The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 03/29/11 PUBLIC HEARING March 29 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of March 28, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meeting for March 8, 2011 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder C. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority for the Administration of Future Grant Funds ECO Transit Representative D. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Impact Assistance Grant Application Assessor's Office Representative E. Resolution 2011 -025 Adopting the Eagle County Emergency Operations Plan, Appendix K Barry Smith, Emergency Management F. Resolution 2011 -026 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert. L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney, and Diane H. Mauriello, Assistant County Attorney, to Act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, vvith Respect to Letter of Credit No. SLCPPDZ03678 in the Amount of $620,566.92 for the Account of Kummer Development Corporation, Frost Creek PUD County Attorney's Office Representative G. Amendment No. 1 to Grant Agreement between Eagle County and the Governor's Energy Office for Community Energy Coordinator Adam Palmer, Community Development Chairman Stavney asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Mr. Morris, Deputy County Attorney recommended pulling Item C for further review. Commissioner Fisher asked Adam Palmer, from the Planning Departmentto speak about Item G. Mr. Palmer explained that this item was a contract extension with the governor's energy office. The primary scope of work outlined in the document was for a community energy coordinator to develop and document a strategic energy plan. The extension would allow for the incorporation of a few additional items. 1 03/29/2011 Commissioner Fisher believed that this was an important issue and there were funds available to the county to help cover expenses. She thanked Mr. Palmer for his work obtaining the grant. Mr. Palmer stated that the official launch for the Energy Smart Program would be at the Home Expo on April 8 and 9 at the Eagle River Center. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -G excluding C. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher spoke the importance of item E. The emergency operations plan included an animal emergency response plan that would help in the evacuation of pets and livestock in the case of emergencies in Eagle County. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and Pitkin County Regarding Future Development of a Pitkin County Facility on a Portion of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm County Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Montag stated that the memorandum clarified the shared use of facilities on the tree farm property in El Jebel. The document acknowledges the fact that there was availability of space for Pitkin County. The cost sharing and space usage still needed to be discussed. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the memorandum of understanding between Eagle County • and Pitkin County regarding future development of a Pitkin County facility on a portion of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm. 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 Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Ristorante Ti Amo, Inc. #03- 89678 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant 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 Pla n is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. Cordillera Golf Club d/b /a Timber Hearth Grill #28- 64178 -0003 2 03/29/2011 • This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license with 4 -Opt. Premises 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 C. Cordillera Golf Club d/b /a 9 Iron Grill #28- 64178 -0004 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license with 4 -Opt. Premises 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. D. Cordillera Golf Club d/b /a The Summit #28- 641780 -0005 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant license with 4 -Opt. Premises in Edwards. There ha ve 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. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for March 29, 2011 consisting of Items A -D. Commissioner Runyon 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 Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Mr. Morris spoke about an easement agreement with respect to a property in the Intermountain neighborhood. This item would have been placed on the consent agenda but was delayed due to the number of parties having to sign the document. He requested that the board approve the agreement to complete the execution. Commissioner Fisher noted that the agreement was dated as of the 31' day of March. Mr. Morris stated that this date was the closing date. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the encroachment agreement presented between Eagle County and Mountain View Developers, LLC. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS -2774 LaFar2e Chambers Pit Bob Narracci, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow expansion of existing gravel mining activity on the Fairgrounds Property. The expanded mining area is referenced as "Area F ", and entails mining the area located underneath the existing WECMRD ball field complex. Historic mining Areas `B" and "D ", located due south of the ball field complex, will also be mined further to create a level platform upon which the WECMRD ball field complex will be relocated. LOCATION: 001400 Fairgrounds Road. South of Interstate -70, north of the Eagle River and west of Eby Creek Road in Eagle. 3 03/29/2011 FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS -2774 / Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: LaFarge at Eagle County Fairgrounds Gravel Pit OWNER: Eagle County Government APPLICANT: LaFarge West, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Terrill Knight, Knight Planning Services, Inc. / Sean Frisch, LaFarge STAFF PLANNER: Bob Narracci 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This is a Consolidated Special Use Permit application for a gravel pit and ancillary processing operations in the Resource zone district. LaFarge has been mining the Eagle County Fairgrounds property since 1980. Multiple Special Use Permits have been granted over the years to allow gravel mining operations to proceed from area to area. Presently, LaFarge is operating in the areas delineated as Areas B, D and E, which are east and south of the Eagle County Animal Services facility and Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District Sports Complex. The original mine area, Area A, is where the Eagle River Center fairground facility is now located. This application is to expand mining operations to extract the aggregate underneath the present location of the WECMRD Sports Complex; this area is referred to as Area F. As part of the recently executed lease between Eagle County and LaFarge, further mining will first need to occur in Areas B and D to create a level, buildable /developable platform for relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex and all necessary infrastructures. Further mining of Areas B and D must maintain sufficient overburden above the ground water table consistent with the grading plan developed with the design team and LaFarge. LaFargc must leave the site properly prepared for immediate relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex without the need for further soil remediation by WECMRD or Eagle County. Eagle County Project Management Staff have been meeting with Lafarge, WECMRD, and design consultants on the creation of the Eagle County WECMRD ballfield site. Design Meetings have been held on a weekly and monthly timeframe over the course of the last six months for the purpose to coordinate design efforts. During these meetings, the team has produced a close conformance specification for the final reclamation and grading of the mining areas. Enclosed is a preliminary grading plan from Marcin Engineering dated March 4, 2011, representing the proposed final grades for the ballfield site. Area B will need to be cleared of all LaFarge operations and machinery to make way for the WECMRD facility relocation. As such, all machinery and operations will be shifted to Area D; a fence will be erected to maintain safe separation between the future sports complex and LaFarge's mining activities. It is anticipated that this arrangement will be in place for the duration of mining and processing activities on Area F until final reclamation is complete. (Please note that subsequent Special Use Permit review and approval will be necessary specific and prior to relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex facilities.) The lease between Eagle County and LaFarge provides for a 20+ -year mining /processing life span. At the conclusion of mining in Area F, the Eagle County Animal Services facility will be the only remaining structure and land left at its current elevation in this portion of the Fairgrounds property. LaFarge has investigated mining where the Animal Services facility is located and determined that there is not enough mineable material underneath the shelter to offset the cost to LaFarge for relocating the facility. This does not preclude a possible future arrangement wherein Eagle County and LaFarge would consolidate their efforts to move the Animal Services facility. If such arrangements ever come to fruition then additional Special Use permitting will be necessitated. As part of this next phase of mining activity, LaFarge will also be enhancing the existing truck scale house on Fairgrounds Road by painting the structure, replacing signage and otherwise cleaning -up the area. 4 03/29/2011 .. 