HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/22/14 PUBLIC HEARING
June 22, 2014
Present: Jill Ryan Chairman
Sara Fisher Commissioner
Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner
Keith Montag County Manager
Bryan Treu County Attorney
Ms. Ayres-Oliver Assistant 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:
Chairman Ryan was not present
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of July 21, 2014(Subject to Review by the Finance Director)
John Lewis,Finance
2. Approval of the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioner Meeting for June 17, 2014
Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder
3. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle, Summit and Clear Creek Counties for Community
Development Block Grant Application for Single Family Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program
Jill Klosterman and Leona Perkins,Housing
4. Citizen Participation Plan for Single Family Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program Grant
Jill Klosterman and Leona Perkins,Housing
5. Resolution 2014-060 Approval of the Special Use Permit for the Van Dyke Accessory Dwelling Unit
(Eagle County File No.ZS-4681)
Sean Hanagan,Planning
6. Resolution 2014-061 Approval of the Special Use Permit to Operate and Sell Used Cars at 69 Edwards
Access Road(Eagle County File No.ZS-4721)
Kris Valdez,Planning
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for July 22,2014, as presented.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Pro-Tern Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none.
1
07/22/2014
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
and re-convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Other Liquor Business
7. Special Event Permit-Eagle River Watershed Council
APPLICANT: Eagle River Watershed Council
REQUEST: Special Events Permit
EVENT: Riverfest-Fundraiser
DATE OF EVENT: Saturday-August 9,2014
REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Serrill, Event Manager
LOCATION: Colorado River Ranch— 12799 Colorado River Rd.,Gypsum
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has requested a permit for their annual fundraiser being held at the Colorado River Ranch on
August 9, 2014 from 2 pm until 12 am. This is a ticketed event—the ticket includes a meal catered by Moe's
Original BBQ and wine or beer. Staff members are TIPS certified. The applicant expects 150 attendees.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The applicant has submitted all the required documents and associated fees.
2. Public notice was given by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on July 11,2014, at least
10 days prior to the hearing.
3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office.
4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan,proof of server training and properly notified the
Eagle County Sheriffs Department per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority.
DISCUSSION:
Doug Serrill stated that this year's theme highlighted the completion of a report done by Colorado State
University in partnership with the Eagle River Watershed Council. Participants would pay$75 for the float, and
dinner. Lakota Guilds and Timberline Tours donated their guides and boats for the event. Moe's would be catering
the event. Anyone serving alcohol would be TIPS certified.
Ms. Scriver indicated that she had no concerns with the application.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special
Event Permit application for the"Riverfest"event being held at the Colorado River Ranch on Saturday—August 9,
2014 from*2:00 p.m.— 12:00 a.m.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
*The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event.
2
07/22/2014
8. Special Event Permit-Crawlin' to a Cure
APPLICANT: Crawlin' to a Cure
REQUEST: Special Events Permit
EVENT: Crawlin' to a Cure-Fundraiser
DATE OF EVENT: Saturday-August 2, 2014
REPRESENTATIVE: Vikki Hobbs,Event Manager
LOCATION: Eagle County Fairgrounds—0426 Fairgrounds Road,Eagle
DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has requested a permit for the Crawlin' to a Cure event being held at the Eagle County
Fairgrounds on Saturday,August 2,2014 from 3— 11 pm. Beer and Mike' Hard Lemonade will be available for
purchase from 4— 10 pm. Food will be available from various local vendors. Diamante will have 13 roving
security officers patrolling key locations. The applicant expects 2,500 attendees.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The applicant has submitted all the required documents and associated fees.
2. Public notice was given by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on July 11,2014, at least
10 days prior to the hearing.
3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office.
4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan,proof of server training and properly notified the
Eagle County Sheriff's Department per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Hobbs stated that this year they were taking on the alcohol sales as the nonprofit. She explained the
distribution of funds. The organization funded scholarships, and families experiencing hardships due to cancer.
They hope to raise over$25,000. The Gypsum Liquor Shop volunteered their staff to sell the liquor.
Michele Nestor explained that her staff was certified for on premise because they did tastings.
