and other improvements, including the straw bale fence, are intended to extend into the Highway 6 right-of-way and nearly up to the roadway pavement. The plans should be revised to clearly indicate that all improvements will be conducted on- site. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, the site plans and other engineering detail should be revised to show that all improvements related to the recycling operation are limited to the on-site pad as otherwise shown but outside of the Highway 6 right-of-way. [Condition # 1] It should also be noted that in the letter dated 30 August 2004 from Richard Migchelbrink, the Applicant's engineer, that the intent is to allow the operations which are the subject of this Special Use Permit to occur anywhere on the site except in areas otherwise prohibited by regulations, i.e., wetland and floodplain areas. However, the site plan and related drawings appear to limit the operations to a smaller area that the engineer's statement would indicate. As a condition of approval, all gravel 9/28/04 - 34 stockpiling and recycling operations should be limited to within the prepared pad shown on the site plan and related drawings. [Condition # 2] An 8 foot high straw bale wall is proposed to be located on the north side of the area dedicated to the recycling operation, and on portions of the east and west sides, the purpose of which is to reduce off- site noise and visual impacts. A more appropriate means of providing a visual and sound buffer would be landscaped berm, as discussed below under Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, an 8 foot berm should be created along the north property line adjacent to the Highway 6 right-of-way and along portions of the west and east sides of the re-cycling site, and prior to June 1,2005, trees should be planted per Section 4-230.B.l., Planting Strips, and ground cover and/or other means to provide a more effective visual buffer, should be installed and maintained, all consistent with a Detailed Landscape Plan approved by the Director of Community Development. [Condition # 3] The potentially adverse impacts related to odors, noise, glare, and vibration are discussed below under Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. As a condition of approval, all operations on this property should conform to the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 4] The Application indicates that in addition to an existing doublewide mobile home, there are several travel trailers, tractor trailers, sheds and junk cars on the site which will be removed when ownership of the property is conveyed to him. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock -piling of materials or re-cycling operations, the several travel trailers, tractor trailers, sheds and junk cars which are located on the site should be removed and properly relocated or disposed of as represented in the application. [Condition # 5] The proximity of residential use to the east and west of this site, and the nature of the proposed use, raises the potential for the use to become a nuisance to the adjacent property owners. Conditions of approval proposed elsewhere in this staff report are intended to adequately mitigate any nuisance effect. However, the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures and the potential for the proposed use to be a nuisance to adjacent and nearby property owners are subject to the review of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. [+/-] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] With the recotnmended condition, the design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] - The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The site includes two wetlands areas and the floodplain associated with the Eagle River. The site plan and other engineering detail indicates that the proposed operations will not impact the wetlands or the floodplain. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail should be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] In addition, the Eagle County Wildlife Habitat maps indicate that this site is located in the elk severe winter range, the mule deer winter range, severe winter range and winter concentration areas, and on 9/28/04 35 the fringe of a sage grouse production area. Given that the re-cycling operation is proposed to be intermittent, and limits are proposed to limit the times of operation, the re-cycling operation is likely to have a minimal adverse impact on wildlife. However, an existing residence is proposed to continue to be in use. Adverse impacts due to residents on-site should not be allowed to impact wildlife. In addition, human-bear encounters continue to be a likely occurrence. As a condition of approval, the following should apply to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife and human-bear encounters: [a] Dogs kept on site by residents should be limited to two in number and shall not be allowed to run at-large; [b] dogs not owned by on-site residents should not be allowed on-site; [c] all storage of refuse, either outside or in accessory buildings, should be in conformance with Section 4-410C., Wildlife Proof Refuse ContainerlDumpster Enclosure Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; [d] no compost piles should be permitted unless such piles are contained in approved bear proof receptacles; [e] pets should not be fed outside; [f] with the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife to the site should be prohibited; and [g] all fences, other than those located within 25 feet of a dwelling such as for the purpose of restraining dogs, should comply with Colorado Division of Wildlife standards regarding maximum height and the placement and/or number of rails or strands. [Condition # 7] An 8 foot high straw bale wall is proposed to be located on the north side of the area dedicated to the recycling operation, and on portions of the east and west sides, the purpose of which is to reduce off- site noise and visual impacts. A more appropriate means of providing a visual and sound buffer would be landscaped berm, as discussed below under Division 4-2, LaIidscaping and Illumination Standards. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, an 8 foot berm should be created along the north property line adjacent to the Highway 6 right-of-way and along portions of the west and east sides of the re-cycling site, and prior to June 1, 2005, trees should be planted per Section 4-230.B.1., Planting Strips, and ground cover and/or other means to provide a more effective visual buffer, should be installed and maintained, all consistent with a Detailed Landscape Plan approved by the Director of Cpmmunity Development. [Condition # 3] The Eagle County Engineering Department notes that the diversion berm shown on the plans is proposed to control runoff, but that details regarding the berm and how it will prevent runoff from discharging directly into the Eagle River are incomplete. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail should be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) notes that better devices than straw bales, such as erosion logs, are available for erosion control. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock~piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail should be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Eagle County Weed and Pest Coordinator has noted that salt cedar, a Colorado List B Noxious Weed Species, infests several acres on and adjacent to the proposed crushing location, including the proposed site and the adjacent Highway 6 right-of-way. The concern is that salt cedar, since it spreads by wind borne or vehicle transported seeds and vegetative plant parts, there is a significant likelihood of spreading the infestation throughout Eagle County and adjacent counties. Eradication of the salt cedar infestation would curtail the possibility of spreading this plant off-site. Weed and Pest recommends that the salt cedar infestation be eradicated prior to storage of materials for recycling or stockpiling and distribution of materials from the site. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations~ a Site Specific Noxious Weed Control Plan should be developed and implemented in a manner and to a point satisfactory to the Director of Community Development in consultation with the Weed and Pest Coordinator, and further implemented to effectively and permanently eradicate noxious weeds on the site. [Condition # 8] 9/28/04 36 As a further condition of approval, access to the site should be granted to the Eagle County Weed and Pest Staff during normal business hours to inspect for noxious weeds. [Condition # 9] [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The site is adjacent to Highway 6. A highway access permit application has been submitted to the Eagle County Engineer. A portable toilet is proposed to be available on site when operations are occurring and when employees are present. Water proposed for the site includes a proposed purchase of 1/16 cfs from the Langdon Ditch, the purpose of which is to water the site to prevent the occurrence of fugitive dust. The Applicant has not dernonstrated that the proposed use of the water to be purchased includes the purpose intended as part of this Special Use Permit. ill addition, a condition of approval recommended above requires irrigation of certain landscape improvements. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that sufficient water rights, in compliance with Colorado Law, are available for dust suppression and landscape irrigation purposes. [Condition # 10] Police and fire protection and emergency medical services are located within reasonable proximity to the site. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical sefV1ces. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([+]) or does not meet the standard '([-]), or the standard does not apply ([n/a]). [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards The site is adequate to meet the parking and loading and snow storage standards. [+] Division 4-2, Landscaping; and Illumination Standards The only landscaping proposed for this site is an 8 feet high wall of straw bales on the north side along Highway 6 and portions of the east and west sides of the parcel. A single family 9/28/04 37 dwelling exists to the east of the parcel in close proximity to the proposed location of the re- cycling operations. Section 4-230, Landscaping Design Standards and Materials, requires that landscaping be installed to effectively buffer proposed commercial or industrial uses from surrounding residential uses and to provide a landscaped buffer along collector and arterial streets. Highway 6 is designated as a major collector. Further, landscape materials are required to be live, although non-live ground cover, such as decorative gravel, bark mulch, river rock or similar materials may be used, depending on the geographic area of the County. Due to the proposed height and visibility, the proposed straw bales seem to be significantly different that the non-live materials contemplated in the Land Use