No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/26/05 PUBLIC HEARING July 26,2005 Oresent: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Keith Montag Diane MaUriello Teak Simonton Chairman Conunissioner COIIlIIlissioner Acting County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County COIIlIIlissioners for their consideration: Executive SeSsion CortnnissionerStone moved that the Board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice, discussing pending litigation and discussing matters subject to negotiation regarding legal issues associated with RICD's; the State Parks' Sylvan Lake Water Rights; proposed regulatory amendments regarding in basin water augmentation; Cooley Mesa Road and Compton Parcel and discussions with the Town of Gypsum and the fairgtounds multi use event center as well as an update on legal issues surrounding runway dirt and proposal for legal services from Barbara: Green all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24..6- 402(4)(b) and (e). Cotnmissioner Runyon seconded the motion which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion Cotnmissioher Stone moved to adjourn from executive session and Cortnnissioner Runyon seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: ,:OIJ.Sent Agenda A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of July 25,2005 (Subject to reView by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for June 28, 2005 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder C. AgteementbetweenEagle County and Olga Wilkins for Service to Families Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services D. Agreement between Eagle County and the Resource Center for Freedom Ranch Services to Families Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Project Agreement to Cooperative Road Agreement No. CA-15-00-82-005 Modification No.2 for East & West Brush Creek and Eagle County, State of Colorado . Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge F. Agteement between Eagle County and Crawford Construction for Building Volleyball Courts in the Berry Creek Recreation Parcel in Edwards, Colorado Jason Hasenberg, Facilities Management Chairlllan Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that she requested item F be pulled to be rescheduled and msidered at a later date. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-E, excluding item F. 1 8/26/05 Cotntnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Second Quarter Interest Report for 2005 Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer Ms. Sheaffer informed the board that they expect to meet budgeted revenues and it is possible that the county would exceed the budgeted interest revenues. At this point revenues are $163,000 higher than last year. This represents a 28% increase over the previous year. Interest rates have risen and Ms. Sheaffer put more funds into investments. Planning and Land Use Resolutioll Consent Agenda Jena Skitiher-Markowitz, Cotntnunity Development There were no plarthing ofland use resolutions for the Board's consideration this week. Minot Subdivision Plat Signing Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development 5MB..00311, Eagle-Vail Filing 2;A Resubdivisioll of Lot 47 Block 4 A final plat to subdivide Lot 47, Eagle- Vail Filing 2, Block 4 to create two (2) 12 duplex lots to be known as lots 47 A and 47B. Cotnmissioner Runyon moved to approve 5MB-00371, Eagle-Vail Filing 2; A Resubdivision of Lot 47 :Block 4 A final plat to subdivide Lot 47, Eagle-Vail Filing 2, Block 4 to create two (2) 12 duplex lots to be known as lots47A and 47B. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2005-091 Equalizing Property Valuation throughout Eagle County AssesSor's Office Representative,' Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the board of county coIhrtlissioners aild reconvene as the board of equalization. Commissioner Rllnyon seconded the motion. The vote Was declared unanimous. Ruth Bergland explained the request. They are asking to adjust some properties to be in line with similar properties. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2005-091 Equalizing Property Valuation throughout Eagle County Cdnunissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2005':092 Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization Attorney's Office Representative, Debbie Faber Ms. Faber explained the process that had been followed and the subsequent recommendations. Cotntnissioner Runyon asked about the number (500) of appeals. Ms. Faber stated that there had been 2500 at the Assessor level and 500 at the board of equalization level. Typically this number is one third of the Assessor level appeals. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-092 Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and fe-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. 2 8/26/05 Co:rn:rnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. :Eagle County Liquot License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda RenewalS A. Holden;s Restaurant Beaver Creek Village, CO B. Splendido at the Chateau Beaver Creek Village, CO C. Full Belly Kitchen and Pub Edwards; CO Cortnnissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for July 26, 2005, conSiSting of Items A"C. CortnnisSioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote Was declaredunanitnOus. . Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Air TerlllinaL Commissioner RUnyon se'corided the motion. The vote was declared tiIlaniinous. EagleCoullty Air Terminal Corporation Attorney's Office Representative /Aitport Approval of minutes from last meeting, May 17, 2005 CotnIIlissioner Runyon moved to approve the minutes of the last meeting, May.17, 2005. Coit1tnissioner Stone seconded the motiOn. The motion Was declared unanimous. IDfi:ility Communications proposal ~ internet te....mnals Chris Anderson explained the situation. Infinity is interested in having a floor mounted terminaL PayphOne banks have not been used based on cell phone popularity . They gain the ability for the end user to pay for their internet use with a credit card. CotnmisSionet Stone moved to approve theTrtfinity Cotnmunications proposaL COh11rtissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote Was declared unanimous. New Business Cotnmissioner Stone asked to consider replacing the Vice President with Keith Montag until there is a neW cotihty administrator. Conunissioner Stone moved to nominate and approve by acclamation Keith Montag as Vice President of the ECAT. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjo\lrn as the Eagle County Air Terminal and reconvene as the Board of ~ounty Cotntnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 8/26/05 Abatement Hearing Ruth Bergland, Assessors Office Schedule No. R0f1496 Ruth Bergland stated that this was a privately owned unit that had been deeded to the homeowner's association. Karen Aldtetti Lee, managing director of the association spoke to the board. She agreed that this unit Was purchased and will remain as cortltnon use property. Colht11issioner Stone moved that the Petition of Meadow Vail Place Condomini\ltn Association for Abatement 1 Refund of Taxes for schedule no. ROl1496 be approved for the tax years, in the amounts, and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation. Cortnnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Schedule No. a05438S Ruth Bergland stated that the AsseSsor's office recotntnends approval of this abatement. All of the other lots in the subdivision Were treated with a split value, but the lot in question was treated as full lot value. Co.tlrifiissioner Runyon moved that the Petition of Marisela Salgado for Abatement 1 Refund of Tax.es for schedule hO. R054385'be approved for the tax year 2004, in the amounts, and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recoIIlIIlendation. Cotntnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Schedule No. R042894, Mark A. Filler and Schedule No. R046717, Kenneth B. and Lynne E.M. Siegel Cofiitnissioner St6nemoved that the Petitions for Mark A. Filler schedule no. R042894 tax year 2004 ahd Kehi1eth and LyrtIiSiegel schedule no. R046717 tax year 2003 for Abatement 1 Refund ofTax.es be approved for the tax. years, in the amotihts, and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recoJl1:ll1endation. CotntnisSioher Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ScheduleN'o. R04429i Corntnissionet Runyon moved that the Petition for Abatement 1 Refund of Taxes for Mountain Elegance LLC schedule no. R044292 be denied for the tax years, in the amounts, and for the reasons a.s set forth in the Assessor's recortlll1endation sheets. COIIlIIlissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS...00126 -Hidden Vallev Pit Joe Forinash, Cortltnunity Development NOTE: Tabled (rom 5/3. 6/14105 ACTION: Amend existing Special Use Permit to expand gravel mining operations from 29.2 acres and maximum of 50,000 tons per year to 183.65 acres and a maximum of 350,000 tons per year and allow operations for 10 years, subject to renewal for three (3) subsequent 10-year periods (total of 40 years). LOCATION: Northwest of intersection of Deep Creek Road (aIkIa Coffee Pot Road) and Colorado River Road, approximately 2 miles north of Dotsero BOARD STAFF REPORT: Hidden Valley Pit - File No. ZS-00126 Planning Commission Hearing Date: 20 April 2005 tabled to I June 2005 Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: 3 May 2005, tabled to 14 June, 12 July and 26 July 2005 4 8/26/05 Hidden Valley Pit ZS-00126/ Special Use Permit Northwest of intersection of Deep Creek Road (aka Coffee Pot Road) and the Colorado Riv~r Road (1.8 miles north ofDotsero) Deep Place Properties LLLP and Deep Creek Ranch LLLP (Dr. Warren Jacobsen) Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., dba B&B Excavating Greg Lewicki; Jason Burkey (B&B Excavating) TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: stAFF kEC01\1MENDATI0N: Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSI0NnEcbMMENDATION: Approval with conditions (4-1) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Principal points of deliberation included the following: Potelltiallya'dverse impacts include truck traffic on Colorado River Road, noise and dust from the gravel mining site,. visibility ofthe berm previously built to shield the mining operation from adjacent properties, degradation. of water quality, and degradation of a smaIi wetland near Deep Creek. Consideration of means to mitigate the impactS Of the truck traffic included limited hours and days Of operation, reduced speed limits for gravel hauling trucks and greater accountability of truck drivers. There was considerable discussion of quantitative means of measUring noise and dust, rather than relying on subjective determinations of when "violations" may have occurred. The Director of Envirohtnenful Health indicated to the Planning Commission that use of monitoring equipment can introduce a number ofcofuple~issues and that it may not be as simple and effective solution as might otherwise seem to be the case. the Applicant has prepared a Dust Suppression Plan (DSP), a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) and a Water Monitoring Plan, subject to review by the Director of Environmental Health in response to some of these concerns. Enforctlmelltconcems Were related to the lack of objective criteria for determining when violations to nvironfuehtal conditions (e.g., noise, dust) have occurred, as well an expressed desire to have "teeth" in the available enforcement options. The Applicant had proposed a Compliance Review Panel consisting of representatives of B&B Excavating, Colorado :River Road property owners, and Eagle County Environmental Health {Code Enfotcement) and noted that it Was the first time anyone has taken this step to demoIlstrate their willingness to work with the neighboring Property OWners. Members of the PlanningCotntnission expressed interest in having the powerofthat Panel to act clearly spelled out. Cotnmissions also wanted to have sanctions imposed for a specified ntimber of violations of the conditions of approval or the Commercial and Industrial Perfortnance Standards. Bouts of operation were related to potentially adverse impacts early and late in the day, as well as on Saturdays and holidays. Planning Commissioners agreed to more restrictive hours of operation than had been initially proposed and limited operations on weekends and holidays. Review frequenty ~ Cotnmissionersexptessed concern that a 10-year review frequency did not allow adeqilate opportunity to review the mining operation and related conditions of approval. A 5-year review frequency was ultimately agreed to by the Platihing Cotntnission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The Hidden Valley Pit has been operated by B&B Excavating for approximately seven years pursuant to a Special Use Permit approved in 1997 which authorized the gravel mining operation producing a maxirtuim of 50,000 tons of aggregate per year for 10 years. This new Special Use Permit application would supersede the existing Special Use Permit and allow B&B Excavating to continue the existing gravel mining operation for 10 years and expand the area being mined from 29+ acres to 183+ acres and increase production from .,000 tons per year to 350,000 tons per year (after the fifth year), subject to renewal for three subsequent 10 year periods at 350,000 tons per year, for a total of 40 years. No on-site asphalt or concrete production is proposed on this site. 5 8/26/05 The application includes a copy of the Application for Mined Land Reclamation Permit prepared in 1997 which has not been updated to correspond to some ofthe particulars, e.g., production schedule, ofthe Special Use Pertnit application noW under consideration. Otherwise, the Application for Mined Land Reclamation Permit prepared in 1997 is taken to be a representation by the Applicant of the proposed mining operation. C:El::RO:NOl..OGy: . 1995 - Special Use Permit application denied for a gravel extraction, processing, asphalt and concrete production operation on this site, proposed to operate for approximately 40 years at a rate of 300,000 to 400,000 tons per year. 1997 - Special Use Permit approved for gravel extraction and stockpiling, washing, crushing, conveying, loading, and hauling of aggregate material, to operate until December 2007 and produce a maximum of 50,000 tons of aggregate per year. SITE .DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zollill.g: l:ast: Colorado River Road; Colorado River; RR ROW; BLM / Resource West: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) / Resource North: BLM / Resource Sotith~ BLM and Residential/Resource EXisting Zoriing: Total Area: AccesS: Resource 183.65 acres Colorado River Road and Deep Creek Road STAFF REpORT RltFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering [MemofromPhillip Bowman dated 22 March 2005] . Additional infotrtlation is requested about projected operations including amounts of material being hauled [1] to Edwards for concrete and asphalt production and for stockpiling, [2] to Edwards for sale to the public, [3] directly to B&B jobsites, and [4] directly to non-B&B jobsites. . The Engineering Department has reviewed the revised Traffic Impact Study and questions a nuniber of the statements and assUmptions. (See Engineering Department memo dated 22 March 2005.) · The Engineering Department does not agree with the Road Impact Fee analysis and resultant suggested fee amounts. Further revision of both the Traffic Impact Study and the Traffic Impact Fee analysis are needed. . Based on the heavy truck traffic projected and passenger car equivalents, the Engineering Department recotntnends that Colorado River Road should be overlaid from the intersection at the 1-70 frontage road to Coffee Pot Road. The overlay depth should consist of minimum I" asphalt leveling course, and a 2" asphalt overla.y. . A full structural analysis of the existing bridge on Colorado River Road over Deep Creek (immediately south of the Coffee Pot Road intersection) should be performed by the applicant and provided to the County. According to Brad Higgins of the Road and Bridge Department, this bridge is too short (less than 20' long) fot inclusion on the County's bridge inventory and inspection list, and has not been inspected on a regular basis. If any inadequacy of the bridge is identified, the bridge should be upgraded or replaced by the applicant. . Coffee Pot Road should be completely reconstructed in 2005 prior to increasing production levels, including a minimum of 8" aggregate base course with 4" asphalt, from the intersection with Colorado River Road to the pit entrance. Chip seal of this roadway is not recotntnended. . The drainage analysis included in the application materials appears to be based on State requirements for mining operations. Questions and concerns about the analysis include [I] whether the County's Drainage Standards (LUR Section 4-650) will be met, and [2] certain technical assumptions. . The Engineering Department requests that additional information be prepared and submitted by the applicant, and that a meeting be scheduled between the applicant, the Engineering Department, and the Road and Bridge Department to further discuss this additional information related to traffic impacts. [Memo from Phillip Bowman dated 13 April 2005] 6 8/26/05 . The Engineering Department has reviewed the additional information submitted by the applicant in a letter dated 4 ApriI20()5. . The additional information previously requested regarding the percentage of large vs. small trucks used in hauling material has been provided. Traffic Impact Study: . A number of revisions requested in the previous memo have been agreed to in the traffic analysis provided with the letter dated 4 April 2005. . However, the actual Traffic Impact Study has not been submitted with these proposed revisions. While the proposed basis of analysis included with the letter appears to address the Engineering Department's concerns, no COIIlIIlertts about the report can be provided until a revised report is submitted for review. . Road Impact Fee determination: . Significant changes were made to the trip generation information for the project. However, the applicant has noW proposed that the "cost Pet trip generated" be lessened due to the non-perlllanent nature of this proposal. The Engineering Department does not agree with the lessened cost per trip. . Based on the imorlllation provided with the full cost of $334 per trip being used, the Engineering Department recoll1111ends the following traffic impact fee schedule for the project: . 2006: First installment of $25,384 for increaSe to 112,000 tons/year of production (net increase of 76 trips). . 2008: Second instaJlmertt of $13,026 for increase to 140,000 tons/year of production (net increaseof39 trips). . 201(): Final installment of$86,840 for increase to 350,000 tons/year of production (net increase of260 trips). . Based on this schedule, 0 future Road Impact Fees would be assessed unless production levels were proposed to increase above 350,000 tons/year. . Improvement to Colorado Rivet Road: . The applicant has propoSed participation in improvement to Colorado Rivet Road at a rate of 32% ofthe cost based on traffic generation rate analysis. Based on discussions with the Eagle County Road and Bridge Departtnent,. this level of participation is not sufficient because it does not account for increased rated of detenoration6fthe pavements section due to heavy truck traffic. . The Engineering Department and Road and Bridge Department recortltnend: The applicant participate in improving Colorado River Road prior to the start of material hauling for the 2007 season (road improvements to be completed in 2006). . The level of improvement will be a minimum of3" asphalt overlay (2" leveling course, I" asphalt surface), along with any shoulder and roadside improvements deemed necessary by the County Engineer. . The applicant will participate in improvements at a contribution rate of 50% of costs, based on the "Count)' Overlay Project" bid tate established in the 2006 construction year. . Improvements and upgrades to the Deep Creek Bridge on Colorado River Road: . The applicant has proposed participation in improVement to the Deep Creek Bridge at arate of 32% of the cost based on traffic generation rate analysis. Based on discussions with the Eagle County Road and Bridge Department, this level of participation is not sufficient because it does not account for increased rated of deterioratiotlof the bridge due to heavy truck traffic. . The Engineering Department and Road and Bridge Department recommend: . The applicant will participate in the improvement and/or upgrade of the Deep Creek Bridge based on the Bridge Inspection Report currently being prepared by LONCO at a rate of 66.7% (2/3) of cost. . All bridge improvements and upgrades must be completed prior to the increase of production levels in 2006 (work to be completed in 2005). . Improvements to Coffee Pot Road: . The applicant has appeared to agree to improve Coffee Pot Road, but no schedule or level of improvement has been outlined. The following is recomrtlended: . The applicant will improve Coffee Pot Road at its sole expense prior to the ~ncrease of production levels in 2006 (work to be completed in 2005). . Approximately 2500 LF of Coffee Pot Road will be improved from the intersection with Colorado River Road to the pit entrance, with a minimum pavement section of 4" asphalt over 8" base course as designed by a geotechnical engineer. Engineered Construction and Drainage Plans meeting all County Road Standards will be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of construction. . Drainage Issues . Drainage standards: These concerns have been addressed. 7 8/26/05 Drainage analysis: The curve number used in the drainage analysis appears low. The response does not address the concern about the curve number used. · Seepage from the drainage and settling ponds, and impacts to the Colorado River and Coffee Pot Road that lie at elevations below the pit floor: . The COtntnent has not been addressed. · The applicant's response letter states that "No effect is expected from water seepage" but provides no analysis to support this statement. Furtherlllore, it was observed that seepage is currently occurring as evidenced by water collecting in the existing wetlands on the north side of Coffee Pot Road, even though no irrigation has taken place on the meadow above the pit. · The concern about this situation is that continued saturation of the sub-base under Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road will cause damage to these roads. · It is requested that all remaining concerns discussed above be resolved prior to any Planning Cotntnission or Board of County Cotntnissioners meetings or hearings. [Memo from Phillip Bowman dated 19 April 2005] · Based on previous review COIIlIIlents from the Engineering Department, revisions by the Applicant to the application materials, and responses by the Applicant to identified concerns, the Engineering Department Suggests certain revised cOnditions of approval. (See Memo.) [Memofr(Jin phillip Bowman dated 19 July 2005] .. · On 15 July 2005 a Revised Traffic Impact Study dated May 2005 was provided by the Applicant. Certain issues remain outstanding with respect to this report. · . It is recotnIfierided that all engineeringre1ated conditions of approval recotn:fi1ended by the Planning Collirtlission contihueto apply. · Furthermore, the condition of'apprbval related to the incremental payment of'Road IItlpactFees should reflect the prbposed timing of production increases, with the fee amounts outlined being due on January 1 of 2006, 2008, and 2011 (tihless further revisions to the production schedule are being proposed). Eagle County Roa.d & Bridge · The application diSCUSSes generated truck traffic, but it is not clear whether this includes only B&B trUcks. If there will be retail out of this pit, it will impact truck traffic considerably. . Chip and seal on Coffee Pot Roadis not enough. Chip seal provides no real stru:cttiral strength and Will ptobablynot hold up to truck traffic. · the Deep Creek bridge has not been mentioned. The County has 110 real data on this bridge, as it is not long enough (20 feet) to qualify for the bridge inspection program. EagleCollnty Environmental Health [Memo from Ray Merry dated 22 March 2005] . All local, state and federal permits must be obtained and submitted to Eagle County prior to expansion associated with this Special Use Permit, including final water court ruling describing the decreed water rights heeded for all aspects of the operation. Any violation of a local, state or federal permit constitutes a violation of this Special Use Perlllit. · A Dust SuppreSsion Plan (bSP) must be subrllitted and approved by Eagle COtihty Environmental Healthprior to expansion associated with this Special Use Permit. The approved DSP must be kept on-site, implemented at all times a.ndmust include certain minimum information. (See memo from Environmental Health dated 22 Match 2005, copy attached.) · In the interest of protecting air quality, it is further recommended that the proposed improvements to Coffee Pct Road, mcluding the chip-seal, be completed prior to the expansion in operation to further address dust issues. · Since diesel emissions will increase at this site, the applicant should consider cleaner fuels or exhaust stack warmers to reduce regional visibility issues. · A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be submitted and approved by Eagle County Environmental Health prior tothe expansion associated with this Special Use Permit. The approved SWMP must be kept on- site, implemented at all times and must include certain minimum information. (See memo from Environmental Health dated 22 March 2005, copy attached.) 