Commissioner Fisher encouraged that she address the differences verbally with her staff.
Ms.Hobbs stated that there would be security posted at each of the bar areas. They were not over- ordering
the beer. There will be other vendors selling soda,water,and Gatorade.
Commissioner Fisher asked the applicant to include the details in the application moving forward.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked Ms.Hobbs for her work and echoed Commissioner Fisher's
concerns.
•
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special
Event Permit application for the Crawlin' for a Cure event being held at the Eagle County Fairgrounds on Saturday
—August 2,2014 from*3:00 p.m.— 11:00 p.m.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
*The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for February 4,
2014, as presented.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
3
07/22/2014
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-
convene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
Work Session
9. Eagle County Regional Airport International Air Service Analysis and Business Case
Greg Phillips,Airport
Campbell-Hill Aviation
Site Visit (recorded)
Alexander Company Marijuana Cultivation
420 Upper Cattle Creek Road,Tract 4, Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision,Basalt Area
Planning File
El Jebel Community Center
20 Eagle County Dr.
El Jebel, CO
11. Alexander Company Marijuana Cultivation Facility
Scot Hunn,Planning
Greg Schroeder, Engineering
Josh&Natalie Alexander,Applicants
Chris Green,Representative
Action: Review of a Consolidate Special Use Permit for the purpose of allowing a marijuana cultivation
facility consisting of four greenhouse structures and associated improvements on a 35-acre,Resource zoned
parcel of land in unincorporated Eagle County
Location: 420 Upper Cattle Creek Road,Tract 4,Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision,Basalt Area
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4799/Special Use Permit
PROJECT NAME: Alexander Company Marijuana Cultivation Facility
J.00ATION: 8 miles North of El Jebel; Tract 4, Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision
OWNER: Josh&Natalie Alexander
APPLICANT:, Same
REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Green,AGO Studio
STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn,AICP
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Request and Process
The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit for a marijuana cultivation facility consisting of
four 1,700 square foot greenhouse structures, storage, parking and fencing on approximately .5 acres
4
07/22/2014
of Tract 4, Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision, a 35 acre parcel located the Resource Zone District
on the Eagle-Garfield county line.
Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), "Marijuana Cultivation Facilities" in
the Resource Zone District require a special use permit in addition to local and state licensing for
"Optional Premise Centers", or OPCs.
Additionally, and as provided for within Section 5-250, C. - Variations Authorized, ECLURs (p. 5-
55),the Applicant formally requests a variation to
improvement standards for dual access to and from the site as part of the special use
p e r mit review. Therefore, two separate motions will be required to approve, deny or table the
Special Use request as well as the variation from improvement standards request.
Marijuana Business Regulatory Background in Eagle County
Effective January 1, 2014, marijuana cultivation, manufacturing or testing uses became lawful in unincorporated
Eagle County as a use `by right' in the Commercial General (CG) and Commercial Limited (CL) Zone Districts.
Such uses may also be permitted upon approval of a special use permit in three rural zone districts in
unincorporated Eagle County: Resource (35 acre minimum lot size); Resource Limited (20 acre minimum lot
size), and; Agricultural Residential(10 acre minimum lot size).
Although cultivation uses are `by right' in the Commercial zone districts of unincorporated Eagle
County, commercial space (typically located in close proximity to population centers, dining, retail and
service/office uses) does not necessarily lend itself well to cultivating marijuana due to compatibility issues
that arise from odors and odor mitigation (air handling systems and filtration). Of particular interest when
considering allowing cultivation operations in the County's three most-rural zone districts was the goal of
encouraging such operations (and any associated odors or other impacts) in settings where ample buffering
distances,are more likely to be provided as a result of large lot sizes.
