No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/17/09 PUBLIC HEARING November 17,2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Christina Hooper Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the week of November 16, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for September 29, October 5 and October 6,2009 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder c. Colorado American Reinvestment and Recovery Act Community Service Block Grant Risk Assessment Assurance Form for Grantees, Sub-grantees and Vendors/Contractors Kathleen Lyons, Health & Human Services D. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and American Civil Constructors for Eagle River Preserve Proj ect Facilities Management Representative E. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Eagle County and Roundup River Ranch Establishing Responsibilities for Carrying Out Provisions of the Region XII Water Quality Management Plan Environmental Health Representative F. Resolution 2009-115 Adopting Public Statement of Eagle County Roadway County Attorney's Office Representative G. Lease Agreement between Eagle county and Enterprise Leasing Company for Overflow Parking Space Airport Representative H. Lease Agreement between Eagle county and Avis Budget Car Rental for Overflow Parking Space Airport Representative 1 11/17/09 I. Lease Agreement between Eagle county and Frontier (Dollar) Car Rental for Overflow Parking Space Airport Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-I. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc d/b/a Bottle 'n Cork #14-43341-0000 This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. Edwards Station, LLC d/b/a Edwards Station #24-69488-0000 This is a renewal of a 3.2 % Beer Retail License in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Other C. Falcon & Falcon, LLC d/b/a Cafe Milano #42-68807-0000 This is a Manager's Registration for Cafe Milano in Edwards. Falcon & Falcon wishes to register Dustin Aipperspach as their new Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr. Aipperspach was reported to be of good moral character, based upon both the Sheriff and CBI reports. D. Flexible Restaurants, Inc d/b/a Vista at Arrowhead #35-17007-0000 Flexible Restaurants, Inc has submitted a Report of Change. Shawn and Gary Boris (initial owners) have resigned and terminated their membership in the company and transferred their membership interest to Janine and Michael Glennon (initial/present members). Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for November 17, 2009 consisting ofltems A-D. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 11/17/09 Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works Planning Files ZC-2234. SMA-2235. & ZS-2236 - Stump Family Subdivision Sean Hanagan, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 10/20/09 ACTION: The purpose of this planning file is a request for the Stump Family Conservation Subdivision. The Conservation Subdivision process requires a Special Use Permit, Minor Type A Subdivision and specific to this request, a Zone Change from Resource (35 acre minimum lot size) to Resource Limited (20 acre minimum lot size) zoning to accommodate this Conservation Subdivision. LOCATION: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 8778 Colorado River Road, Gypsum Area Stump Conservation Subdivision 8 miles north up Colorado River Road Clay & Connie Stump Owner Jena Markowitz, Knight Planning Services 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This proposal is for a Conservation Subdivision consisting of: a. Three (3) single family 2 acre building envelopes b. One (1) Agricultural 1 acre building envelopes c. 49 acre Agricultural conservation tract. The primary component of the request is a zone change to the exiting 56 acre parcel ofland created in 1982 by the subdivision of the "Shipley Parcel". The proposed zone change would Re-zone the property from Resource(R) to Resource Limited (RL). A rezone is needed for the applicant to meet the minimum acreage for the Conservation Subdivision. Within the Resource zone a minimum of70 acres is required to be eligible for a Conservation Subdivision while within the Resource Limited zone only 45 acres are required for Conservation Subdivision eligibility. Without the Zone Change approval the parcel would not meet minimum size requirements and thus not be allowed based on current Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In addition to the Zone Change a Minor Type A Subdivision and a Special Use Permit are being applied for as part of this Conservation Subdivision application. These files are required within the Conservation Subdivision section of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 3 11/17/09 B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Roundup River Ranch PUD Zoning BLM Resource Preservation Zoning BLM Resource Preservation Zoning Residential Resource South: Existing Use(s) East: Existing Use(s) West: Existing Use(s) Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Resource (35 acre minimum parcel size) Resource Limited (20 acre minimum parcel size) Single family residence Current Development: Site Conditions: Generally sloping east to west. Railroad passes adjacent to property on the western boundary. Steep hillsides found on the east side ofthe property. Sagebrush is the predominant vegetation type on the property. One single family home exists on the property. Total Land Area: Total Open Space (Conservation Tract) Proposed Water: 55.93 acres 2,990,017.8 square feet 49 Acres 2,619,540 square feet Private well Sewer: ISDS Access: Via Colorado River Road C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: 1974 region zoned Resource by Eagle County 1982 Parcel (1935-034-00-010) created from "Shipley Parcel" D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle County Planning Commission met on October 71h, 2009 to hear the application for the Stump Family Conservation Subdivision. A site visit was planned and attended on the same day to give the planning commission an opportunity to view the parcel and plans for the subdivision. At the hearing the planning commission voted to table all three files in order to allow time for the applicant to make changes to the subdivision layout to better reflect the ECLUR definition of proper clustering as well as improving the contiguousness of the Agricultural conservation tract. Additionally the commission asked for more commitment from the applicant with regard to agricultural used on the parcel. The applicant was asked to give more specific use types and sizes for agricultural structures as well as commitments to the number and type of animals housed on the property. At the same time staff was asked to apply the Sustainable Community Index (SCI) to the Stump Family Conservation Subdivision. The applicant appeared again in front of the ECPC on November 41\ 2009 with the requested changes to the application. At the meeting the applicant was asked to add language to the Property Management Plan to strengthen "add teeth" to the plan which would "require" the HOA to enforce the subdivision covenants. The Eagle County Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve all three files adding one additional condition to be placed on the files. The proposed condition required the applicant to incorporate strategies outlined in the response from Adam Palmer regarding SCI points. The condition requires a minimum of 40 points on the index. The current SCI score is 32 (Please refer to condition 3). 2. STAFF REPORT 4 11/17/09 Zone Change: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. 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. North: South: Existing Use(s) Zoning BLM x East: Existing Use(s) Zoning BLM x West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Residential x The general character of the area is rural in nature and consists of mostly residential and open space parcels. The majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned either Resource Preservation (RP) or Resource(R) with the exception of the Round Up River Ranch to the North West which has been recently re-zoned PUD. The Eastern and Southern boundaries of the Stump parcel border land held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with BLM access just to the North of the stump parcel. Compatibility with other Resource zoned properties in the area is not of concern however the compatibility with Resource Preservation zoned properties is. Over 50% of the Stump parcel is directly bordered by RP zoning consisting of Bureau of Land Management lands. Resource Preservation (RP) zoning is intended to severely restrict development with the intent of preserving natural rural lands. Density in Resource Preservation (RP) zone parcels is limited to a development per 80 acres. The proposed Conservation subdivision would allow a density of one dwelling unit per 18.6 acres. Effective clustering of the building envelopes improves the appearance of density compatibility by giving the impression of lower density development and concentrating visual impacts in areas outside the view corridor. A true Conservation tract would be as contiguous as possible and lend to the impression of a lower density development. The Western and Northern surrounding parcels are residential and zoned Resource (R). Many of these are properties are non-conforming in that they are less than the minimum 35 acres in size. These properties have a density greater than the zoning would normally indicate and therefore the subject parcel would be less likely to demonstrate any compatibility issues with the proposed Conservation Subdivision density. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 5 11/17/09 (I) (J a 5 ~ o 5 ~...........(/} E (J '" ~.~ '" '" ......v (I) (I) 8' ~ ~ (J ~e j~ .. ] ~5 :"';:1 8 ~ '00 l.':I...'" :=tn 0 ~~ ..sa ~~ ~~ Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Not Applicable X Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The subject property, in its current state, is predominantly natural and the proposed subdivision if clustered properly will not necessitate a major modification ofthe site conditions. The current legal water rights would allow for an additional acre of irrigation. This additional acre could be used for agriculture or landscaping. · "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreationalfacilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The subdivision proposal attempts to preserve open space by placing 49 acres of land in an Agricultural Conservation Tract. The other indicators are not applicable to this type of proposal. · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". Not Applicable · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". A major component of the Conservation Subdivision concept is that of clustering. Effective clustering or compact development along with the acreage put into the conservation tract will help demonstrate recommended practices. · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". Within the Subdivision's housing plan the applicant addresses "Social Equity" by applying Resident Occupied (RO) restrictions as well as ADU provisions. Each of the two lot owners will be allowed to choose between (RO) or an in-lieu payment which will help insure middle income benefits. In- lieu amounts will be based on the value determined at the time of option change. · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". Construction, on-going maintenance to varying extents, the owners of the residential units would infuse money into the local economy. · "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". The proposal includes a 49 acre Agricultural Conservation Tract and would attempt to cluster the new development. There is no plan to allow public access to the property · "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". N/ A. "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Lands. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan speaks to densities as follows: "Residential densities on rural lands are limited to one primary residence and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres, althouf.!h some smaller non-conforming residential lots exist. Small clustered subdivisions mav also be approved on lands desif.!nated "Rural" per applicable Eagle Countv Land Use ReflUlations. Clustered developments should result in the preservation of lands of environmental or cultural value. and should otherwise conform to the intents and purposes of the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan. " · "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing': No commercial development is proposed. · "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". Effective clustering of the building envelopes will improve the appearance of density compatibility conflicts by giving the 6 11/17/09 impression of lower density development and concentrating visual impacts in areas outside the view corridor thus providing a contiguous high quality view corridor. · X2: Economic Resources · "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The proposed Conservation has no proposed retail/commercial development. · "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance". The proposed (RO) restrictions will help to ensure that the subdivision will not likely become a second home opportunity. · "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. · "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. · "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. · "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. · "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". No Service commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision.. · "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs ofnearby residents". No commercial development is proposed for this Conservation Subdivision. · "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The proposed development is not located near existing employment opportunities. X3: Housinll · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". This proposal is not for affordable housing per se, Resident Occupancy restrictions could provide for some level of workforce housing opportunities for Eagle County residents. · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Conservation Subdivision proposes Resident Occupancy (RO) restrictions for lots 1 and 3 with the ability to "buyout" the RO restriction with a fee in-lieu payment to be determined by the current Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines will be paid on a square foot basis. This fee is payable to Eagle County Housing and Development. · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". Resident Occupancy restrictions could provide for some level of workforce housing opportunities. "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The Conservation Subdivision proposes Resident Occupancy (RO) restrictions for lots 1 and 3. X4: Infrastructure and Services · "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ ECO Transit no longer services this area with bus service. · "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development" N/A · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements N/A. · "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". N/A · Encourage transit oriented development N/A. · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". N/A "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers . 7 11/17/09 that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". NIA. · "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings ". N/ A · "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". NIA · "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". N/ A · "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". NIA · "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". NIA · "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". NIA · "Assure adequate accessfor emergency responders". NIA · "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". Lots 1 and 3 will be subject to all emergency service impact fess associated with development. · "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". NIA · "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". A 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be not be required. · "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". N/A · "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". NIA · "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". N/A X5: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The application includes a well permit for three (3) single family homes. A map demonstrating a primary and secondary ISDS site is also included in the application. · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposedfora new development". NIA · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". N/A · "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". NIA · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" The development will minimize impervious coverage whenever possible. · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge ofgroundwater resources". N/A · "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". NIA · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". NIA · "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". This concept is not proposed. · "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". N/A · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application ". NI A · "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". NIA · "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan NIA · "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". N/A · "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identifY and treat other non-point sources of pollution ". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to grading activities. · "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". NIA · "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. · "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". N/A · "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". NIA 8 11/17/09 X6: Wildlife Resources · "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration ". The parcel is not located in a mapped migration corridor. · "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". One of the two new building sites will be located in a previously disturbed area while the second proposed site will require preparation for construction. This site is will disturb some wildlife winter habitat. · "Prevent contaminantsfrom entering local streams and rivers". The use of best management practices will be utilized · "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". The subject property is not critical wildlife habitat. · "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Wildlife -proof refuse containment receptacles are currently required throughout Eagle County. · "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". N/A · "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". N/A · "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". This proposal seeks to utilize a previously disturbed area for development of one of the two new building sites. · "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". N/A · "Require wildlife-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". Wildlife-proof refuse containment will be required on-site. X7: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". All identified geologic constraints identified in the original subdivision process as well as those recommendations listed in the report from HP Geotech September 30th 2008 be adhered to in the development of the site. If locations for lots change a new site evaluation shall be required to determine if said lots are in areas of geologic concern. · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". N/A · "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification'~ Potential hazards will be required to be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". N/A · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". All recommendation s of the HP Geotech Survey will be incorporated into the development plans. · "Consider the cumulative impact ofincremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is previously developed parcel which shall be improved through the incorporation of clustered home sites and preservation of open land through a 49 acre Conservation Tract. "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". Dry, rustic rural Colorado lands that contain sagebrush; although not lush and green are highly valued for scenic beauty as well as wildlife vegetation. Utilization of the properties by the Stumps is intended to minimize the impacts of development and preserve a large portion (49 acres) in its natural state. X8: Environmental Oualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". N/A · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". Pease refer to housing section above. · "Focus development within towns and co~munities to reduce the need for daily commuting". N/A · "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". N/A · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. · "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting'~ N/A · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". N/A. . 9 11/17/09 . "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". N/A "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". N/A "Design communities in a way that reducesfossilfuel consumption for heating or cooling". N/A Implement energy efficiency guidelines. N/A Implement energy saving techniques. N/A X9: Future Land Use MaD Desi1!nation The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Lands. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan speaks to densities as follows: "Residential densities on rural lands are limited to one primary residence and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres, although some smaller non-conforming residential lots exist. Small clustered subdivisions mav also be avvroved on lands desifmated "Rural" per applicable Eagle Countv Land Use Regulations. Clustered develovments should result in the vreservation of lands of environmental or cultural value. and should otherwise conform to the intents and vurposes of the written volicies of this Comvrehensive Plan. " . . . . . Standard: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D2} Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. As discussed in the section on page 5 of this staff report, some compatibility issues exists the land surrounding the proposed Conservation Subdivision. More than 50% of the property is bordered by BLM land designated as Resource Preservation (RP). This land designation is intended to preserve land area and severely limit development density. The proposed subdivision seeks to increase density beyond its currently allowed levels and create an abrupt transition from this low density BLM land and the subdivision. The remaining half of the property is adjacent to parcels of non conforming size and density. Many of these adjacent properties are smaller than required by the overlying zone district standards and therefore have greater density per acre than would be normally found within this Resource zone district. These properties are more compatible with the proposed density. Standard: Public Benefit. Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing,' childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The Stump Family Conservation Subdivision seeks to dedicate a 49 acre tract of land to be kept in an Agricultural Tract. The tract will be kept as open space in perpetuity. This open space attempts to preserve an area of agricu1tura11and. Standard: Change of Circumstances. Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Staff is not aware of any measureable change in the circumstances within the area of the proposed Conservation Subdivision. Standard: Adequate Infrastructure. Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? The basic infrastructure needed to access this property currently exists. At which time ADD's are built on the property the applicant will be required to upgrade access to meet the Eagle Count Roadway Standards. Special Use Permit: 10 11/17/09 A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit Conservation Subdivision. (am. 11/07/07) 1. Applicability. Conservation Subdivisions shall allow lots smaller than would otherwise be allowed by the governing zone district, to be grouped or "clustered" in one or more limited areas onthe subject property, the location of which is determined through adherence to certain design standards. Density bonuses would be allowed. In exchange, the balance of the property must be set aside as a permanent Conservation/Agricultural Lands Tract. The maximum densities allowed in Conservation Subdivisions shall be as set forth in Table 5-295, Maximum Number of Dwelling Units per Acre by Zone District, and as further provided in Section 5-295, Conservation Subdivision. T bl 3 310 B M N b CD Ir U.t A b Z D. t . t a e - . . aXImum um er 0 we mg Dl s per cre ty one IS rIC Percent of Site (%) Designated as Resource Resource Agricultural Agricultural Conservation! Agricultural Limited Residential Limited Land Tract At least 67% but less than 1/25 1/14 1/7 1/3.5 75% At least 75% but less than 1/20 1/ 12 1/6 1/3 85% 85% or more 1 / 17.5 1/10 1/5 1/2.5 Current Zoning is Resource (35 acre minimum parcel size) Proposed Zoning is Resource Limited( 20 Acre minimum parcel size) 11 11/17/09 STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .. '" -e u i:! e'r.Ii fa ~ u ,88 ~ K ~ en '" (/.) fa .~ u 0."- u ~.g u B OIl Sb 2 .:: 5 0 l::; Qj ::3 '00 .gf(; ....::f ;::..- ,'='. ..~ s 0 Mi~ "t;lO '" ~ ~ '" ::f :;::r/l 5 ~ ~ ~ .s!ii ~~ ~~ 0 0 w tI) . Exceeds Recommendations fucorpomtes Majority of Xl Xl X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 RecolllJl)endations IJ?es NQffuCorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X Please see discussions within the Zone Change section beginning on page 4 of this staff report ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriatefor its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. North: Existing Users) Zoning Roundup River Ranch Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning South: Existing Users) Zoning BLM PUD RP (BLM) X X 12 11/17/09 East: Existing Users) Zoning BLM RP X (BLM) West: Existing Users) Zoning Residential R X See use and compatibility discussion on page 5 of this staff report ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. B. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECL UR Section: 5-290 Minor Subdivision Section Purpose: A Minor Subdivision shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-290 for Type A Subdivisions. A Type A Subdivision is a subdivision creating not more than three (3) lots within property that has not previously been platted Standards: Section 5-290.G.l STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-290.G.1.a] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN X9 Please see discussions within the Zone Change section beginning on page 4 of this staff report EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 13 11/17/09 o o <<IC ~.g <II C'" o > 0;0 o~ Exceeds Recommendation Satisfies Recommendation IncOrporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Nof Applicable . x x This property is not in an area identified as "unique landform." STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-290.G.1.b] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. ~. ~<'!J u5 irl5 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.'3 .It/ '3 8 <:J' .- g' ~~ ~iX X X X X X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) 2 X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) 14 11/17/09 x x x x x Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Applicablel 1- Fees will apply to Lots 1 and 3 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-290.G.l.c] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapji-og" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea/de County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. This subdivision is accessed from an existing driveway adjacent to the Colorado River Road. The same road functions as an access point for the railroad. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-290.G.1.d] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future improvements to the area. The areas subject/restricted to construction are developable. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 15 11/17/09 STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-290.G.l.e] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ~,,:...... SnrronndingLand Uses / Zoning - ",.l>~C:; ... y~s ..-N'6 North: Existing Users) Zoning Roundup River Ranch PUD X South: Existing Users) Zoning BLM RP X (BLM) East: Existing Users) Zoning BLM RP X (BLM) West: Existing Users) Zoning Residential R X Please refer to the above discussion found on page discussion on page 5 of the Zone Change section. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements Agreements. [Section 5-290.G.1.f] - The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. No improvements are necessary which need to be collateralized through an Improvements Agreement. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. [Section 5-290.G.1.g] - Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached responses dated June 5th 2009. . Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) - Please refer to the attached letter dated June 8th, 2009. The CGS provided comment with regard to subsidence, debris flow and shallow ground water. . Eagle County Assessor-Please refer to the response dated April 15th 2009. . Colorado Division of Water Resources- Please refer to the response dated June 2nd, 2009 . Attorney's Office-Worked in conjunction with applicant to develop acceptable language with regard to the "Conservation Tract" . Eagle County Housing and Development Division- Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: 16 11/17/09 . Eagle County: Environmental Health; Road and Bridge Department; School District Administration and Transportation; Sheriff's office; Weed and Pest; Wildlife Mitigation Specialist. . Colorado State: Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology; Colorado State Historical Society; Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) . Eagle County Historical Society APO Responses: Letters were sent to all Adjacent Property Owners and one response in favor of the file was received Planning Commission Deliberations: See page 5 of this staff report D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The Stump Family Conservation Subdivision is the first Conservation Subdivision proposed within Eagle County. As the first Conservation Subdivision in Eagle County the proposal will help to set a precedent for future Conservation Subdivision proposals. The primary component of the Stump Family request is a zone change to the exiting 56 acre parcel ofland created in 1982 by the subdivision of the "Shipley Parcel". The proposed zone change would Re- zone the property from Resource(R) to Resource Limited (RL). A rezone is needed for the applicant to meet the minimum acreage for the Conservation Subdivision. Without a successful Zone Change the proposal cannot move forward. Without a successful Zone Change approval the parcel would not meet minimum size requirements and thus not be allowed based on current Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The applicants do not possess enough acreage to meet the minimum for the Resource (R) zone district. Within the Resource zone district a minimum of 70 acres is required to be eligible for a Conservation Subdivision while within the Resource Limited zone only 45 acres are required for Conservation Subdivision eligibility. A successful rezone to Resource Limited (RL) would allow the Stump Family to proceed. In addition to the Zone Change a Minor Type A Subdivision and a Special Use Permit are being applied for as part of this Conservation Subdivision application. These files are required within the Conservation Subdivision section of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Benefits: · The RO restrictions placed on the property help insure that the home within the subdivision would remain affordable for residents of Eagle County. · The proposed subdivision places a 49 acre tract of land in a Conservation Tract that will remain in perpetuity. · The Conservation Subdivision proposal will help to preserve the historical agricultural use on the property. Disadvantal!es: . An up-zone is required for the Applicant to qualify for the minimum acreage requirements for the parcel's zoning. In its current form, the locations of home sites and agricultural envelopes do not demonstrate the cluster development concept effectively. In its current form, the proposed Conservation Tract does not help to preserve the visual quality of the property to its fullest extent. Compatibility issues with surrounding Resource Preservation (RP) land. The "Trickle Effect" will likely be prevalent within the immediate area. . . . . E. PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: (Please note that three (3) separate motions are required, one for each of the three files.) 17 11/17/09 1. Approve the Conservation Subdivision request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the Conservation Subdivision request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the Conservation Subdivision request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the Conservation Subdivision request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. All recommendations contained within the HP Geotech report dated September 30th 2008 shall be adhered to during the development of the subdivision. 2. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 3. Applicant must acquire a minimum of 40 points on the Eagle County Sustainable Community Index. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the file. He stated that it is a new type of file as the first request for a conservation subdivision. Commissioner Stavney asked about this type of concept. Mr. Hanagan showed some maps and photos. He highlighted some of the benefits of the proposal and some of staff s concerns. He presented the suggested conditions. Commissioner Stavney wondered why the proposal didn't receive a score for compact development. Mr. Hanagan stated that it could be based on it not being a separate condition. Commissioner Runyon wondered what the purpose of the conservation easement was. Mr. Hanagan deferred to the planner on the file to answer this and other questions. Jenna Skinner Markowitz presented the file on behalf of the owners. The owners had 56 acres and wished to allow their children the opportunity to own homes in the county. They were also interested in providing agricultural opportunities to their grandchildren. She provided maps of the current and proposed changes to the property plat. There would be three residences if approved. All buildings would be no more than 5000 square feet. Chairman Fisher wondered about habitable enclosed structure. Ms. Skinner Markowitz indicated it would be a barn with heating and plumbing. She shared some of the history of zoning regulations. The purpose was to allow smaller lots than current zoning allowed. The public benefits included creative design, agricultural and scenic quality. Previous boards decided that conservation subdivisions are a public benefit. Agricultural families would be able to live near each other. Only 6 of the 56 acres would be available to be built on. She presented two options. They offered a deed of conservation 18 11/17/09 easement or a property management plan and ACE agreement. She explained the difference between the two options. She spoke about density. The new houses would be resident occupied. Chairman Fisher asked about the housing requirement. Ms. Skinner Markowitz clarified that the Stumps would be providing an opportunity for two first time homeowners. Commissioner Stavney asked about the number of units. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that with this type of zoning request the owners could ask for more lots. Accessory Dwelling Units were a use by right. In this type of development, the ADUs would need to be attached to the primary units. Commissioner Stavney asked about the minimum lot size that triggered housing guidelines. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that with the existing house on the property it is the only one that is exempt. The owners feel that the application is in compliance with the regulations. She spoke about the other possibilities for the property that currently existed. She repeated the benefits to the county with the new zoning configuration. Commissioner Stavney asked about the Declaration of Protective Covenants. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that there is no standard within the county. She stated that the requirements were things the Stumps were comfortable with and came from the planning commission. Commissioner Stavney spoke about enforceability because of the family comprising the entire association. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that the documents had not been finalized. She suggested clarifying this in the final documents. Typically, with a conservation easement the land trust visits the site once a year. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Morris whether there were any conservation easements, with which the county was charged oversight. Mr. Morris stated that he was not aware of any property where the county was solely responsible. The Land Trust's job was to make sure that the provisions of a conservation easement were enforced. He didn't think enforcement of declarations and land use was a good idea. This particular request did raise problems due to the fact that it was a family development. The board needed to decide whether it would accept conservation subdivisions that do not involve a conservation easement granted to an outside entity, which is in the business of monitoring and enforcing those easements. He did not see that the applicant had communicated with two different land trusts including the Eagle Valley Land Trust. It sounded like the EVLT was open to this possibility. The county would be better off if the Land Trust held the easement. Commissioner Stavney agreed. Mr. Morris wondered if there were certain cases in which the board would be better off making an exception to this policy. Chairman Fisher commented that the EVLT was a little hesitant due to the cost of approximately $15,000- $18000. She spoke about some of the difficulties. Ms. Skinner Markowitz spoke about the conservation easements, land trusts, and the tax benefits. In the past open space has been conveyed by way of plat notes. There is a lack of evidentiary support behind the restrictions. This is a clear process to remove open space provisions. Special Use Permits ran with the land and there were conditions where monitoring was necessary. She wondered about a one-year inspection schedule. Commissioner Stavney wondered if this was clear in the conservation subdivision language. Mr. Morris stated that it was not. He read some excerpts from the requirements. He was involved in the drafting and believed that the assumption was that the land trust would be involved in monitoring the requirements. The EVL T expressed interest in managing small easements. Commissioner Runyon stated that this single issue was tough since on balance the request sounded like a good idea and he liked the idea that the three ADDs would be attached to the units. Ms. Skinner Markowitz indicated that the houses could be up to 5000 square feet and the ADU s could be no more than 1200 square feet. Commissioner Runyon stated that the maximum housing would be no more than around 20,000. How to manage the easement was the difficult question. In an ideal world, someone would hold the easement, but the maintenance funding was a big question. He questioned the up-front cost estimate. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the letter from Colorado Open Lands, which requested the cost to cover setup and ongoing monitoring. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that the cost to monitor included travel costs. Chairman Fisher stated that the engagement fee of3 - 6000 was related to staff time associated with the property and documentation. Then there were also the stewardship and legal defense expenses that could be a 19 11/17/09 minimum of $7000.00. She felt that the file could be tabled in order to speak to the EVLT to determine economically sensitive solution for the long run. She suggested having these discussions over the next few weeks. Commissioner Stavney stated that the onus was on the county to stipulate who would manage the easement. His preference would be to minimize the cost to those involved. In this case it was a family trying to accomplish the change in zoning, but in the future it could be a for profit entity. The legal endowment was to fight the homeowners. Mr. Morris stated about increases in density affecting the neighbors, but the conservation easements also benefited the county. He stated that the day might come when the Stump grandchildren decide to sell the property and this needed to be considered due to permanent approvals. He recommended holding approval until the details were worked out. Commissioner Stavney stated that he was comfortable with the up-zoning. Commissioner Runyon stated that he was hesitant to provide an indication of a positive vote until the details could be worked out and agreed to. Chairman Fisher agreed with Commissioner Stavney. Adam Palmer spoke about the Green Build requirements. They had looked at the sustainability index. Originally, these standards were not applied. After further review, they did apply the standards. Normal requirements of70 points were reduced to 40. Commissioner Stavney asked if the requirements were discretionary. Mr. Palmer stated that these were requirements for zone change but staff decided not to apply the requirements in this case. However, the Planning Commission wanted them included so staff responded to their request. Some potential items that would be applicable and made sense for the property included the creation of private community garden areas, passive solar orientation ofthe building envelopes, incorporation of renewable energy, diverse native landscaping plan, and landscaping plan incorporating xeriscape design principles. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that the Stumps wanted to get their house in prior to the winter. The design of the house includes a wall of windows on the south side. She spoke about the potential for raising their own meat source with animals. They were building smaller houses, which were more energy efficient. They were confident that additional ways to increase the point could be found. Commissioner Stavney stated that the writing on the wall dictates the use of solar panels. Mr. Palmer stated that solar and passive solar were defined differently. The Sustainable Community index looked at house orientation and solar gain. Mr. Palmer stated that points for clustering were awarded. Commissioner Stavney wondered why open space and compact design was not given more points. Mr. Palmer stated that the SCI struggled with small rural areas like this. This application was unique and did not fit as well as it could to the standards. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. There was none. She closed public comment. Chairman Fisher stated that the devil was in the details to figure out how to handle the management and control of the easement. Commissioner Runyon wondered why the Stumps could not begin construction under the current zoning as an ADU. Ms. Skinner Markowitz hoped this would be allowed. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners table file number ZC-2234, SMA- 2235, & ZS-2236 with the consent of the applicant - Stump Family Subdivision to December 8, 2009. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-2356 Wylaco Supply Company Adam Palmer, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 11/03/09 20 11/17/09 ACTION: The purpose ofthis Special Use Permit is for a metal rebar fabrication and contractor supply yard on the 8.23 acre resource-zoned property. If approved, the special use permit would amend the existing special use on the property for timber milling, supply, and storage. LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 005490 Highway 6, Gypsum Area ZS-2356/ Special Use Permit Wylaco Rebar Fabrication and Supply Yard Richard Long Wylaco Supply Chris Williams, Johnson and Kunkel 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Proposed is a metal rebar fabrication and contractor supply yard on the 21. 11-acre resource zoned property. The facility is a storage and processing area to support the primary Wylaco retail location in the Town of Gypsum. The applicants have moved the proposed operation onto the property prior to the issuance of the special use permit, and have constructed an open-air shed and concrete apron for the rebar processing. The site has been cleaned up significantly from the large amount of lumber debris that was previously on the site. Materials stored on the site include rebar, rigid insulation, steel hardware, concrete forms, steel I-beams, etc. If approved, the special use permit would amend the existing special use on the property for timber milling and storage. C. SITE DATA: South: BLM Resource Resource Preservation Resource East: Residential Lumber mill structure, rebar processing structure, storage Property is nonconforming 919,556 none Portable toilet E. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: · 1984: ZS-202-84 approved for lumber mill and storage of logs, timbers, wood and associated logging equipment. 21 11/17/09 · 2009: 8.25.2009---Building Permit 3593 applied for, withdrawn due to building code requirements for permanent restroom, would not be issued prior to approval of special use permit. D. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (ECPC) HEARING: November 4, 2009 At their regularly scheduled hearing, the ECPC voted 7-0 in support of the proposal. The ECPC had significant discussion and deliberation on the file as it pertained to the use's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as intensity of use, aesthetics, setbacks and impact to the Eagle River corridor, and review of the use which is already in place on the property and not in compliance with the land use regulations. Suggestions from the ECPC included the addition of conditions as well as additional comments addressed to the BOCC after the meeting. See attached letter from Planning Commissioners Pedro Campos and Bill Heicher (co-signed letter). The suggested additional conditions as approved at the ECPC are as follows: 4. The words "or trailer" added to condition 4 so that it reads: Only vehicles and equipment directly associated with the use on the property are allowed; no vehicle or trailer storage will be permitted. 7. Staff shall review the special use for compliance with the approved plan, compatibility with the surrounding uses, Dotsero subarea plan, and Eagle County Comprehensive Plan every 5 years from the date of the approval. 8. No use or storage of hazardous materials on site. 9. The 75' setback from high water mark, or the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater, of the Eagle River shall be delineated on the plan and adhered to as a limit of disturbance. The applicant shall revegetate any previously disturbed areas within this setback area. 10. All new construction on the property shall be in compliance with The Eagle County Building Resolution and its currently adopted referenced building codes. In addition, the following items were discussed as part of ECPC discussion but not included in the approved motion. Staff has attempted to articulate them as potential additional conditions and has included them as part of the suggested conditions at the end of this report: . Material storage shall not exceed 8' in height . The applicant may have up to one non-illuminated entrance sign no larger than 10 square feet, as well as one non-illuminated firewood sign no larger than 10 square feet and total height not to exceed 8' from the ground. Such signs shall require a sign permit, and be on the subject property. 2. STAFF REPORT E. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location 22 11/17/09 with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit. STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN x x x x x x x Community Buffer x x The proposed use for a metal rebar processing and materials supply storage yard is light industrial and commercial in nature. Such uses are recommended to be included in existing towns, community centers, and in industrial zoned areas of unincorporated Eagle County. The special use permit allows for such uses which can be accommodated in areas outside of this when it is determined they are compatible with surrounding uses and character of the area, do not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties, and meet the standards outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The application is somewhat unique in that the new use proposed, while different than the existing special use permit for a lumber mill and storage, is similar in nature as an industrial use. The character of this use changes somewhat aesthetically, however the intensity of the use is similar in scope. Typically residential and customary agricultural uses are primary uses in the resource zone district. While generally staff recommends mixed uses as appropriate, an onsite caretaker unit may not be suitable given the fact that adequate water nor sewer are available or proposed on the property. Since the proposal does not include residential uses, such use would not be allowed unless the existing or proposed special use permit was amended. The property is identified as a community buffer between Gypsum and Dotsero on the Future Land Use Map. While this designation does not prohibit development, it intends to "provide undeveloped visual breaks along the County's main development corridors" pursuant to the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. 23 11/17/09 The Comprehensive Plan also identifies industrial uses such as gravel pits and mining as allowable uses in community buffers, but discourages commercial or retail uses. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed use would be preferred elsewhere, although may be allowed if it retains a rural character that meets the intent of the community buffer designation. The proposed plan is not expected to adversely affect open space or view corridors in the surrounding area as a comparison to the previous uses on the property and adjacent properties. However, it does not meet the recommendations for creating buffer zones and does not necessarily provide for improvements to wildlife habitat/migration or recreation opportunities. While there are mixed findings with respect to open space, it is determined that the proposal generally will not create an adverse impact to open space and does not possess the qualities identified in the open space plan, other than potential river access. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. SurtoundinllLand USe$! Zoning North: 1-70 Resource x South: BLM Resource Preservation Resource Resource Preservation x East: Residential x West: BLM x The scope and intensity of the proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding uses. While a processing facility may not potentially be compatible with adjacent residential uses, the current proposal is expected to be within the noise and vibration standards, and the rural nature of the area does provide for adequate space between uses. Also, the proposed use which is already been in place on the property has not generated any complaints from adjacent property owners. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, 24 11/17/09 as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Awicultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. As proposed, the project would meet the dimensional requirements for height, setbacks, square footage, noise and vibration, and parking. Proof of permanent water and septic would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. A building has been constructed on the property without a building permit and would need to be removed or brought into compliance. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B. 4] 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. 1 8 C"- ati .~:f -aa (,) .! '€ ~ ~ .- > ~ ~~ ~3 .D ~. f-< a :> ,fz x x x x x x No x The proposal generally meets the performance standards as outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. However, at the date ofthis report an access permit had yet to be issued for access to US Hwy 6. Staff is comfortable making this requirement a condition of approval. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. ] :> 8 'i . '3i' 1~ ! Uf-< x x 25 11/17109 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6} The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. '" -g o l:X: !a .~ o '" -gi Q.,Q., a t;:! ~ o >. ~o. ~g. Q.,I/.) ..... ~ QJ<b i~ ~I/.) Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable x x x x x x x As conditioned, the proposed use will meet the standards and not have a significant impact on public facilities. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. It is expected that the proposed ADU will comply with all applicable site development standards as articulated in Article 4 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Currently compliance with all such standards has been met. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8} The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS F. REFERRAL RESPONSES: 26 11/17/09 Eagle County Engineering Department: See attached memos and responses from the applicant. Town of Gypsum: See attached September 25, 2009 letter. Gypsum Fire Protection District: See attached June 24, 2009 letter. Letter from Pedro Campos, November 9, 2009. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Environmental Health . BLM; adjacent property owners G. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages. The intent of the land use regulations to review specific uses outside of those allowed by right is to make sure that off-site impacts are minimized and the use is compatible with adjacent character, forms, and uses on a case-by-case basis. In this case, there is mixed conformance with the review standards. On one hand, the use is in a rural community buffer zone area and would be more appropriate in an existing community center or industrial area. On the other hand, the use is similar in scope and intensity as the previous lumber mill in operation since 1984 on the property. There have been no complaints or zoning violations on the property since the original special use permit was approved, nor since the current use has moved to the subject property. The use is generally compatible with surrounding uses. Approval of the use also could lock in a use on the property adverse to something identified by the Dotsero Subarea Plan currently in process. While it may be unfair to ask the applicant to wait until the outcome of the Dotsero plan to fully address the application's compliance with it, it is difficult to anticipate what the plan may say about this parcel and river corridor at this time. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request with or without conditions. 2. Deny the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request. 3. Table the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. An access permit on to US Highway 6 is required in accordance with the CDOT requirements prior to the issuance of this special use permit. 3. All items identified from Eagle County Engineering pursuant to the letter dated October 28, 2009 shall be adhered to as conditions of approval. 4. Only vehicles and equipment directly associated with the use on the property are allowed; no vehicle or trailer storage will be permitted. 27 11/17/09 5. An all-weather compacted road base surface will be placed on the aisles. 6. No parking or material staging on CDOT right-of-way is permitted. 7. Staff shall review the special use for compliance with the approved plan, compatibility with the surrounding uses, Dotsero subarea plan, and Eagle County Comprehensive Plan every 5 years from the date of the approval. 8. No use or storage of hazardous materials on site. 9. The 75' setback from high water mark, or the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater, of the Eagle River shall be delineated on the plan and adhered to as a limit of disturbance. The applicant shall re-vegetate any previously disturbed areas within this setback area and remove any debris. 10. All new construction on the property shall be in compliance with The Eagle County Building Resolution and its currently adopted referenced building codes. 11. Material storage shall not exceed 8' in height. 12. The applicant may have up to one non-illuminated entrance sign no larger than 10 square feet, as well as one non-illuminated firewood sign no larger than 10 square feet and total height not to exceed 8' from the ground. Such signs shall require a sign permit, and be on the subject property. DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer summarized the request. He stated that the owners were currently out of zoning compliance, but that code enforcement had allowed business to continue while this file request was active. Commissioner Stavney stated that the board had spoken to the Town of Gypsum and wondered if the owners intended to move the entire operation. Mr. Nelson indicated that this was not the case. Mr. Palmer stated that there was an existing special use on this property for a sawmill. This was granted back in 1984. He presented a vicinity map. He showed the proposed site plan including the primary access from Hwy 6, a concrete apron and proposed metal building, which was being requested as part ofthe application but would not be constructed in the near term. He showed the 75 foot high water setback line. There was an existing sawmill structure on the property. Some of the out buildings had been removed and some significant cleanup had occurred by the applicant from its previous use. He stated that the board could not grant a variance from a set back unless it was part of a PUD application process. However, this was a legal but nonconforming situation and the land use regulations do allow for legal nonconformities to exist as long as the nonconformity is not increased or reduced. Commissioner Stavney asked if the property was up on a bench. Mr. Palmer stated that this property was unique as it is was elevated above the 100 year flood plane. He explained the chronology ofthe site. In August a building permit was applied for and was later withdrawn due to building code requirements and cost. The special use permit did not have an expiration date. Neil Nelson, Wylaco Manager, and Chris Williams with Johnson and Kunkel were present. Mr. Palmer stated that the current use of the property is outside of what was allowable. Mr. Nelson stated that Kenny Benedict started using the property for storage without the proper permits. Mr. Palmer spoke about the Planning Commission's recommendations. He showed photos of the property and various stored materials. He showed the existing berms on the property. He was under the impression that the firewood operation was a lease situation. He reviewed the suggested conditions. Tyler Ryan, Eagle County Engineering Department spoke to the board. He indicated that the engineering department was satisfied that the applicant met with them and agreed to what was suggested. Commissioner Stavney asked about the all weather surface. He wondered if there was a provision for an apron to contain gravel or asphalt to keep the mud off Highway 6. 28 11/17/09 Mr. Ryan stated that they requested that the driveway be paved and the main drive along the frontage would be a road base material. He understood that vehicles leaving the site would not have access to the entire site. Commissioner Stavney also asked about sediment fencing and whether there would be a sediment control plan. Mr. Ryan stated that there was currently a berm along the south side and a silt fence. The alternative would be to control all drainage off the site. Chairman Fisher wondered if storage yards were required to provide some detail as to placement of products, and visual impacts. She can't imagine that a new special use permit would be allowed to have that kind of impact so close to the water bank. She'd seen the impact that the organization has had in Gypsum and the debris that ends up in the river when there was a good wind. She didn't think the improvement was significant enough. She asked the applicant to do a real analysis of the drainage on the property and issues with existing fence which was in need of repair. Mr. Nelson suggested something more permanent could be added. Chairman Fisher indicated that the fence should not be right along the river. She also wanted to preserve the view corridor. She didn't understand why a second special use permit was required since the lumber production facility already operates under a special use. Mr. Palmer stated that if the proposed special use permit was approved the pre-existing special use permit would be terminated. Mr. Williams stated that the sawmill area was where Wylaco was positioned. Chairman Fisher remembered the lumberyard moving to Edwards and the significant discussion about shielding. The proposed operation had a variety of different construction components. She wasn't sure she wanted a contractor storage yard on 1-70. She was challenged with the way this has been handled. She requested a site visit and a long term plan. Commissioner Runyon believed a site visit was appropriate. He wondered about the metal shed and requested more information regarding the look of it as visualization was a big part of the decision. Mr. Palmer stated that the primary use would be a processing facility. Chairman Fisher asked if the neighboring property owner to the east was notified. Mr. Palmer stated the neighbor was notified however, he did not receive a response. He stated screening was discussed. The applicant proposed some green fabric mesh to cover the 8 ft. fence but it was staff's point of view that a well-kept yard without any large visual obstructions was preferred. Mr. Williams spoke about the desired flexibility to come back and allow a building to happen on the site. He spoke about the existing access permit and agreed with Engineering's recommendation to upgrade the road. They would like to create a truck delivery area. He requested that the board extend the permit time. Commissioner Stavney stated that the board had to consider the long-term use and community plan. Mr. Williams stated that their intent was never to store hazardous waste on the property. He spoke about the 75-foot setback and that they would re-vegetate ifneeded. Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped to continue moving forward with the building permit and continue doing business. Dan Stanek spoke about the existing building and believed it was appropriate to red tag the building because it never had a building permit. He was lead to believe the proposed metal building was not going to be built because of money and issues with water and sewer. Commissioner Stavney stated that his intent was not to close down the business. He stated that he would like to see the existing special use terminated. He would like to see some type of solid screening. He expressed concern with containment of debris. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment as there was none. Mr. Palmer suggested Monday, December 7th, 2009 as the day ofthe site visit. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board of County Commissioners table file number ZS-2356 Wylaco Supply Company until December 15 with a site visit schedule for Monday, December 7,2009. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 29 11/17/09 LUR-2500 - 2009 Buildine: Resolution Amendments Dan Stanek, Building Department ACTION: The purpose of the 2009 Building Resolution Amendments is to update the Eagle County Building Resolution to the International Code Council 2009 Building Codes. Updates will be to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations chapter 3, Building Resolutions Amendments, and ECO Land Use Regulations Division 4.8 and 4.9. LOCATION: Unincorporated Eagle County TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF: Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR) LUR-2500; Amendment to the ECLUR Eagle County Staff Dan Stanek, Building Official and Bryan Treu, County Attorney STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This amendment is to allow for modification of the Eagle County Building Resolution as follows: A. Updating to the 2009 International Codes including 2009 International Building Code, 2009 International Residential Code, 2009 International Mechanical Code, 2009 International Plumbing Code, 2009 International Fuel Gas Code, and the 2009 International Fire Code. B. Revisions to the Eagle County Building Resolution to include: 1. Changing the date requiring sprinklers in new single family residences, duplexes, and townhouses from 1/1/2011 to 9/1/2012. 2. Adding the following requirements to live/work units, F and I occupancies shall not be permitted in a live/work unit. C. Revisions to Divisions 4-8 and 4-9 Eco-Build Residential and Commercial/Multi-Family to be compatible with the 2009 IECC, as well as other minor changes as attached in proposed revisions to include: 1. IRC Fenestration U factor 0.30 minimum value required 2. Main heat source when applicable with the IRC to be a minimum of 92% efficient AFUE. 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the following agencies: . County Attorneys Office . County Department of Environmental Health . County Engineering Department . Town of Vail Fire Department . Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District . Gypsum Fire Protection District . Greater Eagle Fire Protection District . Eagle River Fire Protection District . Eagle Valley Homebuilders Association . Town of Avon . Town of Basalt 30 11/17/09 . Town of Eagle . Town of Gypsum . Town of Minturn . T own of Redcliff . Town of Vail . Additionally, these proposed regulations were referred out to 350 Contractors and Developers that are associated with Eagle County's Community Development Department. . A meeting was held on September 29th with the Fire Districts to get input on the 2009 International Codes being updated from the 2003 International codes. The Fire Districts support the adoption of the 2009 International Codes. . Two Public meetings were held one in Eagle on October 7th and one in EI Jebel on October 8th to answer questions regarding the 2009 International codes and changes in the Eagle County Building Resolution One person attended the EI Jebel meeting and on one attended the Eagle meeting. No Responses were received from any of the agencies, firms or individuals: B. FINDINGS: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.06 Board action ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulation: The Building Resolution, as proposed, is in general conformance with the policies and regulations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B Initiation of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. ( c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. C. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED MOTION Eagle County Planning Commission Recommendation On November 4th, 2009 the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofLUR- 2500 with no conditions. Roaring F ork Valley Regional Planning Commission Recommendation 31 11/17/09 On November 5th, 2009 the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofLUR-2500 with no conditions. DISCUSSION Dennis Willey, county building inspector presented the revisions, which would update the 2009 international building code, residential code, mechanical code, plumbing code, fuel gas code, and the fire code. The change would require sprinklers in new single-family residences, duplexes, and townhouses. There were no responses received from any of the agencies, firms or individuals. The Eagle County Planning Commission and Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with no conditions. Staff recommended approval and recommended that the revisions take affect January 1,2010. Commissioner Runyon wondered how this would apply to remodels. Mr. Stanek stated that the regulation only pertained to new residences, duplexes, or townhouses that were in the residential code. It would not affect additions or alterations. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve file number LUR-2500 - 2009 Building Resolution Amendments per recommendation of Eagle County Planning Commission, Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and Eagle County staff. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: 32 11/17/09