Regulations, and are not appropriate for the purposes of providing a visual buffer. Section 4-230 also requires that a planting strip along all property lines where a street right-of- way is located adjacent to a parking area containing more than 15 spaces. Whilethis site does not include a parking lot per se, the standard is suitable for providing a visual and sound buffer that is more appropriate than the proposed straw bale fence. The standard requires a screen, a minimum of 10 feet in width and consisting of a berm, wall, plant material or combination thereof, be installed a minimum of 80 percent of the length property line. Trees ate required every 25 feet, although some massing is permitted. In addition, ground cover or other means to prevent fugitive dust from the berms and to provide a more attractive visual buffer would also help to mitigate the impacts of the proposed special use activity. Similar berms on the east and west sides of the re-cycling area would also be appropriate. The water proposed to be used for dust suppression would also provide irrigation for the vegetation associated with the berms. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, an 8 foot berm should be created along the north property line adjacent to the Highway-6-right-..of-..way-and-along-portions-ofthewest-and-east-sides-of-the-re;eye-Hng-site. --~-_._- and prior to June 1, 2005, trees should be planted per Section 4-230.B.l., Plantint! Strips, and ground cover and/or other means to provide a more effective visual buffer, should be installed and maintained, all consistent with a Detailed Landscape Plan approved by the Director of Community Development. [Condition # 3] In addition, the site plan and other drawings indicate that grading and other improvements are intended to extend into the Highway 6 right-of-way and nearly up to the roadway pavement. As a condition of approval, prior to begi!Hling the stock-piling of materials or re-cycli!lg operations, the site plans and other engineering detail should be revised to show that all improvements related to the recycling operation are limited to the on,..site pad as otherwise shown but outside of the Highway 6 right-of-way. [Condition # 1] [+] Division 4-3. Sign Regulations All signs will be required to conform to the Sign Code. [+] Division 4-4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The Eagle County Wildlife Habitat maps indicate that this site is located in the elk severe winter range, the mule deer winter range, severe winter range and winter concentration areas, and on the fringe of a sage grouse production area. Given that the re-cycling operation is proposed to be intermittent, and limits are proposed to limit the times of operation, the re- 9/28/04 38 cycling operation is likely to have a minimal adverse impact on wildlife. However, an existing residence is proposed to continue to be in use. Adverse impacts due to residents on-site should not be allowed to impact wildlife. In addition, human-bear encounters continue to be a likely occurrence. As a condition of approval, the following should apply to minimize adverse impacts on wildlife and human-bear encounters: [a] Dogs kept on site by residents should be limited to two in number and shall not be allowed to run at-large; [b] dogs not owned by on- site residents should not be allowed on-site; [c] all storage of refuse, either outside or in accessory buildings, should be in conformance with Section 4-4l0C., Wildlife Proof Refuse Container/Dumpster Enclosure Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; [d] no compost piles should be permitted unless such piles are contained in approved bear proof receptacles; [e] pets should not be fed outside; [fJ with the exception of bird feeders, the feeding, baiting, salting, or other means of attracting wildlife to the site should be prohibited; and [g] all fences, other than those located within 25 feet of a dwelling such as for the purpose of restraining dogs, should comply with Colorado Division of Wildlife standards regarding maximum height and the placement and/or number of rails or strands. [Condition # 7] [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards The site is located in a debris fan area. No geologic hazards are particularly noteworthy. The proposed operations are not likely to significantly increase the geologic hazards. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has noted that the site will rate in the "Low" wildfire hazard category, and that no mitigation will be necessary for the proposed use. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Buming Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [nla) Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report ..:A&.oIC11 adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. [+] Division 4-5. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. [+} Section 4-520: Noise and Vibration Standards The Environmental Impact Report provided in the application reports that ambient noise levels on the site are as much as 84 decibels due to the proximity of traffic on 1-70 and Highway 6. It should be noted, however, that these noise levels are intermittent rather than constant. The Applicant has stated that the representative of the crusher equipment manufacturer reports that the noise level for a similar crusher is from 70 to 82 decibels, presumably a constant noise level. While the Applicant does not clearly and specifically identify the equipment model proposed to be used for the crushing operation, the application asserts that the equipment proposed to be used would be less noisy because it is portable (set on rubber tires vs. hard tracks), and has a smaller crusher, feeder and engine. 