Therefore, the permitting of marijuana cultivation uses in rural, agricultural zone districts can generally be
viewed as appropriate if properly vetted and conditioned through local licensing and Special Use Permit
processes. Such view is based in part upon the agrarian nature of such uses and associated structures, as well
as the separation distances between cultivation facilities and adjacent properties provided in large lot
subdivisions. Yet, cultivation of marijuana, if not properly vetted, is also a use that may pose compatibility
issues. As such,the purpose of a Special Use Review is as follows:
"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."-ECLURs p. 5-51
While there are no specific size limits on such operations, standards have been developed specifically for
marijuana cultivation, focusing on maintaining a "rural scale" and character for any development through
design, maintaining minimum separation distances between cultivation facilities and neighboring
properties, as well as ensuring adequate water rights, odor mitigation (if deemed necessary), screening and
landscaping(if visible from public rights-of-way).
Therefore, in addition to addressing the standards for Special Use Review (Section 5-250 — Special Uses,
Eagle County Land Use Regulations) listed below, the Applicant is responsible for demonstrating conformance
to each of the standards outlined for marijuana cultivation found in Section 3-310, F.f—Marijuana Cultivation,
Manufacturing or Testing,ECLURs.
Report Organization and Recommendation
5
07/22/2014
The following sections of this report provide a brief background regarding the request(s), referral agency
and staff review of the requests, potential issues, as well as an outline of standards for approval with brief
responses from staff as to how/why the proposal meets or does not meet applicable standards. Likewise,
a summary of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission's review and recommendation for the
request(s) is also provided below, along with a staff recommendation and suggested conditions of approval.
An appendix section is attached, containing an in-depth examination of all applicable review and approval
standards.
Staff is recommending approval, with conditions for both the Special Use Permit request and for the variation to
Dual Access Standards.
II.
DACKGROUND:
•
Proposal Overview
The Applicant owns Tract 4, Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision upon which the proposed facility will be
located. Pleasant Valley Ranch is an exempt, 35-acre subdivision; in accordance with state statute, and because
all lots within Pleasant Valley Subdivision exceed 35 acres, the subdivision was created(legally) via land
survey plat without county review in 2003. Portions of the subdivision (and a small portion of Tract 4) are
located within Garfield County.
The facility is proposed on the southern end of Tract 4 (see attached site plans and subdivision layout), directly
adjacent to a private access road, and within a relatively short distance to the Applicant's private
residence which is located on a separate 35-acre tract (Tract 11, to the west of Tract 4) within the same
subdivision.
Tract 4 is bifurcated by the Eagle-Garfield County line, although the majority of the 35.5 acre parcel is located
on the Eagle County side of the line; as such, the site design shows the entirety of the .5 acre facility located on
the Eagle County side of that line, but with some amount of disturbance (grading) and re-vegetation occurring
within Garfield County. Please note that this application was referred to three separate departments within the
Garfield County Government — Planning, Road and Bridge, and the Garfield County Sheriff's Office. Only the
Garfield County Road and Bridge Department responded with a brief email stating"no concern".
According to the application, the facility will consist of four separate greenhouse structures, each stepping up
the gently sloped southern portion of Tract 4, along with a small accessory building for storage, security
and office uses. The site plan also shows areas around the greenhouse structures that could be used for
storage of soils and other materials, all located within an 8-foot high perimeter fence. Gated entry to the site is
proposed along with a small parking area for employees.
Each greenhouse is proposed to be 24' x 72', or 1,728 square feet. The total square footage proposed for all four
greenhouse structures (at full build-out) will be approximately 6,912 square feet. The total footprint (total site
disturbance) proposed for the project is .5 acres, or approximately 1.4 percent of the total acreage. The project is
slated to start construction during the summer of 2014, with construction completed by late summer or early fall.
In preparation for this application, the Applicant has constructed a 4.6 acre-foot augmentation pond on a
separate tract of land near the subject property. This pond will store water to be used in the cultivation facility
operations, and, importantly, will serve Tract 4 and the surrounding neighborhood with critical firefighting
capacity in the event of a wildfire.
The greenhouse operation is being proposed not only to cultivate marijuana for retail and medical sales to
licensed marijuana businesses, but to provide the ability for the Applicant to grow other commercial plants such
as flowers and herbs for sale locally as part of an existing, long-standing nursery and landscaping business.
6
07/22/2014
Proposed hours of operation will be 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday, and the application states that security
will be provided according to State of Colorado Department of Revenue (Marijuana Enforcement
Division) requirements; that lighting on and around the site and buildings will be the minimum amount to
comply with local building code requirements, and; that travel to and from the site by employees and/or
delivery vehicles will be minimal.