4. '� . ... „r'. .. f ., 4I { . , ` -. . ' � �: .�. i .. ! r , {, . N _ . 4e — M1 - i 1 , w i 1 SITE DATA: Surroundin Land Uses / Zoning 4 Land.., Y , { Zonin' Land (xe l .. v g North: I - R.O.W. _ Resource South: Eagle River Town of Eagle East: Visitor Center Town of Eagle West: Agricultural / Resource Residential Existing . Resource Zone District L : Special Use Permit for Mining Operations including gravel extraction, crushing C ent, 1 k - opulent: and washing; asphalt and concrete production, Fairground activities; WECMRD f � Sports Complex Si be +' ".;, 1 Active mine, aggregate processing, Fairground uses, WECMRD Sports Complex. Total Laud Are ,A 150 acres Square feet: 6,534,000 square feet %inter ' • . <, NA Private: k :, • Sewer: a $,,...:. NA IV - Access: Via Fairgrounds Road B. CBRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: 1980: Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for gravel mine at the Eagle County Fairgrounds. 5 03/29/2011 1997: Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to the previous Special Use Permit. Area B operates under this Permit, and is for both the processing and extraction of sand and gravel. 2000: Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for continued extraction of sand and gravel in Area D; material continued to be processed in Area B. 2006: Eagle County approved an extension to the lease for mining in Area D and Area E. As a stipulation of the lease, Lafarge was required to apply for a new Special Use Permit. 2010: Eagle County approved an extension to the lease for mining in Areas B and D and also for the new Area F. As a stipulation of the lease, Lafarge is required to apply for a new Special Use Permit. 2010: This Special Use Permit application was received by Planning Department. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: • Incorporate the revegetation condition of approval from the Cordillera Valley Club water tank 1041 Permit. • The revegetation seed mix has to be appropriate for this region of Eagle County and must be reviewed and approved by the local CSU Extension Office. • The distance proposed between the future Sports Complex and the concrete batch plant and asphalt plant (Area `D') is a bit close. Ultimately, the ECPC unanimously recommended approval of this application with all conditions suggested by staff plus the following three conditions of approval: 1) No disturbance to Area `F' shall occur until the WECMRD Sports Complex is relocated and operational in its new location. 2) A yearly progress report shall be submitted by the applicant to Eagle County Environmental Health by December 31S of each year demonstrating the restoration plans progress. The reports shall continue until the effectiveness of the restoration plan is evidenced and all criteria contained within the plan have been met. 3) The reclamation seed mix must be reviewed and approved by the local Colorado State University Extension Office. 2. STAFF 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. 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 6 03/29/2011 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.11 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 standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN g 8 FLUM Desi gnation Meets all applicable X X X X X X X X X Recommendations Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Majority of Recommendations Not Applicable X General Governance — Conforms to the policies of this Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Development — Policies in this Section of the Comprehensive Plan relate to preserving quality of life attributes, maintaining or enhancing community character, and limiting economic development to a scale and type that is consistent with local character. The mining operation has a 20+ year lease in place with Eagle County. Economic Resources — The proposed Special Use Permit would further support and enhance the regional economic structure and local economic drivers. In addition, the proposed operation would not significantly detract from economic activities that depend on healthy natural environments and ecosystems. As extraction is completed, the land is reclaimed for use by Eagle County for a variety of public benefits enabling enhanced uses of the Fairgrounds property. Housing — The applicant is not proposing any affordable housing with this application. Operations are expanding into a new area, however; new jobs are not being created with this expansion. Infrastructure and Services — The Fairgrounds road is sufficient for the needs of this proposal. In addition, Lafarge has coordinated with Eagle County to ensure any utilities, etc., are properly relocated in the correct location(s). Water Resources Best Management Practices are employed to protect groundwater and surface water resources. Lafarge has been coordinating with Eagle County regarding proper erosion control measures to be implemented and appropriate buffers shall remain to protect the Eagle River. An earthen berm has resulted over time between the Eagle River and the southern edge of Area B by the apparent combined efforts of earlier mining activity and installation and maintenance of the irrigation ditch which runs between the berm and the Eagle River. During mining, the berm will remain in place to assist with protecting and buffering the Eagle River from mining impacts. Upon the completion of mining, the berm will still remain but be re- contoured to a more stable slope and to emulate more natural conditions. The berm will be properly revegetated. Wildlife Resources — The CDOW response dated October 5, 2010 indicates that the proposed expansion of mining operations and eventual relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex will have minimal impact to 7 03/29/2011 wildlife. CDOW does intend to provide feedback regarding the design and construction of the relocated Sports Complex. Sensitive Lands —The applicant has provided a satisfactory revegetation/reclamation plan which has been demonstrated successful in past efforts. The reclamation plan is also a requirement of LaFarge's mining permits through the State of Colorado. Environmental Quality — Generated noise would not likely diminish the enjoyment of the surrounding area any more than present conditions. All comments of the Eagle County Department of Environmental Health are incorporated as conditions of approval. Future Land Use Map (PLUM) — The site of the proposed development is in the designated "Community Buffer ". This proposal is in conformance with the policies of the Future Land Use designation as found in the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN .,..,:...„.44.f.1,,r,lr, ,.gli. .0.1.,:3,,‘ ...,,E ,' '.. .E : ' - ' 'wit - . 4. r a k 7 ' , k„,01 , + ' a I 0'r X1 X2 X X3 X X X4 X5 ..: Pion . ,. „ice Not X X Sit' ,'e 4 X1: The Eagle Area Community Plan FLUM designates the Fairground property as "Fairgrounds Mixed Use" and acknowledges that "Gravel and rock extraction is a temporary influence ". X2: The Fairground property lies within the "Western Gateway Character Area" and the "Eagle River Corridor Character Area ". The Eagle River Corridor Character Area calls for preservation of a nat oral and undisturbed scenic river corridor, including flood plain and river bank features associated wetlands, riparian habitats and river vegetation. The Plan also indicates that appropriate recreational uses along the corridor are encouraged with care given to preserving the quality, beauty, riparian and natural amenities of the river. Wildlife habitat and sensitive lands along the river's banks should be protected. Recreational enhancement opportunities include but are not limited to additional public access points and facilities for fishing, rafting, kayaking, hiking and bicycling. The possibility of a white water park should continue to be explored for the area adjacent to the Eagle County Fairgrounds. The Western Gateway Character Area notes that the Fairgrounds property is very visible from Interstate -70. The Plan notes that the appearance of the landscape and development within this character area is :important because it serves as the Town's western gateway. Further, existing gravel processing is an example of sites where improvements could be made. As stated above, the Plan does acknowledge that mining activities on the Fairground property are a temporary influence. X3: The Plan speaks to coordination between Eagle County and the Town of Eagle to eventually provide vehicular connection to the Fairground property directly from US Highway 6, as well as, adding additional points of pedestrian access from the Town's residential areas into the Fairground property. Neither of these two goals will likely be realized until mining operations are complete on the Fairground property. Recently, the county acquired the Seago property, in part, to accommodate future connection. 