8 8/26/05 . A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) must be submitted and approved by Eagle County Environmental Health prior to the expansion associated with this Special Use Permit. The approved SWMP must be kept on-site, implemented at all times and must include certain minimum information. (See memo from Environmental Health dated 22 March 2005, copy attached.) An Annual Compliance Report which addresses conformance with the aforementioned environmental mitigation plans and Division 4-5 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (Commercial and Industrial Performance Startdards) must be submitted to the Eagle County Code Enforcement Section of the Environmental Health Department by June 15 of each year. . All reports prepared and submitted to DMG, especially annual reports, must be simultaneously submitted to Eagle County Code Enforcement. . In addition to the hours of operation proposed to be from 7 AM to 7PM Monday through Friday and "occasional" Saturdays that include an unspecified attempt at neighbor notification, the hours of operation should be further restricted to. dusk and dawn to address availability of sunlight. Furtherlllore, Environmental Health recotntnends the Special Use Permit specify how the neighbors will be notified of the occasional hauling on Saturdays, specifying how far in advance the notification will be given. . The applicant attempts to address mosquito abatement. It is recotntnended that the applicant prepare and submit a mosquito abatement plan for review and approval by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department to assure pfudent measures are being considered focused on vector mosquitoes. [Memofrom Ray Merry dated 12 April 2005) . This memorandum Will clarify Environmental Health's understartding of what has been resolved and identify issues that require further attention or clarification. . The applicant agrees that a violation of any other permit on this site constitutes a violation of their Special Use Pennit. . The applicant has submitted information regarding the water rights portfolio being amended to accotnrtlodate the industrial uses. Envirotirtlental Health (EH) asks for further clarification ofthis issue as it is their sole means of dust suppression being considered. The Water Referee's Ruling in 1994 restricts the applicant to 0.5 cfs from the Deep CreekDitch for use within the 101 acres of historically irrigated land. This SpecialVse Perlllit application asks for 142 acres of disturbance on a 183.6 acre site. The application states that an application is moVing through the Water Court but no detail has been provided. EH asks that the applicant clarify this issue to assUre that water will be available in adequate amounts. . The applicants' Dust Suppression Plan (DSP) proposes having on-site personnel observe dust leaving the site and taking corrective measures as they see fit. EH believes that dust suppression is perhaps the biggest issue associated with mining operations and needs further attention. The applicant's response offers several ideas regarding dust abatement but lacks enforceable triggerS in the event ofnon-compliance.EH suggests the file be conditioned on a dust suppression plan meeting the satisfaction of Eagle County Environmental Health Department. In the event an agreement catihot be reached, the applicant can have the issue resolved using the appeal process for administrative decisions. . EH agrees that stonn water is not expected to be an issue within the pit area but would like to have an enforceable mechanism in place to require the applicant to take responsibility for cleaning up a mess in the event mud is tracked onto adjacent public roads. . The requirement for a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC) has been adequately addressed . The applicant agrees to submit an Annual Compliance Report which addresses conformance with the aforementioned environmental mitigation plans and Division 4-5, Eagle County Land Use Regulations (Cotntnercial and Industrial Performance Standards) along with the DMG report. EH agrees to the proposed annual submittal date of August 5 sent to Eagle County Code Enforcement. . The applicant agrees that the hours of operation will be limited to 7 am to 7 pm, Monday through Friday and between dusk and dawn except for emergency maintenance. EH asks for further clarification of what constitutes emergency maintenance and how property owners will be notified of these eventS. . EH agrees that mosquitoes are not likely to become an issue and appreciates the applicant will follow EH guidance in the rare event a mosquito problem might arise. Regarding water quality monitoring, EH appreciates the applicant is trying to appease property owners that their wells and Deep Creek will not be impacted by mining operations. The applicant conunits to sampling an adjacent Wetland, the nearby owner's wells and Deep Creek, however, the plan as proposed Will not be useful 9 8/26/05 to determine trends in Water quality. EH recommends that a water quality monitoring plan be developed satisfactory toEH with an appeal process as outlined in the air quality comments. Eagle County School District RE50J [E-mail date{i28 Marth 1005from Melanie McMichael, Director of Transportation] · Eagle County School District requests that the truck activity proposal be kept as per the original conditional approval, with trucks restricted to 30 minutes prior and 5 minutes after scheduled school bus stop times. This Was the original request by the District when the existing special use permit was approved. [Letter dated 7 April 2005from Melanie McMichael, Director ofTransp()rtation] · Ms. McMichael wants to amend the District's earlier recommendation for B&B Excavating's Hidden Valley Pit. · After meeting with Jason Burkey (B&B) and the bus drivers of the affected routes, Ms. McMichael has determined that the 30/5 minute restriction could be decreased to a more reasonable time frame. · Having also discussed the safety record and driver requirements of the B&B drivers, along with past habits and interactions between B&B and School District drivers, lessening the time frame should have little, if no impact, on District operations and the safety of students. · Should there be any incidents between B&Bdrivers and District drivers, Jason Burkey (B&B) has agreed to meet with Ms. McMichael to discuss solutions to whatever situation has arisen. [Letter dated 19 April 2005 from Melanie McMichael, to Jason Burkey (B&B ExcavatingJ] · As a follow,-up to her previous letter, Ms. McMichael reiterates that there has been a good working relationship between B&B.and the Eagle County School District Transportation Department. · There have not been any safety infractions reported to or witnessed by me regarding any of B&B drivers and their driving abilities. Many School District drivers have given compliments regarding the courtesy and safety ofB&B's drivers. Allde'rsoD Camps [Verbal teSp()1lSe from Chris Porter on 4 April 2005] · Anderson Camps would like the existing restrictions on truck activity dUring its opening and closing times to continlie to be in effect. ColotadoDiVision of Wildlife · The Division of Wildlife previously provided comments and recommendations regarding wildlife impacts and mitigation on the Hidden Valley Pit in September of 1994. · After revieWing the ctittent expansion plan for the Hidden Valley Pit, the CDOW sees no additional areas of concern pertaining to wildlife. · It is also important to note that .B&BExcavating has incorporated all the recotntnended mitigation meaSures in the plans. · CDOW would like to clarify one point in the report. Although an adjacent landowner reports not seeing much use by deer or elk, this site is classified as critical mule deer and elk winter range. The CDOW continues to document the use of this area by both deer and elk during our seasonal age and sex ratio flights during the winterrnonths. Colorado Department of Transportation · The traffic study is not clear whether the additional truck traffic uses passenger car equivalents. The State Highway Access Code states that unless specifically noted, all criteria in the Code are based on automobile operations and performance. To allow for the impact oflarger trucks, buses and recreational vehicles, "passenger car equivalents: shall be determined. A passenger car equivalent of 3 for each bus and all trucks and combinations of 40 feet in length or longer, or a passenger car equivalent of 2 for each vehicle or combination at or over 20 feet in length but less than 40 feet, shall be used for these purposes. . Eagle County is the State Highway Issuing Authority for this area. · Turning templates for gravel trucks should be provided at highway intersections to ensure safe turning movements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 10 8/26/05 . No cotntnent. u.s. Bureau of Land Management . The application makes no reference to the status of the road which leaves private property and becomes Onion Ridge Road on public lands. Is the road being eliminated by the gravel removal, as shown by the pit boundary on Map C-1 ? . The tnining area boundary On Map C-1 is extremely close to the public land boundary. The hillside cuts on the west and northwest in Stages C and D, along with the erosive nature of some of the soils, will likely lead to erosion of soils on the adjacent public lands. This matter is not discussed or tnitigated in the soils and vegetation section. The best mitigation is to provide a greater buffer to ensure neighboring public lands are protected. The visual impacts of the project could also be reduced if the pit boundary is moved down the slope from the higher more visible portions of Stage C and D. . The public land ~ private land boundary should be surveyed and posted and/or fenced to ensure that the pit operations do not accidentally encroach onto public lands. Fencing would also help ensure public safety. Additional RefettaIA2'encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle COUhty Assessor, Eagle County Weed & Pest, Eagle Courtty Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Western Eagle County Ambulance District, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA). PurSfiafifW Eagle CoUitty Land Use Regulations Section S-2S0.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: S'f ANDARD: Consistent with MasterPlan [Section 5-250.13.1] B tkeproposed Special Use shall be appropriate joY 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 bttensities of use. X 1 ~ LimitS areas of disturbance due to mining operations and minimizes impacts to critical wildlife habitat. The Applicant will return disturbed areas to conditions suitable for wildlife. x2 ~ As conditioned, the natural resource extraction will conform to appropriate environmental standards. The site will be fully reclaimed. x3 - The site is designated "Rural" on the Future Land Use Map. This type of resource -oriented use is appropriate. 11 8/26/05 x x x x Xl' - As conditioned, the mining operation is sensitive to open space values. i? ~ As conditioned, the mining operlltion is compatible with the preservation of the high visual quality of the County. x3 ~ As conditioned, the mining operation is compatible with wildlife. EAGLE..RIvER WATERSHED PLAN Xl X2 X x Xl -As conditioned, adverse water quality impacts will be minimized. x2 - As conditioned, disturbance ofwilcUife will he minimized during critical times of the year. x3.... As conditioned, sensitive areas will be protected. EAGLE.COUNfY COMPRElIENSIvE 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 cortltnunity-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing cortlrtlunit)' centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . · Devdopment 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 a,dequate 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 ITEM I YES I NO ! N/A I :"'-'>"."::,','.':,.,',:,;,:';':';'i<"','i.'.;.;-,:';/h"',:,;:;~.:'i,';. r-:}:f;}, "{"?,:.',',',," '.-'At,'..n,,'}'," f-"-::,',' .,', ---_,'i.,.,':-."..:.~;,'.'w:''''-''w::,:, .......... ., ....... . +'l',. .h...... ,'-' ..".1'........ ,_"':".",.,.,.,.',........":.:_,,,.,,','.','~m'c,:".._._ .":".i,:,~,:":.:,,,.,,..,,";~~."'.,:. ". .;.;.,O,':<()\':''',,,",':.:,. "'"""""-"..,,, 12 8/26/05 ITEM 1. 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 employmentwill provide local residents housing. . The first preference will be for units on- site wnere feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. , . x 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 hotising is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment aportion 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 tor local residents is an ongoing issue [+] FiNI)ING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special UseIS 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, iricluding standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. stANDARD: Compatibility [Section5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriatefor its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. A gravel mining operation has been tirtderway on this site since 1998 under the existing Special Use Permit, with a limit of 50,000 tons of materials being extracted per year. As of this writing, there is no indication that sighificant incompatibilities of this use and other uses in the vicinity have occurred. Production is proposed to be increased to as much as 350,000 tonS per year as the mining operation is expanded. With the proposed conditions of approval to mitigate potentially adverse impacts, the proposed use should continue to be compatible with the character of sUrrounding land uses. [+] 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 'tandards 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 ATJtJlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards ATJTJlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 13 8/26/05 The site is located in the Resource zone district. As such, extraction (e.g., gravel pit) is allowed by Special Use Permit. There are certain specific zoning requirements for extraction uses, including [I] the preparation of an environmental impact report; [2] demonstrating the use will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and not adversely affect surface or ground water, adjacent land uses, or wildlife; [3] a site plan showing proposed landscaping, drainage and erosion control: and [4] requiring that fabrication, service and repair activities, as well storage of materials, occur within a building, except under certain circumstances. Items regatdingellvironmental impact report and a site plan have been satisfied in the application itself. The item regarding applicable laws and regulations is discussed elsewhere in this report and appropriate conditions of approval are recotntnended. The site is sufficiently isolated and perimeter berms are proposed in a manner that potentially adverse impacts ate adequately mitigated. [+] F:INl>lNG: 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 ilild.ResoUtce 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. Production Schedule and Operations The ClJ:trent Special Use Permit is for a 10-yeat period ending 15 December 2007. Production is lirtlitedto 50,000 tons per year, a total of500,000 tons over a 10 year period. The Applicant proposes to increase production i:rtttfl.ediately(2005) to 112,000 tons per year, followed by an increase to 140,000 tons per year in 2007 artdanothet increase to 350,000 tons peryear in 2010, a maximum level that would be maintained for the 40-year life of the Special Use Permit. All materials will be exported from the site. On-site operations will include crushing and screening; no asphalt or concrete will be manufactured on-site. As a condition of approval, maximum production permitted under this Special Use Perlllit is 112,000 tons per year through 2006, 140,000 tons per year through 2009 and thereafter, 350,000 tons pet year through 2045, with a maximum production of 12,999,000 tons. [Condition # 1] When the existing Special Use Permit was approved in 1997, a specific list of permitted uses and activities was approved for the site. That list of uses continlies to be appropriate for the Special Use Pertuit currently under consideration. As a condition of approval, permitted uses and activities on the Hidden Valley Pit site are as follows: a. Site preparation including road construction/access improvements, topsoil removal and stockpiling, overburden removal and stockpiling. b. Aggregate mining and stockpiling, washing, crushing, conveying, loading, and hauling of aggregate material mined from the site. Importation of raw material to the Hidden Valley :Pit site is not pertuitted. c. Drainage improvements such as culverts, sediment ponds and water tanks/storage. Water storage uses shall include pumps and surface and subsurface pipelines. d. Utility lines, including telephone, electricity, propane, water, generators, and fire protection equipment and supplies, may be placed above or below ground. e. Reclamation activities such a grading, seeding, planting, mulching, fertilizing and irrigation. 14 8/26/05 f. One dwelling unit for a caretaker or night watchman may be placed on the site upon on issuance of a building pertnit and a ISDS Permit. The housing shall be of a temporary nature and be removed at the expiration of this permit. g. One scale house and office not to exceed 1,000 square feet. h. Only equipment that is necessary for the daily/on-going operation and maintenance of the gravel operation may remain on the site; the site may not be utilized as a contractor's storage yard without specific amendment to this permit. 1. Parking of employee 01" visitor vehicles, as well as company vehicles required for on-site operations. J. Storage of mining and construction equipment and supplies necessary for the on-going operation of the gravel pit may occur, however adequate screening is required. [Condition # 2] The existing Special Use Permit allows all other uses pertnitted as uses-by-right in the Resource (R) zone district on thebalahce of the site. This would include several uses that may not be appropriate in the immediate vicinity of mining operations, including single';farrrily dwelling and day care home. A more limited set of uses on the balance of the site is appropriate. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should supersede the Uses by Right in the Resource Zone District except as may in the future be approved by the Board of County Commissioners thtoughthe Special Use Permitproce'Ss; provided, however, that agricultural uses, utility distribution facilities and water diversion structures/ditches should be considered to be apart ofthis Special Use Permit. [Condition # 3] B&BExcavating was required to prepare a detailed policy guide and manual outlining procedures designed to protect the safety and welfare of employees, surrounding residents and visitors to the area. As a condition of appr<>val,B&B Excava.ting (or its successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) should update (as and when ecessary) and majrtfuina detailed policy guide and procedure manual outlining f1fe, health, emergency, safety and . elfare of employees and stittounding residents and visitors to the area. B&B Excavating should make a good faith effort to involve the sUtrotinding residents in the fortnulation of this guide and procedure manual and a copy should be provided to each interested property owner, as well as to the Department of Cotntnlinity Development within 30 daysofthe approval of this Special Use Perlllit. B&B should meet, upon request, with local residents to discuss concerns. [Condition #4] In the existing Special Use Pertnit, trucks are limited to those whose drivers are directly accountable to the operator of the site for proper operation of the trucks in accordance with the conditions of the Special Use Permit. As a condition of approval, only B&B Excavating (or the successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) employees and trucks, and those ofB&B's (or the succeSsor operator's) contractors, should be used to haul materials from the site; no "over ~the-counter" or retail sales of gravel or gravel products should be allowed. [Condition # 5] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) B&B Excavating has been required to educate its drivers regarding proper operation of trucks along Coffee Pot Road, Colorado Rivet Road and Highway 6. As a condition of approval, B&B Excavating (or its successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) should regularly educate all drivers entering or leaving the site on the followIng: a. The prohibition of the use of "jake brakes" on the Colorado River Road, except in emergency situations where property damage or damage to life and limb may occur. b. Speed limitations on Coffee Pot Road, Colorado River Road and Highway 6 at the 1-70 Dotsero ramps. addition, a schedule for vehicle and equipment maintenance should occur so that both noise levels and safety ctors are considered. This includes muffler noise from trucks. . [Condition # 6] 15 8/26/05 To minimize unnecessary glare on the site, the existing Special Use Permit includes certain restrictions on lighting. As a condition of approval, lighting on the Hidden Valley Pit site should be limited to flush mounted, down-cast lighting located on the scale house/office and the caretaker unit. Temporary (up to 60 days) security lighting may be installed upon written complaint to the Eagle County Sheriff of vandalism, theft or other criminal activity. A copy of the complaint should be received by the Department of Community Development prior to the temporary lightil , &eing used, and if the temporary lighting is necessary for more than 60 days, it must be approved by the Board of County COtntnissioners in a public hearing after proper public notice is provided. [Condition # 7] Conforlllancewith the Industrial and Commercial Performance Standards of the Land Use Regulations is essential As a condition of at>proval, the Hidden Valley Pit site operations should comply with the Eagle County Industrial and COIIlIIlercial Performance Standards, including more stringent standards as may subsequently be adopted. [Condition # 8] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) While the sight is largely obscured from view due to its location above Colorado River Road, it is still visible from certain perspectives further to the West. As a condition of approval, visual impact should be mitigated in the following manrter: a. Disturbed lITeas should be reclaimed as soon as practicable, with vegetation species and densities designed to blend with the surrounding area following the approved reclamation plan. b. Ifvisible from surrounding areas, buildings should be painted with colors designed to minimize visual intrusion onto the surrounding area. [Condition # 9] DayS./Hours ofOpetatlon The clJrtent Special Use Permit limits hours of operation to 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday during Mountain Standard Time (MST) and from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM during Mountain Daylight Time (MDT). Operations are not permitted on cetta:in designated days, including: New Years Day, Memorial Day, July Fourth, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and the day before the first day of each session of rifle hunting season. In addition, loaded and unloaded trucks are prohibited from entering or leaving the site frOh1 30 minutes prior to until 5 minutes after scheduled school bus passes. Further, gravel hauling is to be suspended for , four hours during each check-in time and check-out time for the opening and closing sessions of Anderson Camps, such suspensions being limited to eight during any given calendar year. The Applicl:l:t1t is asking that the nOrlllal hours be expanded to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Ex:tendedhours would be from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Saturday with advance notice to Colorado RivetRoad homeowners (presumably those homeowners south of Deep Creek Road). Further, operations would cease between dusk and dawn, and no activities would take place on Sundays. The Applicant further states that, even at maxirrtuin production levels, cr\lshing and washing operations would occur no more than 159 days per year. Given other operational provisions to minimize adverse impacts, an expanded schedule may be appropriate, especially with the consideration that all operations be limited to daylight hours. As a condition of approval, normal hours of operation (including mine operation, processing and hauling) should be 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. Extended hours should be from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday thtoughSaturday with five dayS advance notification to Colorado River Road homeowners south of Deep Creek Road and the DepattIIlent of Cortltnunity Development. Further, operations should cease between sunset and sunrise, and no activities should take place on Sundays. In any event, crushing and washing operations should occur no more than 159 days per calendar year. [Condition # 10] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Pla1'lningCommission. ) As a further condition of approval, to preclude undue conflict during certain times in which heavy vehicular traffic may be expected on Colorado River Road and in which public safety is of greater concern, operations related to the Hidden Valley Pit should be further restricted as follows: a. Operations should not be permitted at the following times: 16 8/26/05 1. New Years Day 11. Memorial Day 111. July Fourth IV. Labor Day v. Thanksgiving Day VI. Christmas Eve V11. Christmas Day Vl11. The day before the first day of each session of rifle hunting season b. Gravel hauling operation should be suspended for four hours during each check-in time and check- out time for the opening and closing sessions of Anderson Camps, provided that there be no more than 8 suspensions during a calendar year, and provided further that the Camp gives both the Department of COIIlIIlunity Development and B&B Excavating (or the successor operator of the Hidden valley Pit site) a schedule ofthose check-in and check-out times for which it desires suspension reasonably in advance of those times. c. In the event of conflicts between truck ~ctivities associated with this Special Use Permit and school bu.s operations, as perceived by the Eagle County School District (RE50J), representatives ofB&B Excavating (or its successor operator) should meet with representatives of the School District and attempt in good faith to resolve the conflict. In the event that attempts to resolve the conflict ate not satisfactory, the matter should be considered by the Board of County Cotnmissioners at which time the Board may, at a public hearing, modify, add or delete one or more of the conditions of approval of this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 11] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) Road Maintenanc'e The Eagle County Engineering bepartrnent has requested a number of revisions to the Traffic Impact Study pteviouslysubmitted. The requested revisions have been agreed to, but the Applicant has not provided a revised 'raffic Impact Study. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of this Special Use Permit, the Applicant should _ roVide: a revised Traffic Impact Study which incorporates revisions agreed to between the Applicant and the Eagle County Engineer. [Condition # 12] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning CommissiOn.) B&B Excavating has conunitted to participate in certain maintenance and improvements to Coffee Pot Road, Colorado River Road, and the bridge on Colorado River Road immediately south of the intersection of the two roa.ds. Specifically, B&B Excavating has agreed to contribute to the overlaying of pavement on Colorado River Road from coffee Pot Road to the 1-70 right-of-.way based on the average daily increase of traffic on Colorado River Road caused by B&B Excavating. The average weekend and weekday traffic impact has been determined by B&B Excavating to be 32 percent. - However, the Eagle County Engineering Department recommends a different level of participation. As a condition of approval, it should be required that [a] the Applicant should participate in improving Colorado River Road prior to the start of material hauling for the 2007 season (road improvements to be completed in 2006); [b] the level of improvement should be a minimum of3" asphalt overlay (2" leveling course, I" asphalt surface), along with any shoulder and roadside: improvements deemed necessary by the County Engineer; and [c] the Applicant should participate in improvements at a contribution rate of 50% of costs, based on the "County Overlay Project" bid rate established in the 2006 construction year. [Condition # 13] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) Pursuant to a requirement of the current special use permit approved in 1997, B&B Excavating had prepared and provided to the County an inspection and report for the purpose of determining the load rating and maintenance requirements of the bridge over Deep Creek (on Colorado River Road). B&B Excavating has agreed to provide another study to provide an updated evaluation of the bridge structure. B&B Excavating further committed to ontribute to the repair or replacement of the structure if deemed necessary by the future study, again based on the verage daily increase of traffic impact on Colorado River Road caused by B&B Excavating, that is, 32 percent. 17 8/26/05 However, the Eagle County Engineering Department recommends a different level of participation. As a condition of approval, it should be required that [a] the Applicant should participate in the improvement and/or upgrade of the Deep Creek Bridge based on the Bridge Inspection Report currently being prepared by LONCO at a rate of 66.7% (2/3) of cost. All bridge improvements and upgrades should be completed prior to the increase of production level in 2006 (work to be completed in 2005). [Condition # 14] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planni CommissiOn. ) B&:B.Excavating has also agreed to improve Coffee Pot Road, on a 100 percent basis, to a service level similar to that of Colorado River Road from the entrance of the mine site to Colorado River Road. A condition of the current Special Use Permit is that this portion of the road was to be widened to a minimum of 22 feet wide travel lanes with 2 foot shoulders except in those areas where a narrower width may be necessary for environmental, right-of-way, or other design considerations acceptable to the Eagle County Engineering and Road and Bridge Departments. However, the Eagle County Engineering Department recommends a different level of participation. As a condition of approval, it should be required that [ a] the Applicant should improve Coffee Pot Road at its sole expense prior to the increase of production levels in 2006 (work to be completed in 2005); [b] approximately 2500 linear feet of Coffee Pot Road should be improved from the intersection with Colorado River Road to the pit entrance, with a minimum pavement section of 4" asphalt over 8" base course as designed by a geotechnical engineer; [c] engineered COnstruction and Drainage Plans meeting all County Road Standards should be submitted to the County Engineer for review and apptoval prior to the start of qonstruction. [Condition # 15] Drainage Eagle County Engineering notes that certain portions of the Drainage Analysis (i.e., the "curve ntiIIlber") provided by the Applicant appear to be low. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of this Special Use Permit, the Applicant should provide a revised Drainage Analysis which is satisfactory to the Eagle County Engineer. (This condition was SUbsequently deleted by the Planning Commission.) Eagle CourttyEngineering has expressed a concern about seepage from the drainage and settling ponds, and potential impacts to portions of Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road that lie at elevations below the pit floor. Engineering notes that the Applicant has stated that "no effect is expected from water seepage" but provides no analysis to support this statement. Furtherlllore, it has been observed that seepage is currently occurring as evidenced by water collecting in the existing wetlands on the north side of Coffee Pot Road, even though no irrigation has taken place on the meadow above the pit. The concern about this situation is that continued saturation of the sub-base under Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road will cause damage to these roads. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of this Special Use Permit, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Eagle COtihty Engineer that seepage from the drainage and settling ponds will not cause saturation of the sub-base under Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road and cause damage to these roads. [Condition # 16] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) It is requested by Eagle County Engineering that all remaining concerns discussed above be resolved prior to any Planning Cotntnission or Board of County Commissioners meetings or hearings. Water A certain amoliilt of water will be necessary for mining operations on this site, primarily related to washing gravel. As much as 140,000 tons per year of gravel will be washed, even when extraction is increased to 350,000 tons per year. The Applicant has provided a copy of a Water Referee's Ruling approved in 1995 changing the use of 0.5 cfs from the Deep Creek Ditch serving this site for gravel mining. The Applicant indicates in the application that a new application to the Water Court has been submitted. As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to expansion of mining operations that adequate, legal water is available for all aspects ofthe proposed gravel mining operations pursuant to this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 17] Public Lands The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified the following concerns: 18 8/26/05 Access across the site to public lands - BLM notes that there is no reference to a road which leaves private property and hecomes Onion Ridge Road on public lands. USGS Quad Maps do show a road across the subject site from Deep Creek Road to the adja.cent public land which becomes a jeep trail along Onion Ridge. This is presumably what is being referred to by BLM. However, the Applicant reports that the owner of the subject parcel has kept a ocked ga.te at the entrance to the site for 24 years and has not allowed public access. The Applicant has indicated that public access to the site could cause problems with regard to safety and vandalism, and wants public access to be restricted. Proximity of the mining operation to public lands - BLM has also expressed concern that the proposed excavation is extremely close to the adjacent public lands. The Applicant has responded that the top of the excavation is no closer than 30 feet ofthe property line and that the mining slope and reclamation slope will be 3H: 1 V (3 horizontal: 1 vertical).. As a condition of approval, the top of any excavation in the vicinity of public lands should be no closer than 30 feet to property boundaries and should have a mining slope and reclamation slope of no greater than 3H: 1 V, and should be properly top-soiled and re-vegetated as proposed in the Reclamation Plan. [Condition # 18] Permanent staking of the Dublic land-private land boundary - A concern has also been raised about potential encroachment of mining operations onto public lands. BLM has requested that the public land - private land boundary be SUrVeyed and posted and/or fenced to help ensure public safety. the Applicant has agreed to marking and posting the site boundary. As a condition of approval, the public land - private land boundar)' and the limit of excavation should be permanently and clearly marked and posted, and no encroachment outside of the boundary shduld be petIIlitted for any mining activity. [Condition # 19] '-, Reporting CertainpeI1tlits from and reports to the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) and/or Division of Mifierals and Geology Mining (bMG) are required. It is appropriate for copies of these permits and reports to be provided to Eagle Courtty to facilitate monitoring conforlllance with the conditions of this Special Use Permit. As a condition of approval, no activity may occur on the Hidden Valley Pit site beyond 2005 until such time as the ~pplicant submits a copy of the approved Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board and/or Division of Minerals and Geology Mining Permit for the 183.65 acre site. [Condition # 20] As a further condition of approval, B&B Excavating (or the successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) should submit theanrtual report required by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology to the Eagle County Departtn:ent of COIIlIIlunity Development simultaneously with its submission to the State, but in any event, no later than August 5 of each year. [Condition # 21] ExpirationIRenewal The mining and reclamation plan provides for 40 years of mining operations on the site. However, the Applicant is requesting that County approval for mining operations be for a series of ten year periods to correspond with a series of ten year leases with the owner of the site. At the. same time, the Applicant is asking that each ten year renewal not require a complete, new special use permit application and approval. In essence, .the request is for a special use permit for a 40 year mining and reclamation operation, subject to review and renewal at the beginning of each of three subsequent ten year periods. Staff understands that the principal concerns of the Applicant in this regard are [1] potential duplication Mroad impact fees and [2] the business uncertainty of having to re-apply for a series of neW special use permits. With respect to the former, Staffhas assured the Applicant that road impact fees are applicable only to increases in "traffic-generating development", and so duplication of road impact fees would not occur. And while Staff is sympathetic to the concerns regarding uncertainty, a periodic, detailed review of the previous operations and consideration of future operations, with appropriate public notice and public hearings, is appropriate and necessary to take into account changing circumstances that are likely to occur over such an extended period of time. ~s a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should be approved for mining and reclamation operations eginning in 2005 and continuing until December 31, 2045, with the provision that, prior to the continuation of mining operations for each intervening 10-year period (i.e., beginning in 2015,2025, and 2035), the Hidden ValleycPit Special Use Permit should be subject to review by the Eagle County Planning Commission and the Board of 19 8/26/05 County Conunissioners at public hearings, after the Applicant has provided infotIIlation and reports deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, and appropriate public notice having been given. Provided further, the Board of County Cortltnissioners may delete or modify any existing conditions of approval or add additional conditions of approval applicable to subsequent mining and reclamation operations under this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 22] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) [+) FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] The desigh 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 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. sf ANJ)AIU>: 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 tesources, and othet natural resources. The EnvirolltnentalHealth Department has suggested that a requirement be that all local, state and federal pertnits must be obtained and submitted to Eagle County prior to expansion of operations at the site. Consequently, as a condition of approval, all local, state and federal permits should be obtained and submitted to Eagle County Cortltnunity Development prior to expansion associated with the Special Use Pemrit, including demonstration of the availability of adequate, decreed water rights needed for all aspects of the operation. Further, any violation of a local, state or federal permit should constitute. a violation of this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 23] Environmental Health has also asked that certain environmental plans be submitted prior to expansion associated With the Special Use Permit. As a condition of approval, a Dust Suppression Plan (DSP), a Storm Water Management Plan (SwMP), and a Spill Prevention, Control and Counterllleasures Plan (SPCC) should be submitted by the Applicant and approved by the Director of Environmental Health prior to expansion of operations associated with the Special Use Permit. [Condition # 24] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) The Applicant and the Eagle Count)' Department of Environmental Health (EH) agree that mosquitoes are not likely to become an issue. Nonetheless, EH is satisfied that the Applicant Will seek its guidance in the event that a mosquito problem arises. Environmental Health has also asked that an Annual Compliance Report be provided which will demonstrate conformance With required environmental mitigation measures. As a condition of approval, an Annual Compliance Report Which demonstrates conformance with the Dust Suppression Plan (DSP), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC); and with Division 4-5, Cotntnercial and Industrial Perfoi1i1al1ce Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, should be submitted by the Applicant to the Environmental Health Department no later than August 5 of each year. [Condition # 25] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has indicated that it has no areas of concern pertaining to Wildlife in addition to those noted previously. CDOW explicitly states that B&B Excavating has incorporated all the previously recoIIlIIlended mitigation measures in the current plans. However, CDOW makes the point that although an adjacent landowner reports not seeing much use by deer or elk, the site is classified as critical mule deer and elk winter range, and CDOW continues to document the use of this area by both deer an elk during its seasonal age an sex ratio flights during winter months. This is consistent with Wildlife Habitat maps used by the County. [+] 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. 20 8/26/05 stANllAIU>: 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. {'he site is currently adequately served by public roads. Certain road improvements are proposed elsewhere in this taff Report to mitigate adverse impacts of increased traffic due to the mining operations. Other public services and facilities will either not be needed or are in place. / [+] 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 semces. 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. Article4:.Sitt~ Development Standards. Pluses and minuses il1 the margin indicate wherestaffhasfound that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ +]) or does not meet the standard ([ -]), or the standard does not apply ([ n/a]). A plus/minus ([ +/-]) indicates that the finding is mixed al1d warral1ts particular attention by the Plantling Commission and the Board. [+ J Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards Adequate parking for vehicles directly related to the mining operation will be provided on-site. Conditions are proposed above to preclude the parking of unnecessary vehicles and equipment on the site. [+] Division 4-2. Landscaping and nIumination Standards reclamation plan is provided in the Application. No landscape buffering is needed, although an existing bertn Will e expanded to buffer the mining operation from other uses in the vicinity. To minimize uimecessary glare on the site, the existing Special Use Permit includes certain restrictions on lighting. As a condition of approval, lighting on the Hidden Valley Pit site should be limited to flush mounted, down-cast lighting located on the scale house/office and the caretaker unit. Temporary (up to 60 days) security lighting may be installed upon Written complaint to the Eagle County Sheriff of vandalism, theft or other criminal activity. A copy of the complaint should be received by the Department of Community Development prior to the temporary lighting being used, and if the temporary lighting is necessary for more than 60 days, it must be approved by the Board of CountyCortlIhissioners in a public hearing after proper public notice is provided. [Condition # 7] [+] Division 4-3. Sign Ref!ulations All signs advertising this business will he required to conform to the Sign Code. [+] Division 4..4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4410. Wildlife Protection The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has indicated that it has no areas of concern pertaining to wildlife in addition to those noted previously. CDOW explicitly states that B&B Excavating has incorporated all the previously recoIIlIIlended m.itigation measures in the current plans. However, CDOW makes the point that although an adjacent landowner reports not seeing much use by deer or elk, the site is classified as critical mule deer and elk winter range, and CDOW continues to document the use of this area by both deer an elk during its seasonal age an ex ratio flights during winter months. This is consistent with Wildlife Habitat maps used by the County. [+] Section 4420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards 21 8/26/05 With the exception of the temporary scale house, no permanent development is proposed on the site. Consequently, considerations regarding geologic hazards are not significant. [+] Section 4-430. . DevelojJment in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards With the exception of the temporary scale house, no permanent development is proposed on the site. Consequently, potential loss in lives and property due to wildfire is minimal. [+] Section 4-440. Wood BtitningControls The.Applicant will be required to conform to the provisions of this Section. [nla] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection this site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map as having possible ridgeline impacts. [ +] Section 4460. . Enviro111llental Impact Report A satisfactory Envirohtnental Impact Report has been provided. [+] Division 4"5, Commercial and Industrial Perf'orlllance Standards. The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements of this Division, specifically as it relates to noise and vibration; smoke and particulates; heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference; storage of hazardous and non- hazardous materials; and water quality. Envirohtnental Health has also asked that an Annual Compliance Report be p'rdvidedwhich Will demot1strate comot'rtlance with required envirohtnental mitigation measures. As a condition of approval; an Artrttful Compliance Report which demonstrates confonrtance with Division 4-5, Comtnercial and IndustriaJ Petforh1ilhce Standards; of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations should be submitted by the Applican to the Environmental Health Departfuerttno later than August 15 of each year. [Condition # 25] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) [+] Division 4':'6. Improvements Standards Eagle County Engineering notes that certain portions of the drainage analysis (the "curve number") provided by the Applicant appear to be low. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of this Special Use Pertuit, the Applicant should provide a revised Drainage Analysis which is satisfactory to the Eagle County Engineer. (This condition subsequently deleted by the Planning Commission.) Eagle County Engineering has expressed a concern about seepage from the drainage and settling ponds, and potential impacts to the Colorado River and Coffee Pot Road that lie at elevations below the pit floor. Engineering notes that the Applicant has stated that "no effect is expected from water seepage" but provides no analysis to support this statement. Furthermore, it has been observed that seepage is currently occurring as evidenced by water collecting in the existing wetlands on the north side of Coffee Pot Road, even though no irrigation has taken place on the meadow above the pit. The concerrt about this situation is that continued saturation of the sub-base under Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road will cause damage to these roads. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer that seepage from the drainage and settling ponds will not cause saturation of the sub-base under Colorado River Road and Coffee Pot Road and cause damage to these roads. [Condition # 16] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) It is requested by Eagle County Engineering that all remaining concerns discussed above be resolved prior to any Planning Commission or Board of County Commissioners meetings or hearings. [+] Division 4-7, Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [nJa] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards 22 8/26/05 No resideritial development is proposed as part of this Special Use Permit. Consequently, this Section is not applicable. +] Section 4-710: Roadlmpact Fees Road impact fees will be required. The Applicant is proposing that road impact fees of a specific amount be assessed for each incremental increase in scheduled maximum production, as follows: 2005 ~. Scheduled increase from the current production of 50,000 tons per year to 112,000 tons per year (a net increase of 62,000 tOns per year); 2007 - Scheduled increase to 140,000 tons per year (a net increase of 28,000 tons per year); and 2010.... Scheduled increase to 350,000 tons per year (a net increase of 110,000 tons per year). Eagle County Engineering has recotn:rl1ended a road impact fee of a different amount, as outlined in its memorandum dated 13 April 2005. The amount and timing ofpaynient of road impact fees Will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Section, apart for the approval of this Special Use Permit. As a condition of approval, all toad impact fees should be paid ina timely manner as detenrtined by the Eagle County Impact Fee Administrator and as provided in Section 4-710, Road Impact Fees, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 26] (This condition was subsequently revised by the Planning Commission.) l+) 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. . tANDARD: Other Provisions (Section 5-250.13.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards 'lposed on.lt by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed uSe complies With this standard. l+) FlNI>lNG: 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. DISCUSSION: Joe Forinash presented the file. He showed some photos and maps highlighting the area in question. He' provided detail of the increase in production from 2005 through 2045. B&B has agreed to provide additional improvements to Coffee Pot road and Colorado River Road back to 1-70. They would also participate in bridge improvements up to 50% of the cost. He indicated that the first three conditions have been satisfied. Condition numbers 17,20,31, 12,24 have also been satisfied. The applicant is also proposing a 5 year review with a 10 year formal review. Other outstanding issues have to do with the compliance review panel, as highlighted in condition #4. The applicant has agreed to work with adjacent homeowners and Eagle County to develop a compliance review panel. This panel would review complaints and make corrective actions, refer to the appropriate agency and suspend operations if needed. He highlighted other procedures related to the compliance review panel. The applicant was present and showed a PowerPoint slide show. Jason Burkee, director of development spoke to the board. Greg Lewicky was also present. He provided some history ofB&B. The company has been in le valley since 1965. The business plan is based on steady production. They believe there is a need for this gravel pit. Since 1987 the gravel demand has increased to over 800,000 tons. They are in the final phase of reclamation at the Edwards pit. They own 100 acres just to the west of this land, but this is also scheduled to be sold in spring of 2006. Hidden Valley is needed to replace the Eaton and the Carol Ann pit. At full production in 2011, the Hidden 23 8/26/05 Valley pit will only supply 50% of the Eagle County needs. All of the material processed will stay in Eagle County. Greg Lewicky, mining reclamation specialist spoke to the board. The area is a dry terrace. The plan allows for the mining of the top 40 feet of the terrace. This allows for low visual impact for 95% of the life of the operation. The plan is limited to disturbing no more than 30 acres at a time. The land will be returned to irrigatio use. Warren Jacobsen has had problems irrigating the eastern portion of his property. He showed slides of the current site and the production area. In 2010 the production will only satisfy half of the demand in Eagle County. Chairman Menconi asked about the future needs. Mr. Lewicky stated that in the boom years when production was higher, B&B chose not to increase production. Future growth periods down the road might mean that gravel production would not meet demand. Chairman Menconi wondered how they could mine 30 acres and be able to produce 350,000 tons. Mr. Lewicky explained the methods that they would use. Chairman Menconi asked how production could be 7 times greater using the same acreage. Mr. Lewicky stated that the operation would be north of the current area. Chairman Menconi wondered if there would additional impacts in terms of people and road impacts. Mr. Burkee stated that the number of people would stay the same. The increase would be in moving processed material to the concrete and asphalt plants. There would be an increase in truck traffic. There would be no fuel storage, asPhalt plants or concrete plants on the site. Mr. Lewicky detailed the types of operation that would be present; mining, crushing and loading. He stated that :B&B has done a lot of things for this application, more than he has had to do in other areas. He feels that they have established open coIntnunication with the neighbors and reduced hours and days of operation. The pit is designed as one of the lowest visual impacts in the state. He feels that it could be argued that this facility is a replacement facility for the Eaton Ranch parcel. They have the most strict dust control and reclamation plan in the state in his opinion. They have worked intensely with the head of Environmental Health in trying to make this plant a model for the state of Colorado and Eagle County. He spoke about their request for the 10 year permit term, which is based on a good track record already established, state of the art requirements in dust control, the comPliance review panel, and all other agreed conditions. The five year review would check on cursory issues. Chairtnan Menconi asked how many gravel pits the applicant cuttently operates in the County. Mr. Burkee responded that they had approximately 9, artd Old Castle United has about 26 current operations for a total of close to 35. Chairman Menconi opened public cotntnent. Debbie Vernell, resident of Colorado River Road spoke to the commissioners. She is the adjacent neighbbr. She stated that at the last planning cotnmission meeting B&B agreed to never add concrete or asphalt production operations. She stated that dust control is a big issue because the wind blows on the weekends and after hours. She wondered what a nuisance means in terms of dust control. She doesn't want the county to believe monitoring won't be needed. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Vernell about the location that would allow a doWnward view of the pit. Mr. Forinash stated that there are several vantage points from Coffee Pot road. Mr. Lewicky showed a visual impact map. He showed how Coffee Pot road would allow views of the pit. Chairtnan Menconi wondered if concerns about dust have been resolved. Ms. Vernell stated that she is still concerned about road safety based on the increase in trips. The visual impact concern is based on the fact that they were told there would be no change in the shelf but B&B has since added aberm. She wonders how this was allowed if the conditions were being enforced. Hank Vernell spoke to the board. He and his wife have lived there since 1978 he has the same concerns as Mrs. Vernell about the dust and it seems that the neighbors are being required to regulate. He is concerned about the roads as well. He is against the permit. Michelle Wolf spoke to the board. She is a neighbor as well. She thanked the applicant for working with the homeowners. She is still concerned about safety. The roads are narrow and recreational uses are going to increase. She is also concerned about enforcement and asked that the County back the decisions that are made and do something about infractions. She asked that the County back the homeowners in the future. Warren Jacobson has owned the ranch for 25 years. He has not subdivided or changed anything and he operated his property as a ranch. In 1946 the owners of his ranch gave a right of way to the Forest Service for $1.00. The biggest problem is dust from people going up to Deep Lake. Mr. Burkee read two letters in favor for the record. One was from Mike Farrell confirming his willingness to participate in the Compliance Review Panel. He wishes the pit were elsewhere, but is in favor ofthe permit provided that commitments made by the applicant are kept. Jerry Butters also wrote a letter in favor of the permit. 24 8/26/05 Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Mr. Burkee responded to public comments. He stated that the dust will be handled with the use of specified haul roads that will be chemically treated and there will also be a committed water truck on the site. Stock piles will also reduce the dust. They intend to pave the portion of Coffee Pot road leading up to their entrance. As far as Gafety, B&B has not ever had an infraction related to safety. The compliance review panel will enforce safety on the part of drivers. B&B has rules and regulations for their drivers to drive below the speed limit. They have only asked for three Saturdays during the year to haul gravel. As far as the pit operations, at maximum production they will be working 27 Saturdays a year. If there is a problem the review panel will indicate so. Regarding future asphalt or cOncrete plants, he has verbally committed to never asking for this option for the life of the pit. Mr. Lewicky responded fUrther to the dust control situation. They are conunitted to using an internet site that covers weather changes that might result in excessive dust. The crusher is enclosed with water sprays. They have conunitted to seeding, mulching or crimp mulching the ground within three weeks oftop soiling. As far as efiforcemerit goes they are committed to complying with any changes that Eagle County might have. Mr. Ray Merry, director of Environmental Health informed the board of his opinion on the dust suppression. He mentioned the Land Use Regulations. Within this document there is an enforcemerttprotocol, however issues such as dust are very difficult to monitor as the dust increases and decreases so quickly. He has worked on a state of the art dust control plan. The nuisance language allows for a disciplinary process related to infractions. Chaitrt1anMenconi wondered if the answers Mr. Merry gave helped Mrs. Vemell's concerns. Mrs. Yemen askedifthere would be no dust leaving the pit. Chairlllan Menconi stated that he believes the majority of the dust comes from other uses than the operation. He also relies 011 Ray Merry's assessment about dust control mitigation. Mr. Merry responded that B&B is doing everything they can possibly do to control the dust. This doesn't mean there will be no dust but the plan to mitigate the problem is as progressive as it can be. Mrs. Vemell stated that she is a bit more comfortable. Mr. Burkee informed the board that the Yernells were offered the opportunity to serve on the compliance review panel arid they declined. Cotntrtis'sioner Stone stated that condition number 22 has alternate wording. He wondered whether about ie Orhissioh of certain language. The original staff report has the correct wording. Mr. Forinash asked why the applicant removed the wording. The applicant indicated that they are not opposed to the wording on the staff report conditions. Commissioner Stone indicated that he would support a 10 year review, however at the 5 year review he would like to be able to act if anything drastic was occurring and to bring it to the level of Board of County Cotnrtiissioners and the Planning Commission with powers to revoke the permit at that time. COIIlIIlissioner Runyon wondered why the file was denied in 1995. Mr. Forinash stated that at the time it was detetIIlined that the mining might not be appropriate. Mr. Burkee stated that it Was a question of timing because the Eaton parcel was not at capacity. Also at that time they were requesting asphalt and concrete plants at the site. Commissioner Runyon wondered about current cement and asphalt plants. Mr. Butkee infortned the board that there is an asphalt and concrete plant in Edwards and a concrete plant outside of Eagle. Conunissioner Runyon also asked about the illegal berm. Mr. Burkee responded that they were initially supposed to be stockpiling the top soil, but there was more overburden than they thought. At this point the homeowners are in favor of leaving the berm in place. Comrtrissioner Stone asked who owned the bridge they'd be paying 50% and who was paying the other 50%. Mr. Burkee stated the Cotihty. Commissioner Stone asked about the cost of improving the bridge. Mr. Forinash stated that once improvements are determined to be necessary then B&B would pay for 50%. Commissioner Stone stated that if B&B was going to increase production by 7 fold, then the bridge would deteriorate faster than if the pit weren't there. Mr. Burkee stated that if and when there is a need to replace the bridge they will participate 50%. Commissioner Stone wondered whether this was an equitable cost sharing. Chairman Menconi mentioned Mr. Higgins recent capital improvement request on all the Colorado River Road bridges. He asked if it was the three island bridge or one of the 4 main bridges on Colorado River Road. 25 8/26/05 Phillip Bowman stated the bridge was not one of the 4 main bridges on Colorado River Road. The bridge is less than 20 feet in width and as such is not monitored on a yearly basis. They have asked B&B to contact the engineering firlll to inspect the bridge and they identified some immediate repairs that were needed. Our Road and Bridge departtnent completed these bridges. The bridge dates back to the late 1960s or early 1970s. The background behind the 50% number is based on traffic impact provided by B&B. B&B traffic use is more in the line of25 or 30 percent. Chairlllan Menconi asked how this guarantee for 50% cost sharing would be reflected in this agreement. Mr. Matthews Stated that there would need to be an agreement at some point in the future. Mr; Bowman stated that in the future ifB&B did not meet the condition that they had agreed to the special uSe permit could then be revoked. Chairman Menconi wondered about widening of the bridge based on increased use. Mr. Bowman stated that the bridge is capable of handling the loads at full production levels. He believes it is reasonable to assUtne that significant repair will need to be handled in the near future. Chairlllan Menconi spoke about the width ofthe bridge in terms of this equitable arrangement. Mr. Burkee stated that they are committed to their 50% whether the bridge is simply replaced or replaced and widened at the same time. Chairlllan Menconi asked about traffic loads. He wondered if the trucks could use 1-70. Mr. Btirkee responded that they are not able to ilse the interstate. ChaitrtianMenconi wondered about the impacts of the future use in relation to the rest of Highway 6. Mr. Btirkee stated the material between noW and 2010 would be going to Edwards and Montgomery. ChhitiliaIl Menconi wondered why Highway 6 is a preferable route from 1-70. Mr. Butkee responded that once the trucks get to the highway, it becomes a load restriction issue. Chaittnart Menconi asked about condition number 21. Mr. Matthews responded that he is comfortable with the Compliance Review Panel. He agrees with the requirements for the panel. The Attorney's office doesn't believe that there should be an employee from Eagle Cotihty. He believes it would create a conflict of interest. Mr.. Burkee responded that the annual meeting could be scheduled concurrently with the site inspection. Chairman Menconi asked about a representative from the planning commission. He felt that Kerry WaIlac would be peifect as she had raised the idea. Mr. Matthews stated that he would contact the planning conunission. Chairman Menconi asked if this would change the standard for existing gravel pits. He wondered if other special use pettnits could be amended to include these progressive conditions. Mr. Matthews stated that the board already has this power. Mr. Merry stated that anyone seeking amendments to their special use pennits could have additional regulations applied. The panel can come up with their protocol and guidelines. Brad Higgins, Director of Road and Bridge spoke to the board about the bridge immediately preceding Coffee Pot Road. He inforllled the board that B&B was asked to hire the county's engineering firm. The bridge was deterlllined to he sound, but the deck needed replacement ~ which will he done this fall. Cotnmissioner Stone wondered if the applicant would pay for these repairs at the 50% level. He also wondered how long this 50% agreement would be in effect. Mr. Higgins responded that the bridge would probably need to be replaced based on development and traffic; but he estimated the bridge would have atleast 10 more years oflife. Chaith1an Menconi wondered about a motion approving the file with all 31 conditions. Mr. Matthews indicated that there are some conditions that could he deleted. Mr. Forinash informed the board that conditions 12, 17,20, and 24 could be deleted and 22 revised. Mr. Matthews added the additional language to condition 22. . Cotntnissioner Runyon moved to approve File No. ZS-00126 Hidden Valley Pit, incorporating staff findings and the following conditions as numbered in the file 1-11, 13-16, 18-19,21-23,25-30. Maximum production pertnitted under this Special Use Permit shall be 112,000 tons per year through 2006, 140,000 tons per year through 2009 and thereafter, 350,000 tons per year through 2045, with a maximum production of 12,999,000 tons. 1. Permitted uses and activities on the Hidden Valley Pit site are as follows: 26 8/26/05 a. Site preparation including road construction/access improvements, topsoil removal and stockpiling, overburden removal and stockpiling. b. Aggregate mining and stockpiling, washing, crushing, conveying, loading, and hauling of aggregate material mined from the site. Importation of raw material to the .Hidden Valley Pit site is not permitted. c.Dtainage improvements such as culverts, sediment ponds and water tanks/storage. Water storage uSes shall include pumps and surface and subsurface pipelines. d. Utility lines, including telephone, electricity, propane, water, generators, and fire protection equipment and supplies, may be placed above or below ground. e. Reclamation activities such a grading, seeding, planting, mulching, fertilizing and irrigation. f. Ohe dwelling unit for a caretaker or night watchman may be placed on the site upon on issuance of a building permit and a ISDS Permit. The housing shall be of a temporary nature and be removed at the expiration of this permit. g. Ohe scale house and office not to exceed 1,000 square feet. h. Only e'quipment that is necessary for the daily/on-going operation and maintenance. of the graVel operation may remain on the site; the site may not be utilized as a contractor's storage yard without specific amendment to this permit. 1. Parkingofelllployee or visitor vehicles, as well as company vehicles required for on-site operations; J. Storage of rirlnirigand construction equipment and supplies necessary for the on'-going operation of the gravel pit may occUr, however adeqUate screening is required. 2. This Special Us'e Pertnitshall supersede the Uses by Right in the Resolitce Zone District except as may in the future be approved by the :Board ofCountyCotnlllissioners through the Special Use Pertnit process; provided, h()wever, that agricultural USes, u.tility distribution facilities and water diversion structures/ditches shall be considered to be apart of this Special Use Permit. 3. .. B&BExcavating (or its succeSsor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) shall u.pdate (as and when necessary) and maintain a detailed p()licy guide and procedure manual outlining fire, health, emergency, safety and welfare of employees andsUIT()unding residents and visitors to the area. B&B Excavating shall make a good faith effort to involve the Compliance Review Panel consisting of representatives of B&B Excavating, the Colorado River Road property oWrters,and Eagle County Code Enforcement, as outlined by the Applicaiitln its Amendment dated May 24, 2005 in the formulation of this guide and procedure manual and a copy shall be provided to each interested property owner, as well as to the Department ofCoIIlIIluni1)' Development within 30 days of the approval of this Special Use Pertnit.B&B Shall meet, upon request, with local residents to discuss concerns. The policy guide and procedure manual shall be completed prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and shall be enforceable by the Compliance Review Panel. 4. Ohty B&B ExcaVating (or the successor operator oftheHidden Valley Pit site) employees and trUcks, and those ofB&B's (or the successor operator's) contractors who conform to the conditions of this Special Use Permit, shall be used to haul materials from the site. "Contractors" are hereby defined a qualified companies who contract with B&B Excavating (or its successor operators) to haul material out of the pit or qualified companies who contract with B&B Excavating to haul to B&B job sites or B&B pits. . B&B Excavating (or its successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) shall regularly educate all drivers entering or leaving the site on the following: 27 8/26/05 a. The prohibition of the use of 'jake brakes" on the Colorado River Road, except in emergency situations where property damage or damage to life and limb may occur. b. Speed linritations on Coffee Pot Road, Colorado River Road and Highway 6 at the 1-70 Dotsero ramps. In addition, a schedule for vehicle and equipment maintenance shall occur so that both noise levels and safety factors are considered. This includes muffler noise from trucks. 7. Lighting on the lIidden Valley Pit site shall be limited to flush mounted, down-cast lighting located on the scale house/office and thecatetaker unit. Temporary (up to 60 days) security lighting may be installed upon written complaint to the Eagle County Sheriff of vandalism, theft or other criminal activity. A copy of the complaint shall be teceived by the Department of CortltntiIlity Dev'elopment prior to the temporary lighting being used, and if the temporary lighting is necessary for more than 60 days, it must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners in. a public hearing after proper public notice is provided. 8. .The Hidden Valley Pit site operations shall comply with the Eagle County Industrial and Cortltnercial Performance Standards, as may be amended from time to time. 9. Visual impact shall be mitigated in the following manrter: a. Disturbed ateaS shall be reclaimed as soon as practicable, with vegetation species and densities designed to blend with the surrounding area following the approved reclamation plan. b. Ifvisible from sUrrotiIlding areas, buildings shall be painted with colors designed to minimize visual introsion onto the surrounding area. 10. NOrlllal hours of operation (including mine operation, processing and hauling) shall be as follows: Scale / Hauling (truckS loaded and offthe scaleby 5:00 PM) Monday through Friday ~ 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday"""- 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (No more than 3 Saturdays petcalei1dar year. B&B Excavating shall coordinate Saturday hauling operations to avoid those Saturdays in which Colorado Rivet Road bike races are scheduled.) S1iI1day (Scale /Hauling operations not permitted) Crushing / Washing Monday through Friday ~ 7:00 AM to 6:00 pM Saturday- 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (No more than 27 Saturdays per calendar year) Sunday (Crushing / Washing operations not permitted) Plant / Site Maintenance MOfidaythrough Friday -7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday- 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (No more than 27 Saturdays per calendar year) Sunday (Plant / Site Maintenance not permitted) 11. To preclude undue conflict during certain times in which heavy vehicular traffic may be expected on Colorado River Road and in which public safety is of greater concern, operations related to the Hidden Valley Pit shall be further restricted as follows: c. Operations should not be permitted at the following times: 1. New Years Day and the weekend if it should fall on a weekend 11. Memorial Day and the weekend preceding 28 8/26/05 111. July Fourth and the weekend if it should fall on a weekend lV. Labor Day and the weekend preceding v. Thanksgiving Day and the weekend following Vl. Christmas Eve and the weekend if it should fall on a weekend vii. Christmas Day and the weekend if it should fall on a weekend Vl11. The day before the first day of each session of rifle hunting season b. Gravel hauling operation shall be suspended for four hours during each check-in time and check-out time for the opening and closing sessions of Anderson Camps, provided that there be no mOre than 8 suspensions during a calendar year, and provided further that the Camp gives both the Department of COIIlIIlunity Development and B&B Excavating (or the succesSOr operator ofthe Hidden valley Pit site) a schedule of those check-in and check-out times for which it desires suspension reasonably in advance of those times. c. In the event of conflicts between truck activities associated with this Special Use Permit and school bus operations, as perceived by the Eagle County School District (RE50J), representatives ofB&B Excavating (or its successor operator) shall meet with representatives of the School District and attempt in good faith to resolve the conflict. In the event that attemptS to tesolve the conflict are hot satisfactory, the matter shall be considered by the Board of CoUhty Commissioners at which time the Board may, at a public hearing, modify, add or delete one or more of the conditions of approval of this Special Use Permit. 13. It shall be required that [a] the Applicant shall participate in improving Colorado River Road prior to the start of material hauling for the 2007 season (road improvements to be completed in 2006); [b] the level of improvement shall be a minimum of 3" asphalt overlay (2" leveling course, 1" asphalt surface), along with any shoulder and roadside improvements deemed necessary by the County Engineer; and [c] the Applicant shall perform the i:i1'1provementsand supply the County with their "actual cost", With the County paying for 59% (applicant paying for 41 %) ofthe cost, with the maximum overlay cost being established by the "Cotihty Overlay Proj ect" bid rate in he 2006 construction year. 14. lt shall be required that [a] the Appllcant shall participate in the improvement and/or upgrade ofthe Deep Creek Bridge based on the Bridge Inspection Report and subsequent recotntnertdations prepared by LoNco at a tate of 50% of cost, and [b] the Applicant will be allowed to perform the improvements if they choose, or pay the contribution rate agreed to for the Road & Bridge DepattIIlent to perform the improvements, and [c] the bridge repair itemS recothmended by the LONCO Report as "Urgent RepaIr" items 1 & 2, and "Progrartlh1ed Repair" items 1 & 3 shall be completed prior to the increase of production levels in 2006 (work to be completed in 2005). 15. It shall be required that [a] the Applicant shall improve Coffee Pot Road at its sole expense prior to the increase of production levels in 2007 (work to be completed in 2006); and [b] approximately 2500 linear feet of Coffee Pot Road shall be improved from the intersection with Colorado River Road to the pit entrance, with a minimum pavement section of4" asphalt over 8" base course as designed by a geotechnical engineer; and [c] engineered Con'stttiction and Drainage Plans meeting all County Road Standards shall be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to the start of construction. 16. If any hew seep dCcurs which causes damage to either Colorado River Road or Deep Creek Road and such damage can be attributed to the Hidden Valley Pit mining operations, the Applicant (or the successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) shall repair the subsequent damage to the satisfaction of the County Engineer at its sole expense. 18.The top of any excavation in the vicinity of public lands shall be no closer than 30 feet to property boundaries and shall have a mining slope and reclamation slope of no greater than 3H: 1 V, and shall be properly top-soiled and re-vegetated as proposed in the Reclamation Plan. 9. The public land - private land boundary and the limit of excavation shall be permanently and clearly marked and posted, and no encroachment outside of the boundary shall be permitted for any mining activity. 29 8/26/05 21. I3&B Excavating (or the successor operator of the Hidden Valley Pit site) shall submit the annual report required by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology to the Eagle County Department of Community Developrnent simultaneously with its submission to the State, but in any event, no later than August 5 of each year. 22. This Special Use Permit shall be approved for mining and reclamation operations beginning in 2005 and continuing until December 31, 2045, with the provision that two types of reviews occurring during this timeframe. Every 10 years, 2015, 2025, and 2035, a special Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Eagle County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners at public hearings, after the applicant has provided information and reports deemed necessary by the director of Community Development, and appropriate public notice having been given. Provide further, the Board of County Commissioners may delete or modify any existing conditions of approval or add additional conditions of approval applicable to subsequent mining and reclamation operations under this permit. For each intervening 5 year period, 20 I 0, 2020, 2030, and 2040, the applicant will provide information to the Director of Community Development regarding a) compliance, b) complaints, c) corrective action, d) lease standing, and e) significant changes to the operation. If there are no significant issues with any of these items, the Director of Community Development will issue an abbreviated report sent to appropriate parties and the operation will continue as in the past. If there is a significant issue with any of the items, the Director of Conununity Development can either resolve the issue( s) with the applicant or the Director may ask for the full process as outlined above for the 10 year review. As provided in the Land Use Regulations, as they may be revised from time to time, and for good and sufficient cause, the Board of County Commissioners may revoke the Special Use Permit. 23. All local, state and federal permits shall be obtained and submitted to Eagle County COtntnunity Development prior to expansion associated with the Special Use Permit, including demonstration of the availability of adequate, decreed water rights needed for all aspects of the operation. Further, any violation of a local, state or federal permit shall constitute a violation of this Special Use Permit. 25. An Annual Compliance Report which demonstrates conformance with the Dust Suppression Plan (DSP), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SpeC); with Divisio 4-5, Comtnercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; and with the policy guide and procedure manual shall be submitted by the Applicant to the Environmental Health Department no later than August 5 of each year. 26. Based on the infortnation that will be forthcoming in the Revised Traffic Impact Study (and subject to verification by the Engineering Department), the Road Impact Fees for this operation shall be paid by the Applicant based on the following schedule: a. Due January 1,2006: First Installment of$25,384 for increase to 112,000 tons per year of production (increase of76 "car equivalent" trips per day). , b. Due January 1, 2008: Second Installment of $13,026 for increase to 140,000 tons per year of production (increase of 39 "car equivalent" trips per day). c. Due January 1,2011: Final Installment of $86,840 for increase to 350,000 tons per year of production {increase of 260 "car equivalent" trips per day. 27. 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. 28. The following site changes shall be made: a. The scale house and scale operations shall be moved before December 31, 2005, to a location which is not visible from Colorado River Road. b. At the time the scale house and scale operations are moved, the scale road will be realigned in a northerly direction away from the pit perimeter and the existing scale road will be reclaimed as pal of this operation. 30 8/26/05 c. The southern facing berlll shall be removed and reclaimed before operations begin in the Phase II area, i.e., beyond the current mining area. 29. The Applicant shall inspect Deep Creek Road each work day and clean it immediately ifit is muddy. 30. The Applicant shall comply with all of the agreements represented as having been agreed to with the homeowners that are doctitnented in the Amendments dated May 24 and May 25,2005. COIIlIIlissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-()0125-:- Nextel 'telecommunications; Spahme:t PropertY; Wolcott Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Platiher ACTION: To install a neW 50' cellular telecotntnunications facility consisting ofa "monopine" (equipment pole masked as a tree with attached panel antennas) and related equipment/equipment shelter LOCATION: 6S50Hwy 131; Spahtner Property; Wolcott REPRE8ENTA'liYE: Ne:rlelTelecommunications Facility, Wolcott (CliffHanger) ZS..00125 / Special Use Permit 0850 Hwy 131; Wolcott SECT 15, TWN4S, IlliG 83W' James Sphamer OWfiethas given Nextel West Corp d/b/a Nextel COIIlIIlunications permission to apply Stacy Mathis, Tetra Tech Communications TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: STAFF REtOl\1MEN1>A TION: Approval with conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION StJMMARv: The applicarttdesires to construct, operate, and maintain a low power Telecotntnunications Facility on private property near Wolcott. The facility is proposed to consist of a 50' tall monopine on which multiple cellular panel antemias Will be placed; A concrete pad will sit at the base of the pole for Nextel Wireless (and a potential co- locator's) related equipment/equipment shelter. The equipment pole will be masked as a tree with attached panel antennas; the site shall be appropriately mitigated to ensure soil stability, etc. CHRONOLOGY: October 1995..Mr. Spahtne:r acquires property September 1997-Eagle CO\lhty determines that the Spahmer property is a legal, non-conforllling lot December 2004.. Application made to Eagle CoUIity. SITE.DAl'A: Surrounding Laud Uses / Zoning: East: Unplatted / Resource / Bureau of Land Management West: City of Denver / ROW: Highway 131 / Unplatted / ResOurce North: Unplatted / Resource / Bureau of Land Management South: Unplatted / Resource Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water/Sewer: Access: Resource 14.77 acres - 1,752 square foot lease area Not applicable Via Hwy 6 through an access easement granted from the land owner 31 8/26/05 PLANNlNGCOMMISSIONDELIBERATIONS: The Eagle County Planning Conunission had two concerns with this application: 1) There was not enough actual detail provided (photographs) regarding what the monopine will in reality, resemble. As such, one Planning Commissioner did not support the file. As a result of this concern, the remaining Planning Commissioners decide to henceforth set a Standard for monopine telecommunication facilities utilizing the Squaw Creek example as a minimum standard (see conditions 12 and 13).2) Soil stability and erosion control. Condition 10 was modified to strengthen the language of this condition, and condition 11 was added. The Planning COIIlIIlission also added conditions 12 and 14. The motion/recommendation was as follows: Approval with Staff Conditions 1 thru 9, with a modification to condition 10, as well as the additional conditions as reiJd (11 thru 14). Conditions: Astecommen.ded by Staff: Any additional landscaping or materials used for landscaping and/or erosion control purposes shall be maintained consistently for at least two years and periodically after that to ensure proper health and longevity. Any dead materials shall be removed and/or replaced immediately upon discovery As Amended: Materials used for landscaping and/or erosion control purposes shall be maintained in perpetuity to ensure proper health and soil stability. Any dead materials, failing erosion control devices or subsequent erosion effects not previously anticipated, shall be removed, replaced and/or mitigated immediately upon discovery. Additional: Applicant will be responsible for the best landscaping application which is feaSIble with the native soils to include erosion and weed control If the County receives any visual complaints regarding the facility the owner must address those complaints in a timely fashion. The tower's visual standards must emulate the "Squaw Creek" telecommunications facility as a minimum standard for this and future installations of "monopine" wireless communication poles. Discontinuance of this use for a period of 12 months constitutes a revocation of this Special Use Permit. Removal of the facility (including all equipment, structures, etc.) and the reclamation of the disturbed site will be the responsibility of the landowner. The site must be restored within 45 days of the termination of this Special Use Permit; the site is to be restored to its original, natural state. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Eagle County Planning Cotntnission Recommended approval of file ZS-00125, incorporating all Stafffmdings and with amended and/or additional conditions. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, memo dated June 27th, 2005: · this is probably in a Moderate Wildfire Hazard area; however, there are no structures associated with the towers and little to no potential impact from wildfire. Eagle Count)' Engineering, memo dated June 22nd, 2005: · As mentioned in my memo dated May 20,2005; the proposed access driveway is shown with an 18% grade and a centerline turning radius of about 26 feet. · This driveway will be difficult to negotiate under winter conditions. I recommend that the grade ane. centerline radius of this driveway meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) Section 4-620.J.9 Pg. 4-80. 32 8/26/05 . Due to clearing and grading required for the construction of the proposed access driveway; the applicant will need to meet our erosion control standards for soil stabilization and pertnanent revegetation. . The disturbed areas shall be seeded and mulched within seven days after final grade is reached. . On slopes steeper than twenty percent, exposed soils shall be hydromulched, or covered with nets or mats. . In addition, sediment and mud shall be prevented from leaving the site dtiting and after construction; the erosion control standards can be found in the ECLUR Section 4-665 Pg. 4-91. Colorado Geological Survey, memo dated June 16th, 2005: . In response to your request I visited this property to review the development plans. The referral included overall site plans prepared by ComnmnicationServices (4/25/05). The site consists of a 45-ft by 60..ft pad that would be graded and leveled, and an access road. . The site is situated on a slope of Benton Shale. This material weathers easily in cut slopes and could possess low strength and bearing capacity, or possibly be expansive. Geotechnical tests should be perforllled on the bedrock to obtain parameters for foundation design. . The foundation should be designed to account for hillside pressures. Soil creep probably occurs along the slope. Retaining structures should be free'-draining to prevent the buildup of pore pressure that could weaken the soil strength. Other standard building practices should be observed: grading a positive slope around the structure to prevent ponding of water that could cause unacceptable settlement; laying the fotihdation at a depth below the influence of frost. . The footprint of the facility (marked with stakes) is on a small knoll. The upslope area is vegetated with small junipers, and it does not appear that the facility would be subject to damaging sheetflow from above. There is a small incised drainage just southeast of the knoll that receives flows. The design of the proposed access road should account for hillside drainage; roadside ditches and culverts shouldbe installed, where necessary. The Benton Shale ravels on cut slopes, but I did not obserVe any slumping. Slopes steeper than 3: I horizontal:vertical might require reinforcement. . There are nO geologic conditions that would preclude development.. Referrals were als'o sent to the following agencies: $ Eagle County Assessors, Attorney, EnvirohIhenta1 Health, Road and Bridge, Sheriffs Office, Weed and Pest, Wildifre Mitigation Specialist $ CDOT Grand Jtirtction and local office $ Division of Wildlife $ BLM, Natural Resotitce Conservation Service $ Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, Holy Cross Electric, Qwest $ Colorado Historical Society, Eagle County Historical Society $ Bellyache Ridge HOA, Red Sky Ranch HOA Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulatiofls Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: stANDARD: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. 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 theFLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities afuse. TllE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Rural! 33 8/26/05 x x x FL1JM-'-- tRutal. the Futtite Land Use Map indicates that the property where the telecommunications facility will be located is within the designation of 'Rural' , mostly surrounded by Colorado Division of Wildlife lands. Rural areas are not typically associated with public facilities such as schools and rely on community or rural centers to serve their daily needs. Telecommunications facilities, as a specific use, are not discussed as part ofthe current Master Plan. x x x x x The Eagle C()1.1i1ty Open Space Plan contains a mix of concerns and policies, used to guide development in Eagle CoUrtt)'o This particular area of the County is not within an area of unique character. Te1ecotrlrnunicatiohs facilities, as a specific use, are not discussed as part of this plan. WQLCQ'tTAREAC01\1MUNItVPLAN x x x x x x x x x Teleconununications facilities, as a specific use, are not discussed as part of this plan. [+] FINDING: C01lsistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use PetIIlit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FL~ding standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed"- location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 34 8/26/05 This telecotntnunications facility will be located on private land approximately 14 acres in area which overlooks the 1-70 and Eagle River corridor. This location provides clear line of sight to a portion of 1-70 which is currently a dead zone for cellular service; this site is necessary for enhanced cellular coverage for wireless customers. ;urtently, very little development has occurred around this property. As such, the applicants had the foresight to propose a monopine instead of a monopole, and the rock aggregate on the shelter. Newer stealth technologies such as a "monopine" diSguise the installation to look like a tree. This type of installation will make this facility virtually disappear into the hillside. (See Conditions 6, 9 and 10) , [+] FINDING: Compatibility. AS CONDITIONED The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its to osed location and IS com atible with the character of stittoundin land uses. STANDARD: Section 5-250.nJ Zone District Standards. 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. the new TelecoIIlIIlunication Facility will be located in the Resource zone district. There are no speCific standards for these types of uSeS found in Section 3-310. [+] FINDING: ZiJhe District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential Awiculturaland Resource Uses STANDAR:I'>: Sectiou 5..2S0.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; fUrthermore, the roposed Specicl! Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service elivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Asthentioned the monopine, per this application will minimize the visual impacts of the structure, as Will the use of rock aggregate finish materia.ls on the shelter. The site will also use appropriate means to revegetate and prevent erosion and runoff'. (See Conditions 6, 9 and 10) This facility does not propose to emit any significant odors, noise, glare or vibrations. [+] FINDING: Desigh Minimizes Adverse Impact. AS CONDITIONED The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of I .' the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it CAN avoid adverse impact on stittounding lands regarding noise andtraffic, and WILL NOT create a nuisance. 81' ANDARD: Section 5-250.n.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. 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 applicants have proposed a variety of erosion control measures. Aside from initial application representations, cotnhlents haVe been received from both the Colorado Geologic Survey and the Engineering department. It will be required that the applicant incorporate all pertinent information from both memos as part of the approval for this application; this information will be required to be shown on all the building permit plans. (See Conditions 2, 3 and -0) One recoIIlIIlendation as per the Engineering memo may not be incorporated. Pursuant to the memo, item no. 1 recoIIlIIlends that the access to the site is rather steep, and should follow the recotntnendations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations regarding driveway grades, etc. Given the fact that this site will be accessed relatively 35 8/26/05 infrequently, the applicant will most likely construct the facility and access as proposed. Historically, similar accesses using similar grades have been approved for Telecommunication Facilities without issue. [+} FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use WILL fully minimize environmental impacts, and will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic, and other natural . resources. Impact on Public.Fa'cilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by publicfacUities and serVices, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The proposed facility is not staffed. PoWer and telephone are currently available on this property. The existing road/trail used to access the site is adequate, as traffic to this facility is minimal. [+} FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency rn:edical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standat'ds [+] Off-StfeetPatking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The applicants have proposed a parking and turn-arotJhd/parking area for this facility. Landscabing and mumination Standards (Division 4-2) AS CONDITIONED This facility will not be lit; it is acceptable for a light to be available next to the equipment shelter door for site visitations after dark, if the applicants feel it is necessary. Landscaping, as proposed, is adequate. (See Conditions 10 and 11) Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). There will be limited signage; only what is required by Federal law. Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410). Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) AS CONDITIONED. Several geologic concerns were identified by COSo These concerns must be satisfied and/or incorporated as part of the building permit. (See Condition 2 and JO) Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430). Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed. Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) This facility is not located on a ridgeline. Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmentalltnpact Report was not neceSsary for this Special Use Pertuit. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) There will be an HV AC and back-up generator located within the equipment shelter. As such, noise and vibrations from this facility are minute. Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards are not anticipated as a result of this development. Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) All Telecommunication facilities must comply with FCC standards (the regulating authority) which require that each teleconununication site be free of interference with other cellular carriers, television and radio stations, etc. Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) There will be no outside storage of any materials, and no storage of hazardous materials. [n/a] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) No new roads will be created; however, access improvements will be made from an existing drive to the lease area. 36 8/26/05 [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [n/a] [n/a] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [+] [n/a] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) AS CONDITIONED (See Condition 2, 3 and 10) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) en/a] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) en/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do not apply. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use WILL fully comply withall alicable standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Sectioll S-2S0.B.8 Other Provisions. 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. No other provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations are applicable to this proposal for a Special Use Permit. [+] FINDING: 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 dev'Clopment. characteristics DISCUSSION: Ms. Skihrier ~ Markowitz showed some slides with photos and maps of the proposed location. She provided some drawings of the building and tower with camouflaging. The facility will have an equipment shelter nd a perimeter fence. She indicated that staff recommends approval with conditions. Denise Gibbons with Nextel Cotntnunications was present. Chairlllan Menconi opened and closed public cotntnent as there was none. Cort1n1issioner Rtiriyon asked about the prefabricated shelter. Ms. Gibbons indicated that aggregate rock would be used on the outside. COtntnissioner Runyon wondered if rock from the area could be used. Ms. GibbOhs indicated that Nextel uses the Same prefabricated units and as such they cannot be customized. The outside compound would be rocked in. Conunissioner Runyon wondered why they wouldn't use native rock to camouflage the area. Thea Halperin stated that the building comes from another state and is pre-fabricated with the rock. The rocks chosen tend to blend into the surrounding natural landscaping. Ms. Markowitz showed a photo but it was notclear. Coh1tnissioner Stone moved to approve File No. ZS-0012S-Nextel Telecommunications; Spahmer Property, Wolcott incorporating the staff findings, and with the following 14 conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant must adhere to all recommendations as provided in the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) memorandum dated June 16th, 2005. Building Plans/application must reflect applicable recotntnendati ons. 3. The Applicant must adhere to all recommendations as stated in Condition 2 if the Engineering memorandum dated June 22nd, 2005. Building Plans/application must reflect applicable recotntnendations. 37 8/26/05 4. The applicant must obtain and record any applicable easements from thepropert)' owner. Recorded easements and/or related documents must be submitted with the Building Perlllit application. 5. Proposed contours must be shown on the required Building Permit for any grading involved with the site. 6. The facility shall be maintained to ensure that the monopine retains visual integrity (i.e. fallen branches shall be replaced, etc.). 7. This facility/lease area and/or equipment shelter must be designed to support at least one (1) co- location from a second low power wireless provider. 8. Applicant (Nextelor assigns) shall notify the Cotntnunity Development Director when altering or modifying equipment on the Telecommunications Facility. If a co-locator wishes to install equipment on the monopine, the co-locator must also notify the Community Development Director prior to the initial installation, and any subsequent alterations or modifications of their equipment in the TelecOinInuhications Facility thereafter. Notification shall include both a written description and detailed plans showing equipment on the outside ofthe monopine, as well as any modifications to the equipment shelter and/or lease area. Any increase in the height of the monopole, or the increase of the lease area will necessitate a new Special Use Perlllit. 9. All fencing for this lease area must be in an appropriate material such as a painted or "plastic dipped" chain link fence. Further, the equipment/equipment shelter shall be maintained to blend in with the surrounding landscape. 10. Materials used for landscaping and/or erosion control purposes shall be maintained in perpetuity to ensure proper health and soil stability. Any dead materials, failing erosion control devices or subsequent erosion effects not previously anticipated, shall be removed, replaced and/or mitigated ih1h1ediately upon discovery. 11. Applicant will be responsible for the best landscaping application which is feasible with the native soils to include erosion and weed control 12. If the County receives any visual complaints regarding the facility the owner must address those complaints in a timely fashion. 13. The tower's visual standards must emulate the "Squaw Creek" telecommunications facility as a minimum standard for this and future installations of "monopine" wireless cotntnunication poles. 14. Discontinuance of this use for a period of 12 months constitutes a revocation of this Special Use Permit. Removal of the facility (including all equipment, structures, etc.) and the reclamation of the disturbed site will be the responsibility of the landowner. The site must be restored within 45 days of the termination of this Special Use Permit; the site is to be restored to its original, natural state. Conunissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDSP~00020 and ZC-00074 - Edwards Buildine: Center pun lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner ACTION: In order to improve the existing Edwards Building Center (a pre-existing, non-conforming building materials operation), the applicants propose to create a PUD which would allow for the continuation of the existing uses and the addition of the following: Covered materials storage; new and/or improved fencing; and 6,000 square feet of building (to bring the maximum total building square footage to 20,000 square feet). 38 8/26/05 LOCATION: 033636 Highway 6, Edwards TITLE: FILE.NO./PROCESS: ~OCA 'l'ION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENtATIVE: Edwards Building Center PUD PDSP-00020 / POO Sketch Plan; ZC-00074 / Zone Change 33636 Hwy 6, West Edwards; South side ofHwy 6 B&DLP Owner Isom and Associates; Steve Isom STAFF RECOMMENDATION:. Approval with Conditions PROJECT DESCRIPTION SuMMARY: The Edwards Building Center is a pre-existing, "grandfathered," non-conforming building materials supplier which has existed since 1972. When zoning was introduced in Eagle County in 1974, the County assigned Resource zoning to the subject property; creating a legal, non-conforllling use. Pllisuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, specifically the requirements of Article 6, Section 6..110 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, "Norlllal maintenance or repair ofnonconfortning structures and strUctureS in which nonconforming uses ofland are located may be perforllled in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, to art extent not exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the actual value of the structure, as determined by the niost recertt County Tax Assessor's roles, provided that the area of the structure existing after the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased, except pursuant to the standards of this Section." As such, this operation has limited capacity to:m:ake improvements and/or updates to the business and/or the property. Prior to this applieation,Staff met with representatives of the Edwards Building Center to discuss their ability to covet existing btiildingmaterials, currently stored outside, by constructing cantilevered shelVing structures in which .iematerials will be placed. In doing so, the materials, namely lumber and wood products, would be elevated off the groUt1d and shielded from the elements resulting in a higher quality material for local consumers. UnfortUtiately, it was deterlllined that these improvements exceeded the intent of Article 6, and were an expansion of use. Representatives, of the EdWatds Building Center the owner's indicated that the owner'.. .does not plan on tefirtinatiilg the business anytime in the hear future. . .' In order to make improvements to the business, the applicant proposes to create a. Plahhed Unit Development which would allow for the continuation of the existing uses with the addition of the following: Covered materials storage; new and/or improved fencing; and 6,000 additional square feet of building (to bring the maximum total building square footage on the site to 20,000 square feet). C:uRONOLOGY: 1972-Business began operations. 1974-Resoutce zoning Was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, 1974. 1981-Edwards Village Residential was approved and platted next to the existing Edwards Building Center property. 1984-Homestead Filing 3 was platted to replace Edwards Village Residential. 1992- The Edwards Building Center was destroyed by fire. A Permit was issued to rebuild the main building within the same square footage/footprint. 1993-The Edwards Building Center applied for a PUD; this application was denied. The main reason for this denial was the significantly different standards in place at the time (e.g. you have to have a minimum of five (5) acres to have a POO) 1995-Stoney Meadows Townhomes Phase I (nearest neighbors) was constrUcted. 2005-Current application was submitted. ITEDATA: 'urroundillg Land Uses / Zoning: East: Tract G: Open Space/Utility/Pedestrian/Irrigation / Homestead Filing 3 POO West: Tract Q: Open SpacelRecreation / Homestead Filing 3 PUD 39 8/26/05 North: South: Highway 6 / Unplatted / Resource Tract G: Open Space/Utility/Pedestrian/Irrigation / Homestead Filing 3 PUD Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: Resource 2.38 acres Public- existing Public- existing Direct from Hwy 6 Pl.A:NNlNGCOMMISSI()N DELIBERATIONS: The Planrting Comitlission unanimously declared that this was a difficult file. The Planning Cotnmission relayed to the applicant that intent of these files appeared genuine and the request sounded reasonable; however, four (4) of seven (7) Planning Commissioners felt that the Planned Unit Development process was not the appropriate mechanism to accomplish the goals of the applicant. During Planning Cortltnission deliberations, several concerns were raised regarding the use of the Planned Unit Development process. The following is a list of concerns, followed by a response from Staff (Staff was not provided the opportunity to respond to Planning Conunission concerns during the hearing): . The PUb is not theapptopnate process to achieve the goals of the applicant. According to Section 5-240.A. Purpose. "The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone district is to Tierinit variationsfrom the strict application of the standards of the Countys other zone districts in order to allow flexibilitv for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of these Land Use Regulations. " PUD zoning allows for more controlled zone districts with specific and/or limited uses, standards and dimensional limitations. It allows for design nuances which may be impossible to achieve under the standard zone districts established in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In this particular case, the PUD ptbcess is the best mechanism for achieving the goals of the applicant due to the fact that Eagle County has no other viable land use process for achieving the applicant's goal. Otherwise, commercial zoning, the only other zOJ' district whichpermits the sale df building materials, would open this site up to a gamut of potentially undesirable uses. Under standard zoning there would be little or no control over a variety of "uses by right, " that may be incompatible. With the PUD, all existing uses will be defined within the PUD control document. Although the applicant has requested 6,000 sq ft of additional building space to accommodate a slight expansion of the retail area of the building, no new uses are proposed with this application (Please note that the applicant is willing to eliminate the additional enclosed retail square footage if necessary to accomplish the main goal of being allowed to construct the outdoor cantilevered materials storage), and the uSe will not change with the exception of visual/aesthetic, drainage and ECO Trail improvements. All of which will be positive contributions to the surrounding Edwards vicinity. With the PUD process, the County has an opportunity to analyze the site and request improvements to be made to an otherwise, "ungoverned," non-conforming use. In looking again at Section 5-240.A Purpose. it explains that there are certain objectives Or purposes for a PUD and when using the PUD process these objectives are obtained by using the standardsfor PUD. Of the seven objectives listed on page 5-28 (of the ECLURs), two do not apply and the remainingfive have been satisfied, or accomplished, with this PUD application. Left as a non-conforming operation, many of these objectives will never be realized. Some of the benefits of processing this application as a PUD include: enhanced water quality with the addition of storm water/drainage controls and appurtenances; contributions to ECO Trails including monetary and enhanced safety contributions (e.g.) signage; and increased visual compatibility with surrounding land uses. · This proposal does not meet all the requirements of the PUD process; particularly in regards to housing and landscaping. When analyzing applications for PUDs against the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), important factors to consider are the following: Many of the standards are recommendations. Currently, both the Housing Guidelines and minimum Open Space requirements are recommendations; The ECLURS assume that all PUD applications are for new development and do not anticipate situations where the use is currently ongoing and does 40 8/26/05 not seek increases in either density or intensity of use; Some of the standards for a PUD are highly subjective and can be argued either for or against an application. An example of a recommendation which is not being applied to this application is the housing guidelines,' a verbal response from the housing department indicated that this application does not warrant additional housingfor this )UD because as all the employees working at the Edwards Building Center already have homes. This proposal does not anticipate the need for additional housing, since the use is not expanding (please note that there is an existing, onsite caretaker unit which is to remain in the proposed PUD). In regards to landscaping, there is little room for onsite landscaping. As such the applicant has approached both the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Homestead homeowners with proposals to increase and/or enhance existing landscaping adjacent to the site within US Highway 6 right-of way and along the existing, berm which is within the Homestead, Filing 3 PUD bordering the subject site. Given that this is a building supply business, onsite landscaping may not be warranted. . There must be another way to achieve the goals of the applicant without utilizing the PUD process. Staff has thought through the possibilities for achieving the unique request for this applicant. Other than applying for standard commercial zoning and subdivision, no other means exist to permit the applicant to enhance the Edwards Building Center, in the way that is being requested. As mentioned in the summary on page one, this is a non'-coiiforming ilse.As such, the site is limited to, "... Normal maintenance or repair of nonconforming structures and sttilctures in which nonconforming uses of land are located may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, to an extent not exceedingfifteen (I5) percent of the actual value of the sttilcture." The applicant is requesting the addition of new shelving units to more efficiently store several existing stacks of building tnaterials- not sttilctures. As such, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations prohibit this installation! site enhancements; the Community Development Director determined that the addition of these shelving units constitutes an "expansion of USe". . Existing sites and/or UseS are difficult to evaluate with the PUD process. his statement is very true; hoWever, it is not impossible to evaluate these situations using the PUD process. The agle County Land Use RegUlations are written assuming that the proposals are "starting from scratch" and do not specifically acknowledge existing situations. Many findings may be of mixed conformance; even new applications may not perfectly meet allfindings as set forth in the standards. Eachapplicdtion is unique and may incorporate certain nuances that a customary set of standards doesn't encapsulate- existing or not. Many of the previously approved PUDs have incorporated existing land uses, roadways or existing site design improvements (e.g. landscaping) into their new PUD approval which may not meet the expectations of the current regulations without the Board of County Commissioners granting a Variation, Deviation, or Variance from Improvements Standards. These three mechanisms were created on purpose to add flexibility to PUD applications. Parking requirements, landscaping and lighting requirements, types of uses, road designs, etc. are examples of standards which may be augmented from the strict requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. . the POO process may be in conflict with the intent of Article 6: Nonconformities, as this PUI) would allow for changes to the nonconforllling use. Article 6: Nonconformities provides limitations and controls for ongoing nonconforming uses and structures: what to do with them, if they can be expanded, etc. The County's intent is that eventually, over time, nonconforming uses and structures will simply extinguish. In the interim, uses and structures are limited to normal maintenance and repair. The use of the property will not change as a result of this PUD. The only substantive change will be the addition of the covered racks for material storage. Regardless of PUD approval, this use may continue perpetually,' however,. with this PUD application certain improvements will be achieved such as stormwater/drainage improvements; CO trails contributions and/or improvements (including increased safety measures for pedestrians and _ icyclists); and visual/aesthetic enhancements for neighbors and citizens of Edwards. The proposed improvements would be otherwise unobtainable if the Edwards Building Center was left in its existing, nonconforming situation. 41 8/26/05 At the recent Planning Commission hearing, there was a question posed about whether or not the approval of this PUD would be a direct contradiction of Article 6. Under Section 6-100 Purvose and Intent. paragraph two states: "It is the intent of these Land Use Regulations to permit these nonconformities to continue, until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival except under the limited circumstances established in this Article. It is further the intent of these Land Use Regulations that changes in nonconformities shall not be permitted. The provisions ~ this Article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities to preserve the integrity of these Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan. }} This is a very reasonable statement; however, the Edwards Building Center is someWhat of a unique situation when considering nonconforming uses. This business relies on its supply of materials for its survival, which are constantly being sold and replenished; the main building was only constructed in 1992 (after afire destroyed the original structure) and utilizedfinish materials that require little maintenance and upkeep (metal siding, etc.); this business could continue to exist for many years. With this PUD little is changingfrom the nonconforming use at hand. The phrase, "... The provisions of this Article are designed toeartail substantial investrtzent in noncolljormities to preserve the integrity of these Land Use Regulations... }} conforms with the intent of this PUD as the application allows for increased conformance with the Land Use regulations while permittitfg limited investment increase in the. nonconforming use itself as it is a commercial use on a developed lot. Further, this business has been in existence in its current location since 1972. When the County applied zoningfor thefirst time in 1974, Resource zoning was applied to the existing commercial USe thereby creating a nonconformity. · PUD should not be used to 'get around' setbacks. This is correct; rather, setbacks should be tailored to allow design flexibility as stated in the PUD purpose statement. STAFFRE:PORT REFERRAL RES:PONSES: (see attached) lIomesteadHomeowners AssoCiation Inc., email dated July 6th, 2005: Tracy Erickson, General Manager · I would like to forward to you my notes on discussions between Stephen Isom (for EBC PUD) and myself. · on May 16th Steve called to ask if I would get pricing on connecting 6 Spruce trees to Homestead's irrigation system. · Oil May 17 I received a letter of follow up from Steve that explained the relation of the irrigation requeSt to the neW PUD. · on May 24 I called Steve to inforlll him that I would need to talk to the Board about his request and the PUD application. · on June 3 I received notification from the County regarding the PUD. · After presentirtg the pun to Homestead Board of Directors on June 10th, I spoke to Steve on June 23 and explained that Homestead Board of Directors was unanimously opposed to the PUD. · Steve never met with Myself or the Homestead Board of Directors Please note: Since the Planning Commission Hearing, representatives of the Edwards Building Center have met with the Homestead Homeowners Association. Staff received a memo from the Edwards Building Center dated July ii, 2005 responding to HOA concerns (see attached). Division of Wildlife, memo dated June 30th, 2005: · Bear complaints in the Edwards area have significantly increased in the last two years. · The project will have some residential trash that would attract bears. · Although chain link fence provides a certain level of bear protection it does not prevent bears from accessing the site and getting into trash containers. · The CDOW recommends that the project be required to meet the existing county regulations for new construction that calls for bear proof trash containers. 