Review Timeline and Issues
This request was formally submitted on April 8, 2014, yet the Applicant has been meeting with representatives
from Eagle County and other local entities for approximately the last seven months in preparation for their
submittal and specifically to address water rights issues, building and fire code requirements for greenhouse
structures, as well as engineering and wildfire mitigation issues related to dual access and firefighting capacity
improvements on or near the property. The proposal was referred to twenty-eight (28) different public, quasi-
public and private organizations,with only three (the Eagle County Engineering Department, the Colorado Parks
&Wildlife Division, or"CPW", and the Colorado Historical Society) providing formal, substantive responses to
the referral. Of those responses, only the Eagle County Engineering Department's comments regarding the need
for a variance from improvement standards (Dual Access), and CPW's recommendations for design and
mitigation within the project resulted in any substantive conditions of approval.
Impacts and Tradeoffs
Potential negative impacts to the environment and community include the elimination or reduction of capacity of
mule deer and elk habitat; the potential for increased traffic on local roadways, and; the probability of
increased human activity in the area. Such impacts from this special use could be weighed against 1)
similar or greater potential for impacts generated from uses `by right' within the Resource Zone District, and 2)
the overall benefits to the local community and economy from approval of the special use permit.
Specifically, while Eagle County places a high value minimizing impacts from development on land resources
and, therefore, on protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat wherever and whenever possible, staff suggests that
the proposal is limited in size and scope (.5 acres out of a 35.5 acre tract, or 1.4% of the total land area).
Additionally, this parcel is part of a legally created subdivision wherein the land owner could, as a use `by
right', erect a single-family home (with no restrictions on size, or the amount of lot and impervious coverage)
along with a caretaker unit (accessory dwelling unit), and any number of agricultural, accessory structures such
as barns and storage sheds. In this context, staff believes the Applicant has presented a site plan and operational
plan for the facility that may have equal or even lesser impacts (i.e. less traffic, less overall disturbance, and
fewer impacts from human activity or domesticated animals) than those typically associated with residential
developments.
Likewise, although the total projected number of employees (4-6 full time employees) traveling to and from the
site on a daily basis is minimal and deliveries will also be infrequent, there will be additional traffic on the
private access drive serving Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision and Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision. However,
when compared to the traffic generated by a typical single-family home (10 vehicle trips per day) and potential
Accessory Dwelling Unit, both of which are uses `by right', it could be argued that impacts from the proposal
are equal to, or less than those already permitted. And, due specifically to the special use permit review process,
the Applicant and County staff have discovered certain access deficiencies (lack of Dual Access) within the
subdivision. This has led to a cooperative working relationship between the Applicant,their neighboring property
owners, the County and other public agencies to address or mitigate access and fire/life-safety concerns.
Therefore, the potential impacts from the proposal could be viewed in context to surrounding agricultural
and low density residential uses as being generally appropriate and supportable by pertinent
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies — by maintaining agricultural uses, character, and scale of the
surrounding areas; by promoting local economic development, and; by protecting water rights and resources.
As such, wildlife impacts or the potential for increased traffic and/or human activity may represent a
tradeoff and should be viewed in context to the benefits provided by the proposal, as well as impacts that
could occur given existing and future `by right' development in the area.
7
07/22/2014
Therefore, based, in part, upon referral agency review of the proposal and, importantly, considering the
Applicant's ability to incorporate referral agency comments into the either the design of the project (addressing
dual access issues by providing substantive local firefighting/wildfire mitigation capacity, for example) or the
facility's operations planning (such as providing wildlife proof trash containment strategies and clustering
development on a limited portion of the parcel), staff finds that the proposal meets a preponderance of
required findings for approval as summarized below.
III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned and based on representations made by the Applicant with regard to
addressing referral agency concerns, meets or exceeds all applicable standards for a Special Use Permit, as well
as those standards specific to marijuana cultivation facilities and for a variation to Dual Access improvement
standards.