9/28/04 39 This section of the Land Use Regulations establishes standards for permissible noise and vibrations. These performance standards require that every use shall be operated such that the noise level produced does not inherently and recurrently exceed sixty (60) decibels during the hours of7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. However, noise levels permitted may increase a maximum of five (5) decibels for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes in anyone (1) hour. The noise levels are to be measured at any point along any boundary line of the property in which the use is located. In addition, when more than one use is located on a property - in this case, a residential use is also proposed - the noise levels are also measured along any wall of any other building on the property. Vibrations are required to be such that they do not inherently and recurrently generate a ground vibration that is perceptible, without instruments, at any point along any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. Where more than one (1) use is located on the property - again, a residential use is also proposed - then this standard is also required to be measured along any wall of any other building on the property. As a condition of approval, all operations on this property should conform to the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 4] To further mitigate adverse noise and vibration impacts to the residents in the immediate vicinity, as a condition of approval, the hours of operation for the stockpiling crushing and trucking activities should be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Mondays through Friday. [Condition # 11] [+] Section 4-530: Smoke and Particulate Standards This Section includes certain specific performance standards with respect to smoke emission (smoke not to exceed a density (opacity) of20 percent), emission of particulate matter (particulate matter not to exceed 0.2 grains per cubic foot under specified conditions), and projection of dust or fumes (prohibiting their projection beyond the boundary of the property line). When multiple uses are to occur on a property - a residential use is also proposed - the projection of dust or fumes is prohibited from projecting onto any wall of any other building on the property. As a condition of approval, all operations on this property shall conform to the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. (Condition # 4] [+] Section 4-540: Heat. Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference Similar Standards apply with respect to heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference. As a condition of approval, all operations on this property shall conform to the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 4] [+] Section 4-550: Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials Certain specific standards are applicable for both hazardous and non-hazardous materials. In addition, all outdoor storage for commercial and industrial uses are required to be enclosed by a sight-obscuring fence, wall or landscaped berm concealing it from view from adjacent properties and, if possible, from any pubic right-of-way. A fence or a wall is limited to 8 feet in height. In this case, a landscaped berm is appropriate to facilitate noise and visual impact 9/28/04 40 mitigation. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re- cycling operations, an 8 foot berm shall be created along the north property line adjacent to the Highway 6 right-of-way and along portions of the west and east sides of the re-cycling site, and prior to June 1,2005, trees should be planted per Section 4-230.B.1., Planting Strips, and ground cover and/or other means to provide a more effective visual buffer, should be installed and maintained, all consistent with a Detailed Landscape Plan approved by the Director of Community Development. [Condition # 3] [+] Section 4-560: Water Ouality Standards This Section prohibits the discharge of pollutants due to manufacturing or other processing, unless otherwise permitted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. As a condition of approval, all operations on this property shall conform to the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 4] [+] Division 4-6, Improvements Standards [n/a] Section 4-620: Roadway Standards No roads or related improvements are proposed. [n/a] Section 4-630: Sidewalk and Trail Standards No required sidewalks or trails are being recommended as part of this Special Use Permit. [+] Section 4-640: Irrigation System Standards A condition of approval recommended above would require use of surface water for irrigation of a berm built to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts. This Section requires an applicant to provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of applicable Colorado Law. Further, additional standards place requirements regarding maintenance and improvements to any irrigation ditch and the installation of an acceptable delivery system. The irrigation delivery system is subject to the approval of the Eagle County Environmental Health Director. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, it should be, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Communi,tj Development that sufficient water rights, in compliance with Colorado Law, are available for dust suppression and landscape irrigation purposes. [Condition # 7] As a further condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the requirements of Section 4-640, Irrigation System Standards have been met. [Condition # 12] [+] Section 4-650: Drainage Standards The purpose of these standards is to minimize the likelihood and extent of flooding and environmental damage, such as the degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrology, as a result of uncontrolled runoff from increased impervious surface area within commercial, industrial and other development. The County Engineer has requested additional information regarding a proposed diversion berm. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock~piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail shall be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] 9/28/04 41 [+] Section 4-660: Excavation and Grading Standards The Applicant will be required to comply with the provisions of this Section. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail shall be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] [+] Section 4-665: Erosion Control Standards The Applicant will be required to comply with the provisions of this Section. As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, all site plans and engineering detail shall be complete and satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] [n/a] Section 4-670: Utility and Lighting Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-680: Water Supply Standards The Applicant will be required to conform to the applicable provisions of this Section. [+] Section 4-690: Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards The Applicant will be required to conform to the applicable provisions of this Section. [+] Division 4-7. Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not involve the subdivision ofland, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees As a condition of approval, prior to beginning the stock-piling of materials or re-cycling operations, the Applicant should pay the appropriate road impact fee as provided in Section 4- 710, Roadlmpact Fees, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 13] [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed use complies with this standard. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Housinl! Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. 9/28/04 42 An existing mobile home is located on the site. The Applicant intends to make it available as housing for one of his employees. There are no provisions in the application that indicate that any of the provisions of the Housing Guidelines will be addressed. The Applicant further maintains that the operations pursuant to this Special Use Permit will not generate any additional employees or place a burden on the affordable housing stock in the Gypsum area. Due to the limited information provided with this application, the Director of Housing has not commented on the application. Joe Forinash of Community Development presented this file to the Board. He stated that this is for a special use permit to allow concrete and asphalt recycling, crushing operations, and on-site storage of recycled materials. He showed various maps and pictures of the site to the commissioners. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Drinkard live due east of the proposal and stand to be the most affected. The proposed operations are not located within the flood plain. The initial site plan included stockpiling areas, equipment storage areas, and crusher locations, but the site plan was revised since the Planning Commission reviewed it. 10 foot berms are being proposed, even though staff only recol111l1ended 8 foot berms. The access is proposed to be relocated to the western edge of the property to help alleviate the impacts to the adjacent property owners. The only equipment stored will be that directly related to the crusher operations. The landscaping plan has also been revised since the Planning Commission reviewed it, as Blue Spruce trees and native grass mixes have been added. The issue of noxious weeds should be resolved by the weed management plan submitted by the applicant. Staff findings are positive and the Planning Commission findings are mixed. The key findings deal with Master Plan conformance and compatibility with surrounding uses, specifically with regards to the residents to the east and west. There is concern about visibility of the site from 1-70. Staff does recommend approval with conditions, but the Planning COl111l1ission recommends denial. There are still some outstanding issues, especially with Condition 5 about removal of unused vehicles and equipment before the start of operations. The applicant proposes that they be removed within 90 days after the close of purchase of the property. Another issue is Condition 10 and staff recommends the applicant demonstrate that water is legally and physically available for the intended purposes. Staff recommends a M-F, 8-5 operating time frame, while the applicant wants a 7-7, M-F, and 7-noon on Saturdays operating time frame. Staff and applicant differ on the irrigation of required vegetation as required in Condition 12, but staff is willing to yield to the applicant on this matter. There have been revisions to the recommended conditions, also. Conditions 1 and 12 should be deleted, as they have been met. Condition 2 should be revised to read that prior to the.beginning of stockpiling of materials the proposed berms shall be constructed and landscaping installed and maintained or replaced for the life of the Special Use Permit. Richard