HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/09/10
PUBLIC HEARING
February 9, 2010
Present:
Sara Fisher
Peter Runyon
Jon Stavney
Keith Montag
Robert Morris
Teak Simonton
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Manager
Deputy County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Special Recognition - Eagle County Public Safety Council for Sandbar Shooting
Incident
Jeff Layman, Undersheriff
Chairman Fisher spoke to the group.
Dan Smith, Chairman of the Eagle County Safety Council spoke. He described the mission. The council
expected a high level of professional conduct. When conduct exceeds this level, a distinguished service award may
be given. Today he would present the distinguished service award to 14 people who were involved in the Sandbar
shooting. He described the incident and the threat to officer safety. He read the names of the individuals:
Greg Daly, Lieutenant, Avon Police Department
Chris Bodkins, sergeant, Vail Police Department
Bill Claussen, sergeant, Vail Police Department
Alex Iacovetto, Sergeant, Eagle County Sheriffs Office
John Lovins, Sergeant, Avon Police Department
Bob Silva, Sergeant, Eagle County Sheriffs Office
Luke Causey, Officer, Vail Police Department
Tad Degan, Deputy, Eagle County Sheriffs Office
Donyelle Dewey, Deputy, Eagle County Sheriff s Office
Brent Kohls, Deputy, Eagle County Sheriffs Office
Matt Westenfe1der, Officer, Avon Police Department
Reg Francoise, Physician, Vail Valley Medical Center
Barry Hammaker, Physician, Vail Valley Medical Center
Steve Vardaman, paramedic, Eagle County Ambulance District
Chairman Fisher spoke about the recognition. She believed a greater power drew us all to the line of work
we'd chosen. She imagined that everyone in the room felt successful and challenged. The causes chosen represent
a commitment that many could not comprehend. She spoke about pride and gratefulness. She spoke about her
personal experiences with public servants who had recently saved her life. She thanked them for the choices made
on November ih to protect people and the community.
Commissioner Stavney thanked everyone present on behalf of everyone in Eagle County for being prepared
and protecting.
Commissioner Runyon added that he had considered the incident many times and wondered ifhe would
have measured up to the efforts and courage exhibited. He thanked everyone for an outstanding job.
Chairman Fisher spoke about the different agencies involved and the great example of community they
represented.
Lieutenant Greg Daly added that on behalf of the special operations unit he thanked the public safety
council and the commissioners. He thanked all the first responders who put their lives in harms way. He also
acknowledged Dr. Bruce Kitching, who lost his life in the incident.
Chairman Fisher spoke about Brian Kozak, the police chief leaving the community and thanked him for his
service to the Town of Avon.
1
02/09/2010
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 February 8, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director)
Finance Department Representative
B. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meeting for December 8, December
15, December 21,2009
Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder
C. Early Head Start Supplemental Grant Application for Training and Technical Assistance Fund
Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services
D. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Hillcara, LLC for Parking and Storage
County Attorney's Office Representative
E. Resolution 2010-013 Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Subdivision Improvements
Agreement for Vail Christian High School
County Attorney's Office Representative
Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bob Morris, Assistant County Attorney stated that there were no changes to the agenda as presented.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-E.
Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none.
Resolution 2010-014 Ordering Cancellation of Certain Uncollectible Taxes
Treasurer Karen Sheaffer
Ms. Sheaffer explained that these were the write offs which totaled under $10,000. Per state statute, this
was appropriate.
Commissioner Stavney spoke about the total and the fact that it was made up of small amounts.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution ordering cancellation of certain uncollectible
taxes.
Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning Files
ZS-2356 Wvlaco Supplv Company
Adam Palmer, Planning
Tabled from 11/03/09, 11/17/09 & 12/15/09
2
02/09/2010
NOTE:
The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a metal rebar fabrication and contractor supply yard
on the 21 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.
ACTION:
LOCATION:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
PROJECT NAME:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
005490 Highway 6, Gypsum Area
ZS-2356/ Special Use Permit
Wy1aco 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.
B. SITE DATA:
North:
1-70
Resource
South:
BLM
Resource Preservation
East:
Residential
Resource
West:
BLM
Resource Preservation
Lumber mill structure, rebar processing structure, storage
21.11
919,556
none
none
Portable toilet
C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND:
. 1984: ZS-202-84 approved for lumber mill and storage of logs, timbers, wood and associated logging
equipment.
. 2009: 8.25.2009---Building Permit 3593 applied for, withdrawn due to building code requirements for
3
02/09/2010
permanent restroom, would not be issued prior to approval of special use permit.
D. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (ECPC) REARING: 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 Reicher (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, ofthe 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.
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 ofECPC 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
ยท 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. ST AFF REPORT
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.
4
02/09/2010
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 A1ticle, 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.IJ 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 FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for 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.
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.
5
02/09/2010
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
c '"
<<)
c 0 c
0 .~ 0
"i u N '" ~..
.;:: i:: -c- D i
~ 0 <<) ~.- :s
~ '" ",<<l ~
~ ::a ~ ._ ::l ~
:> 0 (Xl ::z:
Exceeds
Recommendation
lncorporates Majority X X X X
of Recorrunendations
Does Not Incorporate X X
Recommendations
Not ApPlicable
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 appropriatefor its
proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
SurronndingLand Uses I Zoning .-",l:i~~l:i
Xes <~f)
North: 1-70 Resource - - X
South: BLM Resource X
Preservation - -
East: Residential Resource - - X
West: BLM Resource X
Preservation - -
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,
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.
6
02/09/2010
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.
"0
~ 5 C'.
8 b- 0l)0ll -a8
5.5 ~ 0 'a .:: ~
.- ;> ~'i VI ~ ~ D.
c:= B 'S
o 0 &!j 5 ;> ~~
ooQ Z
Ex.ceeds ECLUR
X X X X X X X No
fy ECLUR X
Requirements
Not Applicable
The proposal generally meets the performance standards as outlined in the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations. However, at the date of this 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.
e .~
~ .8 o ~ 5
~ Zo 'i .
~ fH< uI'''O
0 !O 1 ;;fH<
!' ~ ~ ~i '" .~ i
;> WE-<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Not Applicable
7
02/09/2010
~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6J 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.
....
0
t<i t
i ~ t<i
.~ 0 ..0 ~...B
'" j
-g o '" p., ~~
-g-ij p.,
0 0 ;:l ~..~ ..~
~ Q.,Q., Q.,t;/';
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X X X X
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirement
Not Applicable 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. 7J The proposed Special Use shall
comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development 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.8J 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
B. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
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.
8
02/09/2010
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
C. 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.
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.
9
02/09/2010
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 explained the request. He showed some maps of the property. The special use permits applied
to the entirety of the property. The 75-foot high water mark setback applied to the property, and historical use had
been closer to the river, but this setback would apply to any new use. He spoke about the special use standards. A
chronology of the property use was presented. The original special use permit was issued in 1984 for sawmill use
and storage of dimensional lumber along with other related uses. The Eagle County Planning Commission
recommended conditions, which were highlighted in the staff report. On December 15, there was discussion that a
long-term approval might not be appropriate due to the scale of the operation. A temporary special use permit was
discussed. He showed some photos of the property.
Commissioner Stavney spoke about the status as of the last meeting. He spoke about a short-term special
use permit and the fact that Wylaco was not interested in this type of investment. He heard that Wy1aco was
interested in moving the entire operation to another location near the airport. The tabling was requested to provide
Wylaco time to make these plans. There was also the possibility of getting rid of the existing special use permit.
Neil Nelson stated about his discussions with the Town of Gypsum.
Commissioner Stavney asked about whether there was a specific proposal with the Town of Gypsum.
Mr. Nelson stated that there were several options they were trying to work through. Ultimately, they were
trying to find enough land to move the entire operation.
Commissioner Stavney spoke about the other possibilities with the Town of Gypsum. He wondered how
much longer Wylaco would need.
Richard Long, property owner stated that he wasn't interested in putting another sawmill in place. He
stated that the sawmill operations only last a couple years.
Chairman Fisher asked about the lease situation. She wondered who applied for the building permit.
Mr. Nelson stated that it was Kenny Benedict.
Chairman Fisher stated that she was challenged to wonder if the board says no to Wylaco now what the
property would look like 10 years down the road. She was tom. If the owner was not content with the current use
then this was a great opportunity for government to step in.
Mr. Long believed that everything was fine until he received a letter in the mail.
Commissioner Runyon stated that as was stated last time he was in favor of giving a six-month
continuation of the current use, but was disinclined to extend that permit to encourage the owners to find another
location. He encouraged extinguishing the sawmill privilege. The property has been identified as a community
buffer. The development was not compatible with infill. Gypsum had lots of commercial space available near the
airport.
10
02/09/2010
Commissioner Stavney felt there were. two parts, the ownership of the land and the special use. He wanted
to communicate that the setback would need to be adhered to. There should be a long-term sediment control plan.
He believed there were a lot of complicated issues. As a commissioner, he would prefer that the old special use go
away. He was not excited about a saw mill.
Mr. Long stated he would have to see what happened with the sawmill operators.
Chairman Fisher was challenged with the buffer zone designation. Some of the use of the property would
be impacted by long term decisions. She wondered about turning the space into Wylaco's future location. She
wondered what the vision for the area should be. She preferred that the operation fit into the commercial section.
She discouraged Wylaco from moving forward without approval.
Mr. Nelson spoke about the six-month permit to allow more time to negotiate with the Town of Gypsum.
Bob Morris stated that six months was the maximum.
Mr. Palmer spoke about the approval for a temporary special use permit. Since this special use would
trump the existing special use permit, there would be no permit when it expired at all. He suggested a clean up plan
for the next six months as a possibility.
Commissioner Stavney recommended the second option.
Mr. Long stated that the old permit was for storage only.
Mr. Palmer spoke about the sawmill storage.
Chairman Fisher asked about modifying the existing special use to allow for a periodic check in for
compliance. She wondered in whose interest the facility was.
Mr. Narracci spoke about the options. He felt the board would have the latitude to require periodic review
of the existing amended special use permit.
Mr. Palmer wondered about approving something fundamentally different from the application.
Mr. Narracci stated that there wasn't technically an amendment process, it was simply a new special use
permit.
Mr. Palmer spoke about a temporary approval and associated with it a longer-term permit. He wondered if
this would need a separate special use permit.
Mr. Narracci preferred it be associated with the current permit.
Mr. Morris did not believe that the regulations limited a temporary permit to a six-month restriction nor did
he find a specific provision for a temporary special use. In terms of the logic and concept of it, he did not see a
problem with a six-month temporary permit for Wylaco and the existing sawmill operation using the existing
special use permit.
Commissioner Stavney suggested approving a special use permit, which would expire in six months for the
current non-conforming use and then allow the pre-existing special use to come under a five-year review.
Ray Merry spoke about the two issues being compartmentalized. He wondered about tabling the file to see
how things go with the Town of Gypsum. He did not recommend approving something, which would allow an
operation that was not allowed in the zone district to continue. He saw the underlying use of sawmill being dealt
with later. He didn't recommend approving anything. He suggested letting enforcement work.
Mr. Palmer spoke about the six-month tabling limit. The final limit would be May 1 ih.
Mr. Morris did not believe the applicant could waive the six-month tabling limit.
Mr. Narracci agreed.
Commissioner Stavney stated that denying the special use while also saying the code enforcement would
work with the owner.
Mr. Palmer spoke about the current use - and either a denial or withdrawal which would then fall back to
the existing special use permit. An approval of a temporary use for Wylaco and a modified amended longer-term
use for firewood or storage would allow the board to make any amendments the board saw fit for future uses.
Mr. Merry spoke about the danger of setting a precedent. He suggested tabling the request to sometime in
May.
Chairman Fisher agreed. She hoped everyone took this seriously to avoid any adversaria1 situation in the
future. She favored not approving something that should not be approved for the location.
Mr. Palmer clarified that the board wished to get rid ofthe contractor storage yard, or an official plan to
identify this type of use including a PUD change and all the associated conditions. He spoke about the special use
permit being used for a processing facility, but these uses had already been moved. Currently the property was
being used for storage. To table the hearing did not make sense. He believed that addressing a longer-tenn use
should be discussed.
Commissioner Stavney stated that the board couldn't put limits on the existing special use.
11
02/09/2010
Mr. Palmer spoke about firewood storage. He was trying to find a clean way to go about this process. The
existing special use was not allowed.
Chairman Fisher asked about withdrawal of the application. The contractor storage component did not
preclude loading trucks.
Andy Jessen, Eagle County Code enforcement stated that the owners had been given notice about the
violation.
Chairman Fisher wondered about the application being withdrawn and a letter written to the owner about
the violation of the special use and the zoning. The letter could acknowledge that the restricted use would continue
for a short term to allow for moving of the existing materials.
Mr. Merry stated that this type of enforcement issue was a separate issue.
Chairman Fisher agreed, but discussions with the Town of Gypsum had being going on for several years.
Commissioner Stavney understood that Wy1aco was trying to make the special use permit go away.
Mr. Jessen spoke about the enforcement process.
Commissioner Stavney clarified the needed motion.
Commissioner Stavney moved to table file number ZS-2356 Wylaco Supply Company until May 11, 2010.
<;:ommissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Chairman Fisher recognized Commissioner Runyon with his five-year service award.
There being no further business before t>~13~~e.meeting was adjourned until February 16, 2010.
:X~~~ eft -
. .j. ~
Attest: . ,!) * _/\ n. IMh.A- .
~oard ~.OO Chainnan Q
12
02/09/2010