42 8/26/05 ECO Trails, electronic memo dated June 24th, 2005: . ECO Trail program comments regarding regional trails System and submitted PUD request: . The Edwards Building Center does not appear to be able to contain its operations fully within its existing site. . For that reason, vehicles often park in the Highway 6 right-of-way and use the Highway for backing and turning movemehts, particularly the semi-trucks making deliveries. . The semi-trucks sometimes park on and block the paved trail. This means that the trail pavement has often carried a greater load than what it was designed for (maintenance vehicles weight vs. semi-truck weight). It will require a future overlay, as do all asphalt facilities, but this one has taken more loading than typical. . The trail was constructed in i999. Current management has helped out on a couple of trail clean-ups and that stewardship is appreciated. However, there is room for improvement and the following includes items that have been impacted and should be addressed at this juncture. . I recotriIliend that the Edwards Building Center contribute to trails program and enhancement facility as followS, with respect to their PUD request: . Provide a contribution to the asphalt overlay fund for the section of regional trail that adjoins this property. . A two..inch trail overlay to the west of this property is planned in 2005 and the average bid price received was $8.70 per linear foot. . The 970 foot frontage of this property vs. that value equates to an $8,500.00 contribution. . the overlay of this sectioh would be targeted for 2007 and improvements may include asphalt curbing as needed along the frontage of the property to protect the trail. . Widen the asphalt driveway entrance into the employee parking lot at the east end of the project by ail additional 3 feet on each side including proper curve radius. . Currently gravel is consistently strewn onto the trail (which is only swept once a month) from entrance and exit into that driveway because vehicles are exiting and entering Highway 6 at relatively high speeds due to lack of acce1 and deccellanes. The additional paving may help the debris problem. . Install "No Parking on Paved Path" signs at 50'intervals on the north property fence, facing the highway and replace the trail stop signs that have been knocked down at the main entrance to the Building Center, per the trail design standards (l can provide those). And include a resolution statement that Edwards Building Center will replace all damaged trail signs and repair any trail damage as soon as it is detected. . I request that these items should be completed within 30 days of the hearing, if approved. Efivironmentalllealth Departmellt, dated June 24th, 2005: . Edwards Building Center exists as a non-conformity, and in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) Article 6, it specifically states "not to encourage their surviVal. . . it is further the intent of these Lt1:Rs that changes. in nonconforlllities shall not be permitted." . Our understanding is that the applicant would like to invest in protecting his lumber products and expand the existing office area. . Even though the public may benefit from proposed landscaping improvements to the existing property and the county may be able to better control the land use, we're concerned about the precedent of using the pUb process to legitimize non-conformities, especially for commercial uses surrounded by residential and yet-to-be-developedparcels. . The applicant addresses ECLUR, Article 4: Section 4-650, Drainage Standards. Environmental Health also recotntnends the applicant work with our engineering department to assute adequate detention to contain a 100 year stOrlll event and incorporate hydrocarbon treatment for the run-off since the site consists of essentially 100% impermeable surfaces. . A condition to maintain these facilities should be incorporated into the PUD guide. Engineering Memo, dated June 23rd, 2005: . The applicant has supplied drainage calculations to this department to ensure that this project is in compliance with the water quality standards for storm-water runoff. However, no preliminary construction plans have been provided. . The applicant will need to provide construction plans which incorporate the proposed water quality structure for review and approval. (See condition 3) 43 8/26/05 · Currently the applicant does not have a Highway 6 access permit for this site. Since access to this site was established onto Highway 6 prior to 1981, an access permit is not required. · A new access permit will be required if the traffic volume to the site is increased by 20 percent or more. . The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposed changes to the site will not increase vehicle volume to the site by 20 percent or more. Otherwise a Highway 6 access permit application must be submitted to this office. . the applicant needs to be aware of the fact that the second access located at the eastern end of this site could be restricted or closed in the future. · the ctittent Highway 6 Access Management Plan (AMP) identifies various access consolidations and closures along Highway 6 between Squaw Creek Road and Dowd Junction. · Consolidating access points will reduce traffic conflicts, and improve traffic flow along the Highway; The AMP has identified the eastern access to the Edwards Building Center to be closed pending redevelopment. DiVision ofWildllfe, per phone conversation dated June17th, 2005: · Trash should be kept in a bear-proof trash container as approved by DOW; this is one method that will reduce or eliminate bear trash interactiorts. Eagle Riv~r Fire Protection District, dated June 9th, 2005: · the hydrant located to the West of the property generates the primary water supply for fireflow; the hydrant to the south provides secondary supply. . this configuration is adequate for the proposed changes to the property. · The applicant will need to provide a site plan, drawn to scale, that verifieS compliance with 503 and 1909 ofthectittent fire code, IFC 2003 Edition. · These sections address access within the property and may need modification due to the shape of the lot. . the department requires annual rITe inspections and the most cUrtent one on file is for 2003. · The Building Center is scheduled for an inspection in August of this year; this schedule can be accelerated and the inspection completed prior to PUD approval. · The current fire alarm System will need to be expanded to cover the proposed additional 6,000 square feet. Additional Referrals were sent to the followinl! al!encies and Homeowner's Associations: · Ea.gle Coon.ty Attorney, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Housing Division, Assessor, Sheriff, Road and Bridge; and Weed and Pest . CDOT (Grand Junction and Local Office) . Ambulance District . Edwards Metro District; Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Other Letters of Concern: New Wallace, Board Member, HODlestead Homeowilers Association email dated July 6th, 2005: . Please note that I am opposed to the Edwards Building Center proposed PUD. · This operation, at one time appropriately doing business in a rural, low residentially developed area, now lays smack in the middle of the lower part of the Homestead residential and recreation area. · I feel very strongly that now that this lumber yard is surrounded by homes and soccer fields/playgrounds, it should not be allowed to continue use at all, never mind expanding! · Weare ctittently looking at the possibility of an outdoor pool and/or tennis center to be developed on our HOA land immediately to the west ofthe Edwards Building Center (where the old red school house building is) and would not appreciate a large lumber operation adjacent. · Please be diligent in looking this proposal over and taking in the fact that with Edwards evolving into a beautiful, family friendly neighborhood, this lumber yard is an eyesore for the surrounding homes and really should be elsewhere. It is after all, a non conforming operation at present. Please do not OK this PUD and please do not make this lumber yard larger. Make it go away · I ask you to please take into careful consideration what this section of highway 6 and the Homestead residential development has become. This business is out of place there now, anyone can see that 44 8/26/05 Lynn Emmert, email dated July 6th, 2005: . Fellow Board Members, I have spoken to Jena Skinner-Markowitz and she is the Planner in charge ofthis Request. . I feel it would be in Homesteads best interest if each member emailed our opposition to this PUD request. . As Bob Warner explained "this could open the flood gates for more commercial growth at the Edwards Building Center. This year it is for cleaning up the area and building covered material storage, improve the fencing (a lot of it is falling down), and 6,000 sq ft of building (to bring the maximum total building sq ft to 20,000 sq ft).Next year it could be to subdivide and bring in other businesses..." . We need to stop them this year. Greg Sallds, email dated July 6th, 2005: . I do have a concern for what this will lead to. . the proximity to residential property co:ncems me the most. As explained by Bob Warner, I would also be concerned as to the cortlmercial options down the road. Pursuallt to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch andPreliminaty plan for PUD: STANDARD: tIitijied ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Prelirninary Plan is in single ownership. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)J The title to all land thatisartofthisPUD IS owned or controlledb one ersonand/or enti . STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] ~ the uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "CommerCial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule, "for the zone. district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application forPUD. Variations of these use deSignations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., VariationS Authorized. The subject property is ctirtently zoned Resource; Eagle County placed Resource zoning on the parcel when zoning was adopted in 1974. The majority ofthe proposed uses ate ctirtently not allowed under the Resource zone district; however, under the Cotnh1etcialGeneral zone district all the uses currently found on site are either permitted as 'uses by right' or via Special Use Perlllit. The uses which would necessitate a Special Use Permit include the existing Lumber Yard and the existing,.on site dwelling unit. A valid conceIll was raised by the En;vironmental Health Department in regards to creating a PUD to legitimize the non-conforming uses for this development: "Even though public may benefit from proposed landscaping improvements to the existing property and the county may be able to better control the land use, we're concerned about the precedent of using the PUD process to legitimize non-conformities, especially for commercial uses surrounded by residential and yet-to-be-developed parcels." In Eagle County, ofthe grandfathered, non-conforming uses found very feW are akin to this particular situation. In contrast to the most common, non-conforming uses such as contractor's storage yards, the Edwards Building Center is a full scale commercial operation near the core of .JdW. ards.,:hich employs. 281oc~l.residents. Wh.ere, many of the non-conform~g use~ in Edwards.and surrou. nding mmunItIes are not typIcal busmesses; are potential 'eyesores' and/or contam a vanety ofmatenals and "uncontrolled" uses, the Edwards Building Center maintains their property in good condition, as would any legitimate establishment. They also coordinate with the local fire department, and have maintained their operations 45 8/26/05 since .1972 without ihterruption (aside from a fire in 1992 which led to the recreation of the main retail/storage building). As such, this is a Uhique situation. All developable lands surrounding the site have been improved; the parcel to the West is open space/recreation. This proposal will not modify the intent of the ongoing, grandfathered, non-conforming use; the owners would lik to simply improve the site by installing outdoor covered material storage shelving, new fencing, and the ability to expand the main office/retail business by 6,000 sq ft. Because the uses are not found under Resource, the Board of County Cotnmissioners may grant a Variation, thus allowing the requested uses under PUD zoning; a Variation is currently being requested at this time to allow the existing uses to continue. Plttsuant to Section 5..240.F.3 Basisfor Granting Variations, Variations require conformance with at least one (1) of the listed 'reasons' per 5-240.F.3. This application has arguably met two (2) of the prerequisites: 1) The Variation is required to Obtain a Desired Design Quality; and 2) Trails. The first basis for granting a Variation allows the applicants to improve the site by providing the opportunity to organize and enhance the storage of outdoot materials as well as to imptOve and/or update existing perimeter fencing. With the second basis for Variation, 'Trails', the County and public gain trail enhancements and/or cash in lieu with improvements and/or contributions to the current ECO trail which parallels/fronts this property. (See Conditions 5, 67, and 13). [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-320, "Coh1h1ercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule"; however, the uses ARE NOT uses allowed in the Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and :Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule." StANDARD: DilnensilJ/tal LimltatilJns. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The following restrictions will be added to the PUD by the applicant in this Sketch/Preliminary Plan application: Maximum lot, floor area anditnpervious coverages*. No Variations for dimenSionallitnitations will be necessary for this application, as currently, the Resource zone district has unlimited lot, floor area and impervious coverages. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensionallitnitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in the existing Resource zoning for this property; however, this finding may be found positive as the applicant is adding these restrictions to the PUD Guide; the limitations being added are more restrictive than the underlying zone. district. StANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the pUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Art.icle 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized. transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. 46 8/26/05 This application proposes one (1) parking space for 300 sq ft net retail exclusive of restrooms and hallways and 1 space for caretaker. There will be a minimum of 18 employee spaces. Separate spaces for storage and office square footages are not necessary as those areas are strictly used by employees. The Overall Development Plan shows seven (7) standard plus one (1) handicap spaces for public. the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require one (1) space per 250 sq ft of Retail, service commercial and office. The parking plan adequately addtessesemployee parking, loading areas, and general parking; however, the Eagle Valley Fire Protection District is requesting validation on the circulation plan to ensure emergency vehicles can adequately access the site. (Go to Motion). [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Given the Sketch Plan level detail of the development plan, it is likely that the applicants HA VE demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the POO CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin~ and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in thestandatds. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5..240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards mav be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, Creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The current landscaping plan details all types and location of landscape materials to be utilized as part of this devdopment. The issue with this site is that it is currently almost 100% impervious. As such, the applicant is offering the following off site improvements: additional landscaping and expansion of irrigation on the southern erlll, currently within the Homestead Filing 3; and the introduction of certain vegetation along the front of the property in CDOTright-of-way. The applicant has contacted both Homestead and CDOT and is currently in contact with these neighbors to work out the details and agreement. Given that the entirety of the existing site is fenced and/or screened and very little of the site is not being used as driving or storage area, onsite landscaping efforts utilizing things such as planter boxes, etc. could be introduced to break up the sea of asphalt. The Board has the discretion to grant a Variation from the current Landscaping requirements. Agreements for offsite landscaping efforts must be obtained prior to Final Plat application. (See Condition 12) Site lighting and illumination standards have been satisfactorily addressed with this application. These standards have been incorporated as part of the PUD guide. [+/-] FINllING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It BAS NOT BEEN demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards; however, the applicant has made certain efforts to use offsite landscaping efforts to mitigate visual concerns of the development in lieu of onsite efforts. lllutnination standards HAVE BEEN inco . orated as art of the POO guide. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to he suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Certain sign code standards have been incorporated as part of the Edwards Building Center POO guide. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sigh standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. The POO uide properly references that si s shall be as allowed ursuant to the Eagle County Land 47 8/26/05 I Use Regulations; however, more language is necessary in order to createa Comprehensive Sign Plan. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for pota water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will, conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Existing facilities such as electricity (telephone, gas, cable, etc.), solid waste removal and fire protection currently service this property. . [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant lIAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in this SketchlPreliminary Plan for PUD HAS BEEN provided adequate facilities for solid waste disposal. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and tIre protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, howeVer, the development may deviate from the Coilnty1s road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right"ofway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more oj the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenier system Jor pedestrian access to dwelling u'nits and common areas, with appropriate linkage offsite. (c) Emergehcy Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Poihts. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the C()unty's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. . This development currently has a grandfathered Highway 6 (Hwy 6) access {Highway access Permits were not necessary until 1981). Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, it was required that the applicant provide traffic counts to the Engineering department in order to establish if further traffic analyses were necessary. The applicants did provide the requested information; the traffic counts showed that the traffic for this use was low enough (below threshold) that it was not necessary to do a full Traffic Impact Study. Pursuant to the memo from the Eagle County Engineering Department, the applicant must show that the proposed expansion will not increase the traffic at Hwy 6 by more than 20%, or a new Hwy 6 Access Permit will be required. As such, it will be required that no building permit will be issued for the expansion of the main building until eithe., it is proven that the expansion will not generate additional traffic or a new Hwy 6 Access Permit has been obtaine from CDOT. (See Condition 3) 48 8/26/05 The applicant has been in coordination with the Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding emergency access; all outstanding issues have been resolved. The applicant has provided adequate snow storage areas. . [+/-] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] . It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development Will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: . Safe, Efficient Access. . Internal Pathways. . Emergency Vehicles . Principal Access Points. . (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The existing/proposed uses for the Edwards Building Center PUD are typically not found in the Resource zone district because they are cotntnetcial in nature. What is important when considering the aspect of compatibility for this application is the history of this site in relation to neighboring residential uses. As previously mentioned, the Edwards Building Center has been in existence since 1972. In 1981, Eagle County approved the Edwards Village development. Part of the Edwards Village proposal, known as the Edwards Village Residential was approved directly contiguous to this parcel and established use. In 1984, the Edwards Village residential became Homestead Filing 3. The neighboring Stoney Meadows ToWhhomes as you see today were not built.until approximately 1995. .Importantly, when the Board of County Conunissioners approved Edwards Village ReSidential, they found compatibility between the then proposed residential development and the Edwards Building .,enter which pre;,existed most of the surrounding development of Edwards. To quell cOhcerns related to the compatibility of the Edwards Building Center, the developer of Edwards Village placed an open space tract (Tract G) to be used as a buffer between the homes and the commercial site, as well as art additional easement in between the buildings and the buffer; Homestead Filing 3 kept this tract and easement in place and incorporated them as part of the PUD. This is one of the areas that the applicant has requested an approvalfrdm the Homestead homeowners to install additional landscaping to further enhance this buffer. Across Highway 6 is a gardening/landscaping commercial operation; and a gravel pit. To the west is another open space tract (Tract Q), part of Homestead Filing 3. To the south, on the other side of the open space tract (Tract G) is a Jarge recreation field (Tract P), also part of the Homestead Filing 3. Only a small portion of the boundary of the Edwards Building Center actually adjoins residences. Pet the comments from the Envirorttnental Health Department (see also discussion in the finding for Uses), a concern was raised regarding the aspect of non-conformities and the County's desire for them to dissipate over time. As previously mentioned, the applicants have made statements to the fact that they have no desire to terminate this business an)'timein the foreseeable future. As such, one could argue that approving this PUD application would encourage the existence of this non"conforming situation and provide the opportunity for a potentially incompatible use to continue for a multitude of years; left as a non-conforming use, the life span would be decreased over time because only limited improvements are allowed to be made per Eagle County regulations. There is no time limit on this non-conforming use and the Edwards Building Center could live on for 5, 10, and 15 years or more without the PUD approval. As such, one could also argue that by approving the proposed PUD and improvements, and given the fact that this business will continue regardless; that this is an opportunity to make the site more aesthetically pleasing to the neighboring residential development and the Edwards community as a whole. .he proposed PUD limits the uses to those which are in place today, and have been since 1972, any request for additional and/or incompatible uses would require further examination by the County, Planning Conunission and Board of County Commissioners. 49 8/26/05 [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)J All aspects of the development proposed for the PUD MAY BE compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency With Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (IO)J - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan revieW is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. FLUM --' lCommunity Center. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the Edwards Building Center is Within the designated Cotnrtlunity Center. Cotntnunity Center has a suggested residential density of 3-12 dwelling units per aCre, in areas typically fOliIld along major transportation routes which are accessible public Water and sewer, and have not been identified as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Cotntnunity Centers as appropriate locations for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. COtntnunity Centers are also places Where a mix of non-residential activities takes place, including neighborhood commercial activities to serve'the population ofthe Cotntnunity Center and cotntnunity-oriented commercial or service which may serve surrounding areas or the entire County. Development in a COtntnunity Center is primarily served by centralized water supply and sewage treatment facilities. 2This application does not offer community open space and/or recreation areas; however, as the entirety of the Edwards Building Center is developed, the applicants are willing to improve and/or install offsite landscaping irtnnediately adjacent to the development. 3This development offers one (1) onsite caretaker unit which has been a part the Edwards Building Center for many years. As this is an existing business, all employees currently live offsite. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN. SPACE PLAN x x x x x x x The Edwards Building Center is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county, nor is it located in a natural hazard area. 50 8/26/05 The Edwards 13uilding Center currently is in the Edwards Metropolitan District for water; and is within the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for wastewater service. The applicant is being required to install drainage improvements to catch potentially harmful pollutants associated with parking areas and cOtntnercial operations, before discharging into the storm sewers. As such, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will compromise either the Eagle River watershed or the Eagle Rivet. EAGLE .COUNTY COMPkEfIENSIVE 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 cotntnuhity-Wide issue. . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing cotntnUllity centers, as defined in the Eagle CoUnty master plan. . Development oflocal 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 importaht to preserve existing local residents housing. . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county for other infrastructure needs. . 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. POLICIES: 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 x 51 8/26/05 ITEM YES NO N/A of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. COrt1tneTcial, 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 if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 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 iri1portaIlt part of Eagle County=s housing stock x II. There is a need tosegrnent 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 Coilnty recognizes that housing for local residents is an Ongoing issue X1- As this.is an existing, commercial development; the employees currently employed at the Edwards Building Center already have housing. ED'" ARJ)S AREACOMMuNlty PLAN . Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use X Housing X Transportation X <:>pen Space X Potable Water and WaStewater X Services and Facilities X . Environmental Quality X Econoinic DevelopmeIit X Recr~tiOn and Tourism X Histonc PreservatiOn X Implementation X Future Land Use Map X Pursuant to the Edwards Area Community Plan, this property is designated "high density residential." This proposal, however, contains uses found within a typical commercial general type zoning. As such, the applicant is requesting an "exception" to the Edwards Area Community Plan for this PUD. With the PUD, the existing uses shall continue. This is an important factor to consider even if the business was to discontinue, a zone change would still be necessary to allow for residential development; the zoning currently allows one (1) single family home and does not allow "high density residential" multi-family uses. This site is 52 8/26/05 triangular and is narrow. The viability for high density residential on this site would be hindered by lack of space for parking and access improvements. Land Use - The stated goal is, "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, 'nvironmental and economic needs ofthe current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located ina ma:hher that protects and improves the quality ofthe natural and human made environment, ensures the timely, cost..effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". This proposal does not serve to balance the physical needs; however, it presently contributes to the economic needs ofthe entire Edwards Community, as it employs at least 28 residents. This development is not a tourist destination nor does it provide cultural and social atmospheres because it is a lumber yard.. a use typically patronized for residents, not visitors. This application provides an opportunity for the County to evaluate the site and validate and/or require improvements. . Housing ~ "Affordable" housing is not anticipated in the current application as the Edwards building Center is an existing business; however, there is one (1) on site caretaker unit which will continue as part of the PUD. Transportation -The Edwards Building Center has grandfathered access points from Highway 6. If there is an increase in business of more than 20%, new access permits will be required. There is an existing bus stop in close proximity to the entrance of this development. Open Space ~ "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal can do little to convert any of the subject site as usable Open Space as the entirety of the site is being used for cotntnercial operations. There is an existing open space tract (tract G, Homestead Filing 3) buffer to the south which was created in 1981, between developments. The applicants have approached the Homestead Homeowners to improve landscaping on the existing berm. Landscaping is also proposed in front of the site next to the existing ECO trail in CDOT right-of- way; the applicant is waiting for fmal approval from CDOT for installation. ~~b~e Water artd W asteWater ~ Public potable water and sanitary sewer service currently serve. the Edwards ~~tldlng Center. Services and Facilities - 'fhls element of the Edwards Area Community Plan pertains to the management of solid and hazardous wastes and the support of public schools, occupational training and higher education. Although Iriany of these goals do not apply to this development, the applicant has responded to the concern of impacts from hazardous Wastes in creating haZardous materials controls in the Edwards Building Center PUD. Envirofurtental bua:lity -,-This proposal does not necessitate the creation of arty new wastewater or water supply facilities. Stortrtwater runoff and related issues have been adequately addressed; drainage plans have been submitted a.lthough final plans have not been approved by Engineering. Economic Development ~ This element of the Edwards Area Cotntnunity Plan suggests, "...a balanced mix of cOtntnercial, industrial and residential land uses to encourage a diverse economy." This proposal seeks to improve an existing land uSe in the Edwards community, not identified on the current Future Land Use Map of the Edwards Area C01l1n1unity Plan. According to the applicants, the Edwards Building Center application represents a unique land Use, and as such, the applicants are requesting an "Exception" to the current plan. Recreation and Tourism - The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current artd future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This application does not offer any community recreational amenities, and only landscape contributions to limited, offsite open space areas; however, with this application, the County will gain additional improvements such as storm water quality management and/or cash in lieu contributions for the ~isting ECO trail which parallels this property. Given the type of development is a destination oriented ~ommercial business, additional open space areas may not be necessary. 53 8/26/05 Historic Preservation - No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Colorado State Historical Society nor, the Eagle County Historical Society had provided comment. ln1plementation -The proposed development is required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. Compliance with the Highway 6 Access Control Plan is strongly recotntnended as well. Future Land UseMa.p (FLUM) -The proposed commercial site is identified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for, "high density residential." This area is not specifically identified on the FLUM for the Edwards area, and does not provide any other guida.nce language or intent as to why this property did not recognize the existing use. As such, the applicants are requesting an "Exception" to the current Future Land Use Map of the Edwards Area C<>tntnunity Plan. Areas across highway 6 are "mixed use" designation. [+!..] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed Sketch/Prelitninary Plan IS NOT entirely consistent with all stated purposes, goals, objectives and policies of all a.pplicable master plans. This is primarily due to a lack of conformance with the Edwards Area Community Plan FLUM. It IS; however, in conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan FLUM. stANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)]- The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entin! County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The proposed improvements are to be constructed over a period of time. As such, it would be appropriate to request that the applicant prioritize the proposed improvements to occur around the perimeter of the site in order to first improve the visual quality of the site from neighbors. (See Condition]3) [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Phasing [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) ] A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this development as the development is existing; however, nrioritiesshould be set for improvements. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count tiS Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areaS, and one hundred (] 00) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall he conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. 54 8/26/05 (j) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. ) As quoted above, the Eagle Count)' Land Use Regulations recommend that 25% ofthe total PUD area be utilized as open spabe. The total acreage of the Edwards Building Center is approximately 2.38 acres. Development has occurred on the entirety of property, with no area left as useable, cotnh1unity open space; however, the existing ECO trail rurts concurrently on the north boundary, and the triangular property is flanked on the west and south sides by offsite open space areas. Landscaping improvements on offsite areas have also been proposed by the applicants. Givertthat this development has been in existence for 33 years and is cotntnercial, common recreation areas may not be needed. Irtfohfiation regarding maintenance responsibilities has been provided as part of the PUD guide. [+/-) FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The pUb HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the cortnnon recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Irtiptovements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenanbe; or (d) organization. The Board of CountyCotiltnissioners may ftnd that 25% common open Space would not further benefit this to' ect. . STANDARD: lVatural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] ~ the PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the appllcable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. At the request of the Engineering Department, the applicants have provided designs for new drainage imptoVementslo help enhance existing property storm Water runoff quality. Wildlife-proof trash containers have also been requited pursuant to the POO guide. No other concerns have been identified for this proposal in regards to Natural Protection standards. [+] FINDING: AS CONDITIONED Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The POO nOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis doctitnerttsavailableat the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. ReQuiremelltsfor a Zone Chan2e. In Section 5-240.D., Standards. the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not con{rolled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the followingfindings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: TANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The subdivision shall be consistent 'ith the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). See previous discussion. 55 8/26/05 [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan; however, it does not conform with the Edwards Area Community Plan. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent towhich the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The development proposed for the subdivision MAY BE considered compatible With the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity; Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, specifically the requirements of Article 6, Section 6-110 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, "Normal maintenance or repair ofnonconforllling structures and structures in which nonconforming uses ofland are located may be performed in any period of twelve (12) consecutive months, to art extent not exceeding fifteen (15) percent of the actual value of the structure, as determined by the most receht County Tax Assessor's roles, provided that the area ofthe structure existing after the date it became nonconforming shall not be increased, except pursuant to the standards of this Section." As such, this operation has limited capacity to make improvements a.nd/or updates to the business and/or the property. Prior to this application, Sta.ff met with representatives of the Edwards Building Center to discuss their ability to cover existing building materials, currently stored outside, by constructing cantilevered shelving structures in which the lllaterials Will be placed. In doing so, the materials, namely lumber and wood products, would he elevated off ~e ground an.d shielded fro~ the elements resulting in a ~igher quali~material for local cons~ers. unfortunatel"., It was determmed that these Improvements exceeded the mtent of Article 6, and were an expanSIOn of use. In order tOupgtade the existing site, this zone change is necessary. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE NO changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity- there is no additional density proposed, and the intensity of the existing land use ~ll not increase significantly, if at all. It IS necessary, however, to modi the ro e to allow the ap licants to ill rove their site. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; This application allows for the County to analyze this site under our current regulations (the last opportunity to look at this site Was in 1992 under older, less restrictive controls). As such, the applicant will be required to install drainage and runoff improvements, and be required to utilize wildlife-proof trash containers. No other concerns have been raised for this application. (See Motion and Condition 9) [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in si ificantl adverse ill acts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; allow the owners of the Edwards Building Center to improve the site. As a result, the site . would be more organized, and aesthetically/visually more appealing to onlookers and employees; offsite, additional landscaping efforts are proposed. This application also results in potential improvements to the existing ECO trails system (primarily safety oriented 56 8/26/05 improvements), and enhanced water quality with the introduction of stormwater/drainage controls. [+]FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need. STANl>ARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; in eXistence since 1972, neighboring developmellts have occurred around this properly. All public facilities currently exist, and this property has been identified in the master plans as a property which will require a zone change for recommended, future land uses. [+]. FINDING: Develdpmeftt patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment IS the result ofa logical and orderly development pattern afid DOES NOT constitute spot zoning. Further, the .resultin develb . mentis currently provided with necessa ublic facilities and services. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encoiiragea new use or density in the area. It is in the best interest of the public to allow this zone change to occur. The Edwards Building Center will be a conforming development with specific, Pun controls, and the public will benefit from the proposed improvements. No new uSes or density will result due to this application. [+JFINDING: Public interest. [Section S-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change. With this zone change; however, theublic interest Will notbe comromised as there will be no new densi . 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicaht in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Newstructures, huildings and/or improvements should utilize non-reflective finish materials and colors designed to "blend" in with the surrounding landscape (earth-tones). 3. The applicant must either demonstrate to the County Engineer's satisfaction that the proposed improvements will not increase traffic by 20% for this site or apply for, and receive a new Highway 6 Access Perlllit. No building permit will be issued until this condition has been satisfied. 4. The applicants shall utilize wildlife-proof refuse containers. 5. All recommendations made by ECO in the memo dated June 24th must be adhered to with the exception of the last cotntnent; the recommendations must be satisfied within six (6) from Board of County Commission approval or prior to Final Plat approval, which ever comes first. 6. The area of the ECO trail which crosses the entrance to the employee parking area must be swept at least once a week to ensure this portion of the trail is free of debris. 7. Any damaged trail signs and/or damage to the ECO trail along the front property line of the Edwards Building Center will be repaired by the owners of the Edwards Building Center itntnediately upon diScovery. 57 8/26/05 8. No building permit will be issued until the after approval of the Final Plat. 9. The owners of the Edwards Building Center shall be responsible for maintaining all water quality/drainage structures in perpetuity. 10. The current fire alarm must be expanded to cover the proposed, additional 6,000 square feet of new building area. 11. The applicants shall continue to receive annual fire inspections. 12. Agreements for offsite landscaping efforts mUst be obtained prior to Final Plat application. Agreements shall be submitted with the application. 13. The new cantilevered shelving structures must be installed around the perimeter of the site prior to the installation of interior structures. Building Permits will not be issued for interior structures until all exterior structures are completed. 14. Pursuant to the Engineering Memo, dated June 2211<1, 2005 the applicant must submit the construction plans for the water quality structure for review and approval prior to Final Plat subriiittal. 15. No Building pettnits may be issued until Final Plat approval. 16. BulIding height is limited to be no higher than the existing, primary building which currently contains the retail, office and storage space. Exterior storage strUctures are limited to 21 feet. nISCl1sstON: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz showed slides highlighting the file and shOWing photos and maps of the site. BegiIlhing in 1981 the Board of County Commissioners found compatibility when residential was placed next to this property. She provided additional note worthy time lines about subsequent adjacent residential development. Ms. Markowitz explained the reasons that the planning commission recotnrnended denial. the Planning Commission did not feel that the PUD was the appropriate process to achieve the goals of the applicant. Staff feels that the PUD process is the best mechanism. The only other mechanism is changing the zoning to commercial general zone district, but this would open the site to a variety of uses. The PUD takes all the grandfather non-confortning uses into the PUD. This process allows the county to require that certain iIriprovements be made. The county would also have the ability to analyze the site. The Plarthing Cotnmission felt that the proposal didn't meet all the requirements of the PUD process, particularly in regards to housing and landscaping. Staff feels that not all aspects of the pun analysis are applicable for every application and that it allows for variations and deviation. The Planning Conlrtlissiort felt that existing sites and/or uses are difficult to evaluate using thePUD process. Staff feels that with approval there will be improvements to storm water and drainage control. The use of the property will not change related to use. The Planning Conunission felt that the PUD process should not be used to get around setbacks. Staff is sensitive to concerns of property owners and the Planning Cotnmission and some conditions were added in response. Chairman Menconi asked about the vote of the Planning Commission. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated the vote was 5 opposed and 2 in favor. Steve Isom, representing the applicant spoke to the board. He added that continual fencing on the property will be sided so that the material could not be seen from behind the site. In 1974 when the area was zoned this property was an oversight. The applicant has tried to be a good neighbor. Options to move to another location have not been available. This business pays about $450,000 in taxes. He clarified that the Planning Commission didn't object to the use but did object to the mechanism. He feels that the PUD is actually the only reasonable mechanism. Their current intent is to add fencing and add barriers around the building which will make it more attractive and shield materials on the property. They have a full time guard at the gate. The intent of the berming 58 8/26/05 around the site was that the residential owners would maintain and landscape these berms. He believes that upgrading on this property makes sense. Chairlllan Menconi opened public cotntnent. L)'hIl Ertnnett spoke to the board. She voiced the opinion of the Homestead Board of Directors. They are pleased that the ownerS wish to improve their site. They are concerned about increased development. Increased traffic is also of concem and they suggest acceleration and deceleration lanes into the property. They urge the business center to clean up the site and the Board of Commissioners to vote against the request. She provided pictures Ofresident's views ofthe operation. She wonders why the current property is in disrepair. She hopes the cotnmissioners will close loopholes in the approval process. She wonders about open space, maintenance, landscape plan and wonders why the property owners were not notified. Every time a semi trailer is entering the property traffic is impeded. The Planning Cotnmission requested a traffic study but the applicant denied. She quoted various sections of the Land Use Regulations which contradict the staff's recotntnended approval. They are not opposed to the site being cleaned up but would like to see the PUD revised. Chairman Menconi closed public coh1h1ent. Steve Isom stated drat the appliCaht has been vet)' careful to make. Sure everyone was notified. He spoke about other business operations wbich they will not be attempting to do. they will not exce~d tb,e present height. Mike Burk stated that they had agreed to lower the height of the storage building or the same height of the berlll and the weeds. They are not interested in changing anyone's view. The goal is to make the whole operation mOre pleasing to the eye. He has made improvements to the lot. They aren't looking to build a fortress of steel buildings, simply two of reasonable size. The buildings would cover the exiSting stock. Future growth will happen regardlessOf them improving the property. COn'1111issioner Stone asked about using a Special Use Permit. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz indicated that the site doesn't allow for variations and setbacks required by Special tJse Pertuit. The permit doesn't allow forsite adjustment. Cotntnissioner Stone has the same issues as does the Planning Conunission. He believes this is in direct conflict with the intent ~ which isto extinguish the non-conforming uses over time. He gathers that the Planning Cothtnission likely is having a problem setting a precedent. He understands that every situation is unique he tries to keep the integrity of the Land tJse Regulations. He wonder~d if other mechanisms wouldn't be better. Mr. Matthews inforllled the board that the Planning Conunission agreed with Commissioner Stone'S interpretation of the issue of providing a Planned Unit Development. He asked Ms. Skinner - Markowitz to explain a Special USe Permit on Resource Zoning. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz explained that the requirements conflict with article 6 in the Special Use Permit policies. Chairman Menconi wondered about the applicant simply installing two buildings. Mr. Matthews stated that it would still be improving a non-conforming use. Chairlllan Menconi asked about options. Ms. Skitiher-Markowitz stated that adding structures was deemed an expansion in use. Cotntnissioner Stone wondered if the County Commissioners could appeal this opinion. He wondered if the cortltniSsioners could decide that the request was not an expansion of the use, but merely a clean up of the property, and as such it would be allowed. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that they would have to come back for a zoning variance. The structures themselves expand the use. Keith Montag stated that he didn't believe a variance would be required. Mr. Burke stated that his revised heights are lower than existing structures. The main building is 23 feet at its peak and they propose 16 feet at the highest point. Mr. Isom stated that initially back in the 70s this property was missed and should always have been a Planned Unit Development. The PUD guide is a much cleaner vehicle and he doesn't believe that this non- conforming use should be extinguished. ~ Cotnmissioner Stone stated that he is also concerned about the traffic on the site. He believes that if this ere a brand new PUD then traffic would be considered and the use would not be allowed. He believes there can only be a creative solution outside of the PUD process. 59 8/26/05 Mr. Isom stated that if a cantilevered structure were built to cover the building materials then a building pertuit could be granted. This would also allow the applicant to replace the existing fence. Mr. Montag responded that article 6 is fairly specific, but options include normal maintenance or repair of a non-cohfortning use to an extent not exceeding 15% of the value of the structure. Chairlllan Menconi is in favor of getting the site cleaned up. He wondered if the board would support tabling the item to research possible solutions. Commissioner Runyon stated that he believes the applicant is well intentioned. He believes enclosing the inventory is advantageous. Denial of the application would either force them to move elsewhere or encourage them not to improve the current operation. He is in agreement of tabling. Cotntnissioner Stone is in favor of tabling the file until August 16, 2005 directing staff to research possible solutions outside of the PUD process. Cortnnissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: Chairman There being no further business befo 60 8/26/05