Migchelbrink, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. He.stated that the applicant owns a small excavating company and is proposing to recycle material rather than haul it to the County dump. This process requires a location that is industrial in nature, close to the highway and is near water, and the site chosen meets these criteria. Ofthe 12 lots near this proposed location 10 are zoned for industrial or have special use permits for industrial activity, 1 is residential, and the final one is the applicant's. He showed pictures of the various properties and listed what they contained and how they were zoned. The applicant feels that 5,000 tons of materials are needed to make it viable to bring in a crusher, and he possesses that amount. The applicant has lowered their site by 6-8 feet and that material was used to create the berm. In effect, the berm is now 16-18 feet high, more than the 8 foot berm recommended. They have also added a double row of native Blue Spruce trees. The driveway has been moved as far west as possible to stay out of the wetlands and the flood plain, and not inconvenience the Drinkards. They propose to have zero discharge so as not to contaminate the water supply. Stewart Hobbs, the applicant, spoke to the Board and admitted that he had made some initial errors, but has since corrected them. He had started stockpiling recycling materials on site, but stopped after speaking with the Planning Commission. Chairman Stone opened Public Comment. _ Lynnette Drinkard, adjacent property owner, spoke to the Board. She stated that she and her husband like their home and are apprehensive about this plan. The site is very close to Hwy. 6, which has a lot of bicyclists and joggers, and the trucks that access the site are very large. There is concern about damage to the wetlands, also. The wind comes out of the Canyon very strongly and there are worries about the noise and dust that this project will create at their residence. The other businesses that Mr. Migchelbrink referred to are 2-3 miles down the road, not near her lOme. This project is better suited to an industrial area, and she is not sure about Mr. Hobbs following through with the berms and maintaining the trees. 9/28/04 43 Chairman Stone asked Ms. Drinkard if there were any mitigating factors that could alleviate her concerns. Ms. Drinkard stated that there were not. Tim Drinkard next spoke to the board about his concerns. He stated that he went to the Planning Department to ask about this proposal and was\-l:old that it passed by a slim margin. He then went to the Planning Commission who told him that it was overwhelmingly rejected. The property the applicant proposes to use sits between two residential properties. He spoke of the widened Hwy. 6 and said that it is in front ofthe RV Park, not near the proposed site. He spoke of the bicycle path that is built nearby and the housing construction that is taking place and his concerns of the project's effect upon both. He took noise measurements of a rock crusher, approximately 100 feet away, at the Lafarge Gravel Pit for comparison and it registered about 90 decibels. Old Castle plans to have 2 recycling plants for asphalt and concrete in Eagle and Gypsum. He called the Eagle Landfill and asked how they disposed of the asphalt and concrete and was told that it was thrown in with the other fill. There are recycling plants in the area other than Mr. Hobbs' proposal. He stated that Lafarge hopes to be opening two recycling sites in Gypsum and Carbondale within the next year, also. He is also concerned about who will do site reclamation and restoration should Mr. Hobbs decide to bailout on the project. Dust and wind is a very major concern of his, also, as it blows from the West to the East. Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant if the decibel readings were on the A scale. Mr. Drinkard stated that they were. He used a sound meter that was police-certified and was omni-directional. Scott Green, a neighbor and property owner, then spoke to the board. He stated that his family used to own or have a lease on all of the property that is in question. The property was attempted to be farmed in the 1970's but it was non-functional because of alkaline soil. The wetlands were dug up in the 50's for a trout farm, but it was a failure due to the alkaline soil, also. The property is not true wetlands as commonly recognized because of the alkaline soil. The area is basically just a large mosquito pond in his opinion. There is a history of equipment storage on the properties going back to the 1960's. He agrees with the Drinkards on their dust and noise impact concerns. He believes that the bertl1s and landscaping are a HUGE improvement over what is currently there now. There is a water source from a ditch that is owned by Sandra Cooke and the use of it is current, and it could keep the dust under control. There is discussion among the 3 property owners with Ms. Cooke to try and divide up the water rights. He believes that Lafarge's operations and B & B' s operations are hit and miss for private contractors to be able to utilize. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the water source of the wetlands was. Mr. Green stated that water is only there for 30-45 days of the year and is dry the remainder of the year. It is only wet from the high water runoff ofthe Eagle River. Frank Ward, property owner of the proposed site, stated affirmed what Mr. Green stated about the wetlands. He stated that it is stagnant water and is, in fact, just a big mosquito nest. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the capacity of the wetlands was. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that it is about 3 acres in size and about 1 foot deep. Mr. Drinkard spoke again about the wetlands and stated they have been around, permanently wet since the 1930's. They have only recently dried up as a result of the 5 year drought they are currently enduring. Betty Hobbs, mother of the applicant, spoke to the board. She stated that she and her husband encouraged her son to proceed \-Vith this project as it renews natural resources. She understood the Drinkards' concerns, but feels that Stewart had addressed and minimized them. She commented that Stewart owned no property in Eagle County, but that she and her husband did, and it sat directly across the street from Chatfield Comers. Chairman Stone closed Public Comment. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Forinash how they attempted address the concerns brought up by the adjacent land owners. Mr. Forinash stated that they have tried to limit the hours and location of operation, they have established berms, the applicant has provided a landscaping plan, the applicant has proposed dust suppression to mitigate the impacts, and the weed management plan has also been submitted. He believes that noise will have to be monitored over time and staff expects those standards will be met by the applicant. Commissioner Menconi asked Ray Merry if there are any other concerns about asbestos, dust blowing, or other health matters. Ray Merry of Environmental Health spoke and stated that it is very difficult to suppress dust from any type of industrial operations. Land Use Regulations give companies thirty days to get back into compliance, which makes enforcement difficult, as it is wind dependent. A business can be continually out of compliance with periods of compliance and not be in violation. Dust particles can lead to many health issues, especially to asthmatics. Water 9/28/04 44 rights and availability of water is also a concern of his. Hazardous material storage and clean up has not addressed, either. Commissioner Menconi asked Justin Hildreth of Engineering how traffic issues have been complied with. Mr. Hildreth believes that truck traffic will be periodic and sporadic, but not constant. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that this will be a part-time operation generated by Stewart's own contracting operations. Mr. Hobbs does not intend to do this commercially for other contractors. This operation may be in use for only a few days per year, not year-round. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Forinash if the setback issue listed by the Planning Commission had been addressed. Mr. Forinash believes that it had been met. Commissioner Gallagher asked Environmental Health to try and come up with suggested changes to the Land Use Regulations and appear before the Board within one month with those proposals. He also asked where in the file the "wetlands" are specifically defined as wetlands. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that the applicant is avoiding the wetlands. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Hobbs where he lived. Mr. Hobbs stated that he lives in Gypsum across from Chatfield Corners near the new elementary school. Commissioner Gallagher asked what water goes along with the deed. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that 1/16th cubic foot is the deed that was given to the current property owners. He assumes the same deed will be given to the applicant. He stated that he had no knowledge of the terminus dates on that deed. Thewater is earmarked for consumption and industrial purposes, not agricultural. The full water information has not been collected, as of yet. Commissioner Gallagher asked when the applicant can use the water and how much will there be. Howie Beck, property owner, stated that 2.88 cubic feet per second were the original water rights. He said you get 1/16 cubic feet per second when you buy property, for domestic and fire suppression, not agricultural. The remaining is for agricultural and is used only during agricultural season. It goes with the land and is a use it or lose it scenario. The 1/16 is all a property owner has access to for 12 months a year. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is a pipeline or a ditch. Mr. Beck stated it is a diversion and is dependent upon the height of the Eagle River and the height of the water table. The distribution is through pipeline as the ditch was destroyed with the building ofI-70. Commissioner Gallagher asked if Mr. Beck owned the water and the distribution system. Mr. Beck stated he did own the water and distribution system and Mr. Hobbs has his own distribution system through a well. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the size of the line from the pump to his place. Mr. Beck stated that it is a 2 inch line. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the applicant plans to use for dust control since it is not defined as agriculture, firefighting, or domestic. ~y1r. Hobbs stated that he researched and determined use is defined by Domestic Agriculture ~y1anufacturillg and Social use. If there was a problematic water year, agriculture would take precedence over the manufacturing and the social uses. Chairman Stone stated that to solve the water problem, the Board could expand Condition 9 in the Staff Findings to address these concerns. The board could limit the crushing opportunities to those times of the year when the applicant has the right amount of water and right quantity. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the size of the crusher would be. Mr. Hobbs stated that it is approximately the size of the tractor trailer, 13' 6" tall and 45-50' long. Commissioner Gallagher wondered if the size of the berm is enough of a mitigating factor for noise control. Mr. Hobbs stated that the additional landscaping and the piles of material will also reduce noise. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that the crusher produces less noise than the interstate, according to the manufacturer's published data. He offered to put a fence on top of the berm, but the neighbors refused it. The 18 foot height is between the crusher and the neighbors. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the crusher could produce no perceptible vibrations at the property line. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that, according to the manufacturer, it would, as it is on rubber tires. Commissioner Gallagher asked when operations would begin. 9/28/04 45 Mr. Hobbs stated that they intend to meet all of staffs recommendations before they begin operations. The sale of the property to him is contingent upon approval of this permit, and he is not comfortable moving other people's property prior to owning it. Commissioner Gallagher said he is comfortable with operating hours being 8-6. He stated that he has trouble understanding what the contour of the flood plain is relative to the floor of the work area. Mr. Migchelbrink stated that the grade is uphill from the flood plain to the work area. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the distance was between the top of the berm to the Drinkards' residence. Mr. Migchelbrink estimated it to be about 100-150 feet and there are no other residents nearby. Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant to further explain the nature of his operation. Mr. Hobbs explained that this would be a self-contained operation. He intends only to use it himself and not sell use of it to other contractors. He will not import any material, unless he was the contractor. Commissioner Gallagher stated that he did not see a condition that addressed dust control. Mr. Forinash stated they were relying on the applicant's assertion it would be covered through the use of water and vehicles. He would add a condition addressing this, if the commissioners desire. Conditions 12 and 3 should address this concern, though. Mr. Merry stated that the condition satisfies his department, assuming standards are amended. He wondered, though, if it was beyond their scope to enforce a shutdown. Chairman Stone first addressed the Drinkards' issues, and he doesn't believe that the applicants have fully addressed them. He is disappointed that the applicants have not settled the water availability issue. He would like to approve this file, but only if it is possible to mitigate the neighbors' concerns. He doesn't believe traffic is a viable concern as it is an intermittent operation, not a constant one. He propos.ed a condition to limit the operation to a 20 year time period. He asked that the Special Use Permit be issued only to the initial applicant and not have a blanket special use permit. He agreed with the Drinkards about their wind concerns and suggested possibly installing a wind gauge and allowing operations only within certain speeds. He believes that there needs to be a penalty to the applicant if he fails to comply with a restriction. He expressed concerns about residual dust continually blowing, especially after it has been crushed. He suggested that this file be tabled for about a month so that viable conditions could be come up with to help out all parties involved. As of now, he is not confident enough to approve this file. He would like to see a better definition of the size of the berm to the east addressed, especially if the file is tabled. Commissioner Gallagher supported the tabling, as he feels conditions should address the known, and these conditions, as presented, tend to address the unknown. Chairman Stone asked that Mr. Merry look at potential hazardous materials concerns. Mr. Merry stated that it would be best if a dust suppression plan was prepared that points out and summarizes all contingencies and asked that the hazardous material plan identify storage location, volume, and types. Commissioner Gallagher asked that a copy of water rights be supplied to the commissioners, also. Commissioner Menconi asked for a rough approximation of the number of days of activity that he envisioned. Mr. Hobbs stated it is based on acquiring 5,000 tons, which would justifY him renting a crusher for a week, and could not pinpoint a number. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Hobbs to try to outline a proposed usage to help alleviate the commissioners' concerns. Chairman Stone reiterated that he would like to approve this permit because of the recycling nature of the project. He asked if there might be better times of the year to crush or not crush and asked the applicant to consider that upon his return before the Board. Commissioner Gallagher suggested to the applicant that they involve the Drinkards when developing noise mitigation standards as they are the most impacted party. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table File No. ZS-OOl13 until November 9, 2004 at the applicant's request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ess to b~brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until October 12, Cha~~ \.,~-~~' (~ 9/28/04 46