8 03/29/2011 X4: In addition to the economic benefits of utilizing available resources locally and producing aggregate products, for local use; the Fairground property, Eagle County Event Center and the WECMRD Sports Complex are all identified as high quality venues for both local and regional events. These facilities should continue to be enhanced, utilized and marketed to draw more people in businesses to the Town. X5: The Fairground Property and mining operation are provided with adequate public services and infrastructure to support present uses. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN a ,. b Recommendation Incorporates M e, 'ty X X X X X X X of 41- • 11 ti,,r iF 'i4ons Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable. The plan discusses and provides direction for new development, in particular, new residential subdivisions. It does not discuss or acknowledge existing, non - residential land uses. Nevertheless, the proposed mining operations will continue to be conducted in a manner sensitive to protection of the Eagle River and associated wetland, riparian areas. Upon completion and reclamation of the mining activities, the Fairground property will continue to be enhanced for the benefit of the local and regional population. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN , Q Ex Recomm ation Incorporates tes Majority ty X X X X X of Recommendations Does Not .'i Recomnadations Not Applicable The CDOW response dated October 5, 2010 indicates that the proposed expansion of mining operations and eventual relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex will have minimal impact to wildlife. (DOW does intend to provide feedback regarding the design and construction of the relocated Sports Complex. 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 appropriate_ for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potent Compatibility: Surrounding Land Uses / Ztming Issues _ _ _ Yes No 9 03/29/2011 North: 1-70 , R.O W Resource X South: tigtover Town of Eagle X East: Visitor Center Town of Eagle X Acultur West: ll .� . ial Resource X X The mining operation is adjacent to the Eagle River; however, there is no indication that the Eagle River has been compromised by mining activities on the site to date. Agricultural and residential uses located west of the Fairground property may be impacted by occasional noises and odors associated with aggregate mining activities. 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. Exploration, Extraction and Processing Operations. 1. Environmental Impact Report. An e or t. applicant proposing an exploration, extraction, P pp p p g P , or processing operation shall submit an Environmental Impact Report. The Report shall be prepared in accordance with Section 4 -460, Environmental Impact Report, of these Regulations, by technically qualified professional experts. Included in the Report shall be a depiction of the location, scope and design of the proposed use, and an explanation of its operational characteristics and impacts. The requirement to submit said Report may be waived by the Planning Commission. The environmental impact documents included in the application satisfy this requirement. 2. Compliance. Proof shall also be submitted that the proposed use shall be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the county, state and federal governments and shall not adversely affect: a. Water. Existing lawful use of water, through depletion or pollution of surface run -off, stream flow or groundwater; b. Adjacent Land Uses. Adjacent land uses, through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration, or other emanations; or c. Wildlife. Wildlife and domestic animals, through creation of hazardous attractions to wildlife, impacts on wildlife habitat, or patterns, or other means. Response from the Department of Environmental Health includes several recommended actions to ensure surface and groundwater protection and proper environmental impact mitigation measures. All recommendations of the Environmental Health Department have been made conditions of approval. The attached letter from the Colorado Division of Wildlife indicates that the proposed expansion of mining operations and eventual relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex will have minimal impact to wildlife. CDOW does intend to provide feedback regarding the design and construction of the relocated Sports Complex. 10 03/29/2011 3. Site Plan. On parcels of land greater than one (1) acre, a detailed site plan shall be submitted, including landscaping sufficient to meet the standards found in Section 4 -230, Landscaping Design Standards and Materials. Security may be required to guarantee landscaping, drainage, and erosion control, if deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, and as specified in Section 4 -240, Installation and Maintenance Requirements. The applicant has submitted necessary documents. 4. Fabrication, Service and Repair. All fabrication, service and repair activities associated with the use shall be conducted within a building (except for incidental repair activities), unless the applicant demonstrates that it is not practical to do so and ensures that all impacts from outside activities are mitigated. 5. Storage. All storage of materials associated with the operation shall occur within a building, or shall be obscured by an opaque fence. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS as conditioned MEETS THE MAJORITY OF 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. c 8 "" ° g 1 •1 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X X X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable All recommendations of the Department of Environmental Health have been incorporated as conditions of approval. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS as conditioned MEETS THE MAJORITY OF 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. 11 03/29/2011 .',---- ;',.. , 0 g. .. nn A Exceeds ECLUR Requirements_ X X X X X X X `! Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement . ;. Not Applicable ` ] Response from the Department of Environmental Health includes several recommended actions to ensure surface and groundwater protection and proper environmental impact mitigation measures. All recommendations of the Environmental Health Department have been made conditions of approval. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS as conditioned MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STAND Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5- 250.BJ The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public faci an services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable Ovate r and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. t u'' ] bo . a ° 3ui. 0 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements - sitisfie s ECLUR " x x x x x Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement X X Not Applicable EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS as conditioned MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Stand ards. [Section 5- 250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standar i n Artic 4, Site Development Standards. ` � ` �• ` � tilt �, ,� ,' t I X Off - Street Parking and Load Standards (Division 4 - 1) 12 03/29/2011 X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2) Environmental Health X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) CDOW X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) 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) Environmental Health X Noise and Vibration (Section 4 -520) Environmental Health X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4 -530) Environmental Health X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4 -540) Environmental Health X Storage of Hazardous and Non - hazardous Materials (Section 4 -550) Environmental Health X Water Quality Standards (Section 4 -560) Environmental Health X Roadway Standards (Section 4 -620) Engineering X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 -630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 -640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4 -650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 -660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 -670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 -680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4 -690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4 -7) ARE APPLICABLE* *to be applied to the balance of planned mined area as of the recordation of the Resolution of approval. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS as conditioned MEETS THE MAJORITY OF 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. As conditioned, the proposal shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all applicable provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS REFERRAL RESPONSES: 13 03/29/2011 Eagle County Environmental Health Department — In a verbal response, the following recommendations are provided: 1) All lighting shall be downcast, shielded from glaring onto adjacent properties and equipped with motion - activation. 2) A Dust Suppression Plan must be submitted and approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department prior to commencing mining activities as proposed in this application. The Dust Suppression Plan must be kept on -site, implemented at all times and must include the following information in addition to any permits issued by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Air Pollution Control Division: a. A method of predicting high winds (in excess of 20 mph) that warrant more aggressive dust suppression efforts. b. What routine dust suppression methods are utilized and what actions will be taken in the event high winds are forecast. c. What dust suppression methods are used when water is not available during times when the irrigation water is not available, such as during winter months? d. What contingency measures are taken in the event compliance with the Dust Suppression Plan is not achieved? e. Contact information for the person available at all times to address public complaints or compliance issues. 3) Only equipment that is necessary for the daily /on -going operation and maintenance of the gravel operation may remain on the site; the site may not be utilized as a contractor's storage yard without specific amendment to this permit. 4) Parking of employee or visitor vehicles, as well as company vehicles required for on -site operations is permitted. 5) Storage of mining and construction equipment and supplies necessary for the on -going operation of the gravel pit must be adequately screened from view of adjacent properties. 6) The Special Use Permit shall supersede the uses -by -right in the Resource Zone District except as may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners via Special Use Permit review. Agricultural uses, utility distribution facilities and water diversion structures /ditches shall be considered part of this Special Use Permit. 7) LaFarge shall maintain a detailed policy guide and procedure manual outlining fire, health, emergency, safety and welfare of employees and surrounding residents and visitors to the area. 8) The LaFarge Fairgrounds Pit operations shall comply with the Eagle County Industrial and Commercial Performance Standards, as may be amended from time to time. 9) Disturbed areas shall be reclaimed as soon as practicable, with vegetation species and densities designed to blend with the surrounding area, consistent with the approved reclamation plan. Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to the attached memorandum dated March 9, 2011. ECO Trails — In a verbal response, questions what the plan is for an existing trail internal to the Fairgrounds property; will the county manage a relocation and reconstruction of the trail where it is located adjacent to the ballfields or will it be WECMRDS's discretion whether to reconstruct the trail? The Eagle Valley Regional trail runs through the Seago property and not the Fairgrounds. Colorado Division of Wildlife — Please refer to the attached letter dated October 5, 2010. Town of Eagle — Please refer to the attached letter dated October 25, 2010. The Town offers the following recommendations: 1) Is the extraction of gravel in Area F proceeding using a `hole' approach where existing material is left along the perimeter to effectively screen the operations until the end of the 14 03/29/2011 extraction process? It is the Town's preference that the berm remains intact throughout mining operations. 2) The plan proposes a 3:1 slope from the elevation of the Animal Control Facility to the reclaimed surface of the bottom of the pit; approximately 40 feet in depth. The Town prefers the addition of one or two 10 foot wide benches to provide a visual break in the slope that could be landscaped in the future with the construction of the ball fields. 3) The plan needs to show any water and sewer lines that would need to be relocated and indicate where they would be relocated. It is understood that the cost of relocation will be Eagle County's responsibility. 4) We noticed that the proposed bottom of the pit is at the elevation of the 100 year flood plain. It may be better to establish the final grade at one foot above the 100 year flood plain to facilitate future development of the property. We recognize at this time is planned for recreational facilities. However with a small adjustment any permanent buildings now or in the future would be located outside the flood plain which may be advantageous. Additionally, further grading design may be warranted to assure positive sewer flow if possible from any bathrooms to be constructed. 5) Revegetation of slopes and disturbed areas should comply with Eagle County Standards. It may be years before the ball fields will expand into Area F. 6) It is the Town's understanding that all access to operations in Area F will utilize new access through Area E freeing up access to he relocated ball fields to exclusively use the western access road. Is this correct? 7) The Town is concerned with potential fugitive dust and potential odors. Please explain further how these impacts will be mitigated. (Please reference the applicant's responses to the Town's comments in a letter dated November 29, 2010 from Knight Planning Services, Inc. to the Town of Eagle.) Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Airport; Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; Eco Trails; Housing Division; Sheriff's Office; Road & Bridge; Weed and Pest • Colorado State: Division of Minerals and Geology; Department of Transportation • Federal: Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA) • Ambulance and Fire District: WECAD and Greater Eagle FPD Adjacent Property Owner Response: William P. Powell 21 Violet Lane Eagle, CO Owns Lots 1 and 2 of the Powell Park PUD which is adjacent and on the south side of the Eagle River from the Fairground property and mining operations. The Powells generally support this application for continued mining operations and the future relocation of the WECMRD Sports Complex facilities. They recommend that LaFarge continue the "hole and berm preservation" approach; wherein the excavation leaves the existing contours on the southerly and easterly side of the pit. This method provides a visual barrier from the gravel mining operations for the adjacent property owners, The Town of Eagle overall and travellers on US Highway 6. This method also aids with controlling fugitive dust. Mr. Powell indicates that based on reclamation of former gravel mining operation east of Eagle that the standards of the State Division of Reclamation and Mining Safety are inadequate, particularly in terms of the grass stand created. He recommends that the applicant be required to restore the permitted area to a standard created by the County. 15 03/29/2011 Lastly, it is questioned whether the term of the Special Use Permit is consistent with the lease agreement between the County and LaFarge. PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request without conditions if it is determi ned 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 [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] 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 [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] 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. 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. All comments and recommendations set forth in the Engineering Department memorandum dated March 9, 2011 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to recording the Board of County Commissioner Resolution for this Special Use Permit. 3. All recommendations set forth by the Environmental Health Department as delineated in this report must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health prior to recording the Board of County Commissioner Resolution for this Special Use Permit. 4. All comments set forth in the Town of Eagle response dated October 25, 2010 must be adequately addressed prior to mining operations commencing into Area F or further mining of Areas B and D. 5. Road Impact Fees will be applied to the balance of planned mined area and collected prior to recording the Board of County Commissioner Resolution for this Special Use Permit. 6. In the event Eagle County enacts new environmental protection standards concerning the performance of aggregate processing equipment or mining operations, the Eagle 16 03/29/2011 County Environmental Health Department will require the uses in operation on the property subject to this Special Use Permit to demonstrate conformance with the new standards. If any uses in operation on the property subject to this Special Use Permit are determined to be in violation of such new performance standards, and violations continue beyond any grace period which may be established to comply with the new performance standards, then this Special Use Permit shall be subject to revocation by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. This condition shall apply to all on -site activities covered by this Special use Permit, whether conducted by the Applicant or otherwise. 7. Consistent with contemporary mining operation approvals for LaFarge and B &B Excavating in other unincorporated locations; the following hours of operation shall apply to the LaFarge Fairground Gravel Pit Operations: Monday through Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. April 1st through November 30th. Monday through Friday: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. November 30th through March 31st. Saturdays: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sundays: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Sunday operations are limited to a maximum of six (6) Sundays per calendar year used only to supplant lost paving days due to adverse weather. Crushing Activities Monday through Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Crushing is prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays 8. Approval of this Special Use Permit shall expire on December 31, 2027 as specified in the lease agreement executed by Eagle County and LaFarge. 9. No disturbance to Area `F' shall occur until the WECMRD Sports Complex is relocated and operational in its new location. 10. A yearly progress report shall be submitted by the applicant to Eagle County Environmental Health by December 31 of each year demonstrating the restoration plans progress. The reports shall continue until the effectiveness of the restoration plan is evidenced and all criteria contained within the plan have been met. 11. The reclamation seed mix must be reviewed and approved by the local Colorado State University Extension Office. DISCUSSION: Chairman Stavney noted Bryan Treu's work with the applicant. Mr. Narracci presented the request His slide show presentation included a site plan, background, referral responses, and suggested conditions. The applicant proposed mining area F, the location of the existing WECMRD sports complex. The area had been mined since 1980. As part of the process, the ball fields would need to be relocated to area B, which was a separate special use permit, not yet processed. Prior to the relocation of the ball fields, areas B and D needed to be further mined to create a level platform ready to receive development of the WECMRD sports complex. The county engineering department was focused primarily on having area B prepared in a manner that required as little mitigation work as possible. The existing trail that ran through the fairgrounds would be relocated. The town was concerned with potential dust and odors and requested adequate mitigation. They also suggested re- vegetation of slopes, and that any disturbed areas comply with county standards. he town also suggested that the slope from the elevation of the animal control facility be graded with one or two benches to provide a visual break in the slope. All the special use findings were positive. The reclamation plan provided by 17 03/29/2011 the applicant was consistent with the sports complex plans developed by the design team. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with all the conditions set forth in the staff report. He detailed each of the 11 conditions and presented two changes. The first amendment added additional language to condition 8 that addressed the end of early mining operations. The second amendment added language to condition 12 that addressed an earthen berm that would screen mining activities. The berm would be 10 -15 tall along the southern perimeter of Area D. Sean Frisch, the project manager for LaFarge spoke. He introduced Terrell Knight from Knight Planning and the plant manager. He spoke about the existing site and explained that it would be depleted in 2 -3 years, which necessitated the need for potential expansion to continue operations on site. The current proposal was to mine out the existing ball field. In the lease agreement, Lafarge agreed to pay Eagle County $3.925 million to relocate the ball fields in exchange for the allowance to mine the area. Access would continue to be from Fairgrounds Road with a new access being added after area B was complete. Commissioner Stavney asked about the batch plant. Mr. Frisch stated that the batch plant would remain in the same location. The batch plan did not belong to LaFarge. Portable plants were expensive. The cost of moving the batch plant was costly. Complete mining was expected to take approximately 15 years. Reclamation in the first half of area B would be complete by 2011. Reclamation through areas D and F would be ongoing. Chairman Stavney asked about the requirement to provide an annual report and wondered if this was necessary. Mr. Montag stated that historically all mining related applications required some type of periodic or annual report. Ray Merry stated that having mining operations in a recreation tourism economy had always been a struggle. The annual report was an opportunity to comment on the environmental management plan, permit compliance and progress of other environmental management plan criteria. It addressed more than just re- vegetation. Commissioner Stavney expressed concerns for the berms blocking the view of the river and looking like huge rock piles. He did not like them being so high. He preferred them covered with dirt and grass. Rick Ullom, county construction manager stated that they were working to address the steepness of the slopes and include landscaping. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the board had a formal discussion to decide whether any berms should be removed. He believed the board should provide clear direction. Chairman Fisher expressed concern for the irrigation ditch as well as the access to the river being very steep. She believed a discussion was necessary as everyone had a difference of opinion. She wished to include the property owners to the west in any future ditch discussions. Mr. Frisch presented a conceptual ball field design. He explained that LaFarge would address air, :noise lighting, traffic, visual impact, and any negative effects to the floodplain. Commissioner Runyon stated that his issue was with the time span of 15 years. He wanted to talk about accelerating the process and LaFarge making this a site of priority. Mr. Frisch spoke about the washing process at each of the sites and stated that it was difficult to predict the needs of the community. They would do what they could to facilitate the ball field construction in a timely manner but were market driven on how quickly they could get through the rest of the material. Commissioner Stavney wondered what it would take to facilitate a wash plant. Mr. Frisch stated that the most difficult part was acquiring industrial water rights, which was a 3 -5 year process. Chairman Fisher asked about the dates of the special use. She wondered how the county got the assurance that the mining process would be phased. Mr. Frisch stated that the annual report would explain the phasing estimates. Commissioner Stavney spoke about adding a soft condition to address early completion. Mr. Frisch believed there was a condition that addressed this issue. Commissioner Stavney expressed concern for the dual rows of berms. Mr. Frisch stated that currently they did not have enough material to make two berms. Chairman Fisher spoke about the long -term plan for the fairgrounds property. She wondered if this permit could be conditioned so that once the ball fields were relocated, the county would had the opportunity to sit down with LaFarge and re- evaluate the road and the movement of the animal services facility. Mr. Frisch believed that LaFarge would be in favor of any future discussion prior to mining area F. 18 03/29/2011 Commissioner Stavney asked about the pile of dirt to the west that was cleared off the site. Mr. Frisch stated that they planned on using the dirt for the floor of area B. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney stated that there were 11 conditions with a couple of amendments proposed by staff. He asked the board if they wished to add anything given the discussion. He suggested adding a condition with the intent to discuss a plan for mining under animal control, existing access, and an interim plan for accessing the ball fields. He also suggested clarity on the berm. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the berm process required any additional material. Mr. Frisch stated that additional material was required for the continuance of the berm along the river, area D. They only had one set of material and only enough material to create a berm in one area at a time. Chairman Fisher recommended that the applicant do the best that could be done with the intent to screen as much as possible and take into consideration the interest and desires of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Ullom believed that there could be a follow up discussion regarding the southern berms when they come back for the special use permit for the ball fields. Chairman Fisher moved to approve the file no. ZS -2774 / LaFarge Special Use Permit with condit ions outlined by staff as well as any additional conditions that would come back in a resolution. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Continuum of Care Retirement Community Focus Group Report Presentation Jill Klosterman, Housing Jill Klosterman spoke about the project kick off and introduced Linda Venturoni and Kathy Chandl er- Henry. The group spoke to almost 90 people both seniors and caregivers. They were still working on the planning stage and currently tackling the financial feasibility. Linda Venturoni provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the demographics, purpose of the focus group, participants, data process, and survey data. Kathy Chandler -Henry spoke about their efforts in gathering feedback. Ms. Venturoni stated that they found 677 people that were 75 years and older living in this part of the county and invited them to participate in these focus groups. Ms. Chandler -Henry spoke questions asked at the presentations. Ms. Venturoni presented the survey data. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the total asset level slide and how it related to Medicaid. He wondered if Augustana had considered this data. Ms. Venturoni had been provided the data and was considering it. It would be part of the planning process and may have other repercussions to the funding. Ms. Chandler -Henry stated that they found the asset level was the only thing that made any sort of difference in the responses. She spoke about the deposit options, facility amenities, and apartment amenities. Ms. Venturoni concluded that there was a very high interest level in the development of a CCRC in Eagle County. This was evident by the large response to the focal group invitation letter sent. The cost question sparked a lot of discussion. Ms. Chandler -Henry noted that the there was a strong emphasis to maintain access to the outdoor environments. Ms. Venturoni spoke about the urgency to get the construction of a continuum of care retirement community underway. Chairman Fisher spoke about the importance of people receiving support and funding to allow them to remain in their homes for as long as possible. The board wants to be able to provide the service for the choice that people want to make. Commissioner Stavney spoke about touring other facilities and the benefits of having covered parking, storage, tunnels, larger closets, etc. The need that had been identified was something that was not currently available in Eagle County. The financing models were still being researched. 19 03/29/2011 Ms. Klosterman defined independent living as someone could take care of them self and doesn't require 24 hour nursing. Commissioner Runyon explained that Augustana was faith based and worked with all different denominations. Chairman Fisher believed that Eagle Count was unique as there were a lot of interfaith facilities in the valley. She believed that multiple faiths could be together under one roof. Ms. Klosterman stated that the project was still in the planning phase she understood the facility was badly needed and hoped they could find a way to make the resources and uses equal. Chairman Fisher spoke about the philanthropic component and looking for leadership in the community. This would be a phased development and would not be built at once. Community commitment was needed. She encouraged the public to continue the discussions. She believed a high level of care was vitally important. Commissioner Runyon believed that the numbers had changed over the years and this was a priority to this board. Eagle County was striking new ground between government and the private sector. The board wanted to get this started but would like to have a local nonprofit take the lead. Eagle County was donating the land but the more money that could be raised from the community for the facility the less the charge would be for debt services. Commissioner Stavney stated that this was an ongoing process. Ms. Klosterman hoped by the middle of May they would have an idea of cost and at that point they would let people know which direction they are going. Chairman Fisher encouraged the public to share their thoughts and ideas. Work Session — (recorded) 2010 Census Results with Presentation from Colorado Department of Local Affairs Kris Valdez, Planning and Barbara Mason, DOLA Planning Files AFP -3117 Highland Meadows Subdivision Filing 2, Re- subdivision Lot 29 B Sean Hanagan, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to reconfigure a new building envelope to accommodate a deck on the eastern edge of the home. The new envelope will be of equivalent square footage to the existing envelope. FILE NO./PROCESS: AFP - 03117/ Amended Final Plat LOCATION: 2385 Tahoe Drive OWNERS: Stephen Strachan APPLICANT: Owners REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Roe 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this application is to amend the Building Envelope for 29B, Highland Meadows Subdivision by reconfiguring the plated envelope into a different shape and location on the lot while maintaining the current square footage. The amended envelope will accommodate a deck on the East facade of the structure. B. SITE DATA: 20 03/29/2011 Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: RSM West: RSM North: RSM South: RSM Existing Zoning: RSM Total Area: .200 +/- Acres Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: Via Tahoe Drive C. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5 Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. Eagle County Land Use Regulations, all adjacent property owners have NOT provided written consent of this request; thereby requiring this amended final plat to be heard in front of the Board of County Commissioners. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All applicable Eagle County Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented a PowerPoint slide show with history, illustrations and maps of the proposal. Commissioner Runyon wondered why this property was not in the incorporated Town of Vail. Mr. Hanagan attempted to show the area, which was de- annexed at some point in the past. He spoke about previous planning work done in homes west of this location. The building envelope is roughly equal. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Amended Final Plat number 03117 without any additional conditions. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 21 03/29/2011 VIS -3107 - Coulter Creek Ranch Lot 12 Taylor Ryan, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this Variance from Improvement Standards is to review the existing cond ition of Buck Point Drive prior to the construction of a new residence on the parcel at 305 Buck Point Drive. LOCATION: 305 Buck Point Drive (Lot 12 Coulter Creek Ranch) TITLE: Coulter Creek Ranches Lot 12 FILE NO.: VIS -3107 - Variance from Improvement Standards RELATED FILE NOS.: RES -5414 - Building Permit for Coulter Creek Ranches Lot 12 LOCATION: Cottonwood Pass OWNER: Ortonville Properties, LLC APPLICANT: Rod Burwell REPRESENTATIVE: Scott Grosscup, Balcomb & Green, P.C. STAFF CONTACT: Taylor Ryan, Engineering Department 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Rod Burwell (Applicant) owns a 35.6 -acre parcel known as Lot 12 of the Coulter Creek Ranches subdivision, and desires to construct a single- family residence on this property. Coulter Creek Ranches is a subdivision of 19 lots that is bisected by Cottonwood Pass Road. Access to Lot 12 is provided by Buck Point Drive which serves a total of 12 lots. Section 4- 620.J.9.c(4) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that access roads serving more than three residences meet applicable Eagle County Road Standards. The Applicant is seeking Variances from Improvement Standards including Dual Access (ECLUR 4- 620.J.1.h) and Road Improvement Standards (ECLUR 4- 620.J). B. CHRONOLOGY: January 7, 1982 Basalt Mountain Associates recorded the plat for Coulter Creek Ranches, a 35- _ acre subdivision. November 7, 1983 Dennis and Karen Natal purchased Lot 12. September 13, 1996 Ray and Carolyn Seelbinder purchased Lot 12 1989 -2000 Single -family residences are constructed on 9 of 12 lots along Buck Point Drive December 20, 2002 Ortonville Properties, LLC. Purchased Lot 12 2009 Single - family residence was constructed on Lot 4 with secondary access directly to Cottonwood Pass Road. October 27, 2010 Application to build a single - family residence on Lot 12 is submitted — December 21, 2010 Variance from Improvement Standards is submitted to address existing deficiency C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Lot 11 - Resource Zoned West: Lot 13 - Resource Zoned North: 360 acres owned by Ortonville Properties, LLC - Resource Zoned 22 03/29/2011 South: Lot 3 & 4 — Resource Zoned Existing Zoning: Resource Proposed Zoning: Resource Proposed No. of Dwelling 1 single- family residence Units: Total Area: 35.6 acres Water: Individual Well Sewer: Individual Septic Access: Buck Point Drive 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES The referral notice was distributed on January 31, 2011 and Adjacent Property Owners Letters were distributed on March 3, 2011. The following section referencesthe comments of all responses to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated March 4, 2011. Eagle County Planning Department — Provided e -mail in support of the Variance on February 1, 2011. E -mail response is attached. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated February 2, 2011. Eagle County Road and Bridge - We discussed the variance with Brad Higgins, and he noted that there is an issue with drainage at the intersection of Cottonwood Pass Road and Buck Point Drive. Gypsum Fire Protection District — Provided e-mail in support of the letter from the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager dated February 2, 2011 and attached to this staff report. Adjacent Property Owners — Three adjacent property owners called for information on the Variance. All were supportive of the single - family residence on Lot 12, and noted that the Burwell Family have performed work to improve Buck Point Drive including placing road base from the beginning of the road up to their driveway. Callers also were satisfied with the existing condition of Buck Pont Drive. B. DISCUSSION: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. The Applicant is proposing a single- family residence on a 35.6 -acre lot. Access to this lot is by Buck Point Drive which was classified as a Rural Minor Collector, Type VI, for review of the Variance from Improvement Standards. The ECLUR Improvement Standards set the geometric dimensions for the design of each classification of roadway. In order to achieve the desired design the applicant is requesting the following Variances from Improvement Standards: 1. Dual Access. ECLUR Section 4- 620.J.1.h: With the exception of properties proposed to be served from the public roadway system by driveways or by urban cul -de -sacs, two (2) points of ingress / egress to the public roadway system shall be provided, such that in the event a road within the subdivision becomes impassable, all 23 03/29/2011 properties will continue to have access to a public roadway system. Both points of access should be open available for daily use. In the event that this is not possible, and at a minimum, there shall be provided a secondary emergency point of ingress / egress equipped with emergency breakaway barriers capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction for all new development or redevelopment Secondary emergency access points must be kept free of obstruction, and must be maintained to assure year round use. Depending upon the length of the road, the wildfire hazard rating, the number of units proposed, the topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from this required improvement standard. The Applicant noted in the letter from Scott Grosscup, dated January 26, 2011 and provided in the application material, that the dual access standard would require this property owner to construct a new road through private property outside of this owner's control and at significant expense. If the dual access is not constructed and the variance is not allowed, then this owner would be prohibited from constructing the residence. Through discussions with the applicant and a site visit, an alternative access for emergency use in wildfire firefighting has been identified and shown in Attachment D. This access does not meet the standards of Dual Access but does provide a functional secondary access for use during a wildfire emergency. Should the Board feel that this is an acceptable alternative to the dual access standard, we have suggested a condition for the secondary access (Condition 1). 2. Road Design Standards, ECLUR Section 4 -620: The existing road is estimated to carry fewer than 100 vehicle trips per day. This volume corresponds to the Eagle County Rural Minor Collector, Type VI standard. This road should have 9 -foot gravel driving lanes and a 90- degree intersection with other roadways. The grade of switchbacks was noted by the Engineering Department as deficient, but upon onsite inspection, the curves in the road follow the existing shape of the land and are not switchbacks as originally assumed. We were not able to review the condition of the drainage as noted by Road and Bridge due to snow coverage and have suggested a condition to review the drainage at a later time. During the site visit, the width of the existing driveway on Lot 12 was measured and found to be a minimum of 18' wide. This is wide enough for two -way travel and meets the driveway standards. The Applicant has requested variances to geometric road standards of Buck Point Drive for the width of the road and the angle of the intersection with Cottonwood Pass Road. These conditions reflect the existing roadway which functions for the existing users of Buck Point drive. C. STAFF FINDINGS: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. Further, Section 4- 610.A.2 of the ECLUR states: Standards Are Not Inflexible. These design criteria and standards provide a certain level of performance, however, they are not inflexible. If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be show to provide performance and /or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards, said alternative may be recommended for approval by the County Engineer. In evaluating the proposed alternate the County Engineer shall follow the procedures in Section 5 -260. G., Variance From Improvement Standards. The 24 03/29/2011 County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased. However, we must also consider that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted Resolution No. 2009 -115 in response to numerous and substantial public safety concerns recommending strict enforcement of the ECLUR Improvement Standards with the opportunity for the applicant to appeal to the board for a Variance to these Standards. As noted, Coulter Creek Ranches is an existing subdivision with 10 out of 12 lots already developed with residences and served by Buck Point Drive. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that if the BoCC finds that a Variance to Improvement Standards is justified, the sub - standard geometric features of the proposed road can be mitigated. Board of County Commissioners Findings The Board of County Commissioners must make the following finding in order to approve or deny this file: (ECLUR 5- 260.G.2.) Findings for Variance from Improvement Standards Request In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. In approving or approving with conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Subsection, these Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VARIANCE] 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 [VARIANCE] 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 [VARIANCE] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [VARIANCE] 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). E. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 25 03/29/2011 1. Seasonal dual access shall be provided for wildland firefighting operations along the ranch road through the adjacent property to the North of Coulter Creek Ranches, Lot 12, as mapped. This access point is gated and a Knox Lock key safe system is required at the gate. This seasonal emergency access route shall be maintained so that it is capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority having jurisdiction. A final inspection to verify that the ranch road is capable of accommodating local wildland firefighting apparatus shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the Structure. Emergency access shall be available for use as long as there is a habitable residence on Coulter Creek P.anch Lot 12. 2. Any driveway construction necessary for access to the proposed residence shall meet the County Regulation for Driveways. 3. The Engineering Department and the applicant will review the drainage at the intersection of Cottonwood Pass Road and Buck Pont Drive to determine if adjustments of the intersection can improve drainage. If improvements that can be made to Buck Point Drive, the applicant shall be responsible for those improvements. DISCUSSION: Mr. Ryan presented the file using a PowerPoint slide show which included a vicinity map and description of the request. Chairman Stavney asked about where the three or more residences were located that shared the lots. Mr. Ryan highlighted the lots along Buckhorn Drive. The responsibility for emergency response was Eagle County Sheriff's department and the property was located between 2 -Fire District's boundaries. He spoke about hardships in achieving dual access. Eric Lovgren explained the color scheme for the map of wildfire designations. Commissioner Runyon wondered how many lots in the area currently had dwelling units. Mr. Ryan stated that ten of the twelve lots had dwelling units. Commissioner Runyon wondered about connecting to Buckpoint drive higher up during wildfire season. Mr. Ryan stated that this option had not been discussed but agreed that it made sense. He wasn't sure if the existing road would need to be re- aligned. The two remaining properties yet to be built on were the farthest away from Cottonwood Rd. Commissioner Runyon spoke about wildfire season and the shoulder periods during which access would be close to impossible. Mr. Lovgren spoke about the risk during periods with snow. There were two wildfire seasons in Colorado; initially when the snow melts and at the end of the summer as things dry out after summer moisture. From his standpoint, the emergency access route was through a veritable safety zone, through low brush. When the ground was muddy, the fuel was less likely to ignite. From a fire road standpoint, it lined up with what would be required. Mr. Burwell, owner spoke about getting downhill due to snowmobiles. During shoulder periods, access was possible via four wheel drive. Scott Grossberg, Rodney Burwell Jr. and Rod Burwell Sr. were present. Commissioner Fisher wondered who created the subdivision initially. Mr. Burwell stated that he bought the land with the intention of building a house. Commissioner Fisher asked about the six hundred acre parcel. Mr. Burwell decided not to build on the larger parcel. Mr. Grossberg stated that the subdivision was created in 1982. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the future likelihood of a request to further subdivide the property if another road is built. Mr. Ryan continued with his findings. He highlighted the referral responses. The applicant would like to appeal staff decisions to the board if they did not agree. Chairman Stavney asked about the chronology of the project. He asked what engineering would be looking for. 26 03/29/2011 Mr. Ryan stated that drainage was their primary concern. The worst possible outcome could include installation of a culvert. Mr. Burwell was confident that the drainage would not be an issue. Mr. Ryan discussed ponding that occurred at the intersection with Brad Higgins, Road and Bridge Director. Mr. Peter Burwell provided additional information to the board. It was intended to be lightly used. They already purchased a pre -fab home and didn't know there were requirements precluding them from complet ing the installation of the home. They didn't feel that the county was being too restrictive. An additional road would be difficult to cut due to the grade. Mr. Grossberg stated that there were now additional burdens to people trying to build their homes. Mr. Rodney Burwell stated that his neighbor was able to build a home a year ago. Keith Henderson, owner of the adjacent lot spoke to the board. He moved in May of 2000 and added a 1300foot addition last year, but the road issue did not come up. Commissioner Stavney added that variances are not such a big deal, but is concerned about consistency. Mr. Morris stated that allowing a private property owner to build a home was reasonable In a case like this, it was important to recognize property owners should have a right to use their land. The engineering department bends in certain situations and had not gone into this lightly. He expected more flexibility in this type of situation. He also believed hardship was applicable in this case. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the possibility in the future related to the 600 acres and development. The board would like to limit development on that side of Cottonwood Pass. Year round traffic over the road was not encouraged due to the safety issues on the road. She asked if the property owners had considered a conservation easement. Mr. Burwell has been looking for additional land in the same area. He requested the board reconsider the dual access requirements. Chairman Stavney clarified the dual access issue and concerned with health and safety of the homeowners and the emergency responders. They also did not want a lot of development on the hillsides and off the valley floor. Mr. Burwell stated that new development should have to adhere to the requirements, but he did not believe they should apply toexisting subdivisions. Chairman Stavney spoke about 35 acre subdivisions that were not up to safety standards. He was also concerned about exercising variances and consistent application. Commissioner Runyon clarified that it was not a condition for the file that the owner consider a conservation easement in the future. Chairman Stavney closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file VIS -3107 Coulter Creek Ranches, Lot 12, incorporating conditions 1 -3. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stavney asked about dual access and the Knox Box. He asked if a firefighter needed permission to cross private property to fight a fire. Mr. Lovgren did not have the answer to the question, but assumed that most people would let them on their property to fight a fire in the vicinity. He indicated that there would be a future work session about this topic and dual access. Eagle River Youth Coalition's Healthy Kids Colorado survey Michelle Hartel and Andrej Birjulin, Eagle River Youth Coalition presented a PowerPoint slide show about their organization. Mr. Birjulin spoke about the survey, which was a youth risk behavior survey. The reliability was good despite public doubts. Data from the survey could be used to coordinate prevention messages, provide data to support funding requests, implement district wellness policies and enforce tobacco and drug free school policies. The High school return rate was 80% and Middle School was 77 %. Mr. Birjulin presented some of the key findings. Tobacco use has declined in the last few years down to 19.3% from 22% several years before. He 27 03/29/2011 compared local data to national trend data. Substance use in Eagle County is higher than the national average in all grades except 9 He spoke about the bullying prevalence in the schools. 40% of middle school students reported being bullied, and 31% of high school students reported the same. Commissioner Fisher compared kids bullying to the pointed and vicious campaigns in the last national election cycle. Ms. Hartel talked about suicide and depression. 40% of high school students who reported feeling sad or hopeless for more than two weeks had seriously considered suicide. 25% of middle school students agreed. She spoke about some positives that were identified. 89% of kids had not been in a physical fight at school in the last year, 88% of kids didn't' drive if they had been drinking, 84% wore seat belts, 81% hadn't smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days and 91% felt it was important to finish high school. This was the first year they did a Middle School survey. The Youth Coalition also worked with early childhood care providers. She encouraged volunteers to give their time. They offered many outreach programs to help kids. Commissioner Fisher asked about "speak up and reach out ". She stated that many times the parents or caregivers were challenged with the issues. There was a website with resources for people who needed help. Commissioner Runyon wondered if they had an interactive website available on the survey results. Mr. Birjulin stated that they were low tech in their ability to provide interactive options, but were happy to take requests for additional levels of data. Commissioner Runyon wondered if there were any additional conclusions based on schools, geographic locations etc. Ms. Hartel stated that on the website eagleyouth.org there was a 60 page summary of various data configurations. They were able to customize the survey for Eagle County and encouraged the board to suggest enhanced formats for questions. Commissioner Runyon expressed interest in understanding the causative factor that created a difference between 9 and 10` graders. Mr. Birjulin stated that they would attempt to look at this difference and try to figure out the reasons. He has a more statistical presentation that he gave to the school board and offered to send this to the board. The school level data was shared with the administrative team across the district. Chairman Stavney stated that administrators were judged by school climate. Commissioner Fisher talked about early intervention, role modeling and parental involvement being important. She urged adults to be involved with our local kids. There being no further business befor o : .r4 e meeting was adjourn til April 5 011. , � �' ` / 111 Attest. C1er o he : oar. I Chairman 28 03/29/2011