Specifically, the following excerpts from the ECLURs provide direction regarding the intent and necessary
findings for the approval of any Special Use Review, as well as the specific standards for marijuana cultivation
and variations to impro that are to be addressed. Likewise, the following section provides brief responses
(provided in greater detail in the "Appendix" section of this report) from staff as to how staff believes the
application meets or does not meet a particular standard, as well as suggested mitigation measures(conditions):
Section 5-250 B— Standards:
The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence
that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this
Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission
may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed
appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site
plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the
operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit. Where the
application is for a Concept Evaluation Special Use Permit, the applicant must demonstrate that there is
the substantial potential to satisfy the following standards; however, final project designs are not
required.
I. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be in
substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community
Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural
resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal is in substantial conformance with all applicable plans and
adopted policy documents. Specifically, the proposal was reviewed against relevant guiding
policies, goals, and recommended implementation strategies of the Eagle County
Comprehensive Plan and the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan.
Although staff did identify several policies and/or strategies from each plan wherein
conformance was questionable, or somehow "mixed", such areas of non-conformity or partial
conformity — wildlife impacts, for example - may present tradeoffs against the majority of
instances where the proposal meets master plan intents and strategies. As such, conditions
specific to wildlife impact mitigation of approval for the Special Use Permit represent direct
means to increase the proposal's conformance with the various plans.
2. Compatibility. The Special Use is generally compatible with the existing and
currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land,
services, or infrastructure improvements.
Staff Response:
8
07/22/2014
Staff believes the proposal, as represented by the Applicant and as mitigated using recommended
conditions of approval, will be compatible with existing and future low density, agricultural uses
surrounding the subject property. Further, staff believes the proposed use, as designed, has
minimal impacts on land, services or infrastructure in the area.
3. Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the
standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the
particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to
Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330,
Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses.
'Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal is in substantial conformance with the specific standards for
marijuana cultivation set forth in Section 3-310, F.f—Marijuana Cultivation, Manufacturing, or
Testing, ECLURs.
4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed Special Use shall
reasonably avoid adverse impacts, including visual impacts of the proposed use on
adjacent lands including trash, traffic, service delivery,parking and loading, odors, noise, glare,
and vibration, or otherwise create a nuisance.
,Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned, meets this standard. Specifically, although there will
most likely be impacts from the proposed use on local wildlife populations, any such impacts are
or can be mitigated through the design and layout of the project site, or via the operational plan
(both of which have been revised during the application and review processes in response to
input gathered from referral agencies and staff).
Therefore, staff suggests that the project has been designed specifically to minimize any adverse
impacts to the subject property, the surrounding area, residents and wildlife populations. Staff
and the Planning Commission have recommended a condition of approval memorializing the
Applicant's commitment to work with the CPW to mitigate any potential wildlife impacts.
S. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact The proposed Special Use shall
minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water
and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal substantially meets this standard. Specifically, while there will be
direct impacts to mapped wildlife habitats, the Applicant has proactively addressed a letter from
CPW (see attached email outlining such response), representing a commitment to work with the
CPW to revise elements of the project design and construction (fencing) to incorporate CPW
recommendations and, therefore, to minimize overall impacts to habitat and populations in the
area.
Likewise, the project — the greenhouse design and site layout - has been designed to reduce the
amount of energy needed to operate the facility by maximizing thermal mass (benching
structures into the hillside and using correct building design and materials to capture heat) and
solar orientation (orienting the structures from east to west across the site to capture sunlight
efficiently). Further, the bulk and mass of each structure act to protect scenic resources by
maintaining a low profile indicative of typical accessory agricultural buildings. Lastly, according
to the application, water usage will be minimized by hand-watering,metering and monitoring.
9
07/22/2014
6. Impact on Public Facilities. 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.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard, as conditioned. Specifically, staff suggests the
only public facilities or services impacted will public roadways, police and fire protection
services, and emergency medical services. This application was referred to several law
enforcement and/or emergency response agencies, including the Garfield and Eagle County
Sheriff's offices, as well as the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District.
The Applicant has provided estimates for traffic generation to and from the cultivation
facility, and has met with representatives from the Eagle County Engineering and
Wildfire Mitigation departments along with the Basalt and Regional Fire Protection
District to resolve specific concerns regarding Dual Access requirements, wildfire mitigation
planning, and firefighting capacity. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend a condition
to require further action by the Applicant to complete certain improvements on or near the
subject property to provide for increased firefighting capacity
7. Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the
appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
,Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. Specifically, parking has been designed to meet
the requirements of Article 4, as have grading, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, and
lighting improvements.
8. Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards
imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for
use, layout, and general development characteristics.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. Specifically, the proposal has been designed,
revised during the review and referral process, and/or conditioned to meet the specific standards
for marijuana cultivation facilities as set forth in Section 3-310, F.f. — Marijuana Cultivation,
Manufacturing, or Testing.
In addition to the standards listed above, cultivation facilities within the Resource Zone District must also
meet the following standards specific to cannabis cultivation. Below is a summary of the standards and staff's
response to how such standards have been, or can be,met.
,Section 3-310 Ff.— Marijuana Cultivation.Manufacturing or Testing:
1. Separation Requirements:separation distances of at least 200 feet have been met.
2. Minimum Lot Size: the parcel meets the minimum lot size (35 acres)for the Resource Zone
Distric
t.
3. Parking and Storage:parking and storage have been designed to meet the standards.
4. Signs and Illumination: there are no signs proposed for the site or the operations and only minimal
lighting is proposed for the exterior of buildings to comply with building code requirements.
S. Sales: no retail sales are proposed on or from the site.
10
07/22/2014
6. Visual Screening: a fencing and landscaping plan has been submitted which, if implemented
correctly, should act to provide visual screening even though the site is not likely visible from public
rights-of-way; the scale of the facility is appropriate in context to the character of the surrounding area.
7. Adequate Water: evidence of adequate water rights has been submitted and, via
correspondence with the State Division of Water Resources, staff believes that the Applicant has
demonstrated that there will be legal,physical, adequate and dependable water supply for the cultivation
facility.
'8. Wildfire Hazard: the Applicant has met with the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist and has
received a wildfire rating. While the site has been rated as "moderate"fire danger, the Applicant has
responded by committing water resources and infrastructure (pond water and dry hydrants) specific to
firefighting purposes.
9. Access: legal access is provided via Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained road.
While details have been provided regarding the limited nature of vehicle trips to and from the site by
employees and delivery vehicles, staff suggests that additional details regarding the "maximum number
of deliveries allowed per month"and the times of such deliveries could be added to the operations plan.
10. Odor Mitigation Plan: at this time, due primarily to the location of this marijuana business, and the
resultant proximity (distances) to other residential or agricultural uses, staff has not required an Odor
Mitigation Plan for the project. However, the Applicant has indicated that mitigation such as carbon
filtration systems could be installed within each greenhouse structure if needed in the future..Such
systems are typical of most cultivation operations currently licensed in Eagle County (all of which are
within commercially zoned areas of the county).
11. Security: although the Applicant has provided details regarding proposed security (cameras and
lighting) on the site, all security requirements are a matter of State review and permitting.
Variation Request Standards
As referenced earlier in this report,the subject property does not have dual access. As an exempt subdivision that
was never formally reviewed or approved by Eagle County, the subdivision was never designed to, or to build to
meet this particular County standard. Such standard is important for fire, life- safety purposes, particularly in
areas of the County where wildfire hazards may exist. The private access road that serves the Pleasant
Valley Ranch Subdivision, as well as the Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision, is technically classified as a "Rural Cul-
de-sac" (Section 4-620. D. 10—Rural Cul-de-sacs,p. 4-73, Eagle County Land Use Regulations).
However, upon making application for a special use on Tract 4, Pleasant Valley Ranch,the Applicant is required
to demonstrate compliance with all applicable improvement standards listed within Article 4 of the ECLURs, or;
alternatively, to request a variance in accordance with Section 4-620. D. 10. g. — Variance Required, ECLURs, p.
4-74:
"Any proposal for development that requires access by a Rural Cul-de-sac shall be required to
obtain a variance from Section 4-620.J.1.h., Dual Access as provided herein. The Board of
County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance subject to the provisions of
Section 4-620.J.1.h., Dual Access and Section 5-260.G., Variance from Improvement Standards
or, in the event that a Planned Unit Development is proposed, subject to the provisions of
Section 5-240.F.3.e(8)Improvements."
Given that the Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision was not designed nor developed with dual access standards in
mind; because this a new development proposal, and; considering that there are few means to provide dual
access from the subdivision (without considerable expense and disturbance), the Applicant proposes a
variation from improvement standards along with mitigation.
This can be accomplished in conjunction with the Special Use request, pursuant to Section 5-250.0—
Variations Authorized, and Section 5-250.D— Basis for Granting Variations, ECLURs,
11
07/22/2014
• "Variations Authorized. The Board of County Commissioners shall be authorized to grant
variations to the following dimensional limitations and site development standards as part of
its approval of the Final Special Use Permit or Consolidated Concept Evaluation and
Final Special Use Permit. Each variation that is granted shall be itemized and shown in
the Special Use Permit application and attendant site plans.
1. Minimum lot area;
2. Minimum lot area per use;
3. Maximum lot coverage;
4. Maximum floor area;
5. Maximum structure size (FAR and/or Lot Coverage);
6. Minimum yard setbacks;
7. Stream setbacks;
8. Maximum height;
9. Parking standards;
10.Landscape standards;
11.Road, driveway and access standards.
D. Basis for Granting Variations. These variations may be granted when the Board
of County Commissioners finds, with recommendation from the Planning
Commission, that the Final Special Use Permit or Consolidated Concept
Evaluation and Final Special Use Permit achieves one (1) or more of the following
purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be
achieved. (am 05/08/12)
1. Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that permits the
integration of mixed uses or allows for greater variety in the type, design and layout of
buildings. Structures shall be designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass,
scale, orientation and configuration, with other structures in the Final Special Use
Permit or Consolidated Concept Evaluation and Final Special Use Permit and the
surrounding area, yet shall avoid uniformity of design. Residential and non-residential
uses may be mixed together. Various types of residential uses may also be combined
within the Final Special Use Permit or Consolidated Concept Evaluation and Final
Special Use Permit, to promote more efficient land use patterns and increased open
space. The Board of County Commissioners may require minimum yard setbacks, lot
widths, and space between buildings of such dimensions as they are determined to be
necessary to provide adequate access and fire protection; to ensure proper
ventilation, light, air, and snowmelt between buildings; and to minimize the effects of
transmission of noise between units and between buildings. As a general guide,
twenty (20) feet between buildings shall be considered the minimum appropriate
spacing.
2. Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. A variation may be allowed
that provides necessary site planning flexibility to enable the development to
avoid valued environmental resource and natural hazard lands. This shall be
accomplished in such a way as to maintain these lands as large, contiguous areas.
Such lands shall not be fragmented into small, unconnected areas by development,
unless the applicant demonstrates that this arrangement is necessary to maintain the
underlying density on the property, and the lands providing environmental resource
values have been protected and lands subject to natural hazards have been avoided.
Where applicable, connections of such lands on the site to such lands on adjacent
properties shall be accomplished.
12
07/22/2014
3. Water Augmentation. A variation may be allowed that creates incentives for
applicants to commit to a water augmentation plan for their development that brings
"wet"water into the Upper Eagle River Basin.
4. Trails. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to make
contributions to the County's multi-use trail system, in accordance with the
recommendations of the latest version of the Eagle County Trails Plan or Mid Valley
Trails Plan, or to provide appropriate forms of access (including summer and winter
parking areas and trailheads) to public lands and to river and creek drainages in Eagle
County. Proposed access shall be consistent with public land management objectives
and resource protection needs for the areas to be accessed. Trails standards are
identified in Section 4-630.A.
5. Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to
applicants to assure that long term affordable housing is provided.
6. Public Facilities. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for
applicants to develop public facilities or private commercial facilities which will provide
a public benefit, including but not limited to public transportation facilities, public
recreation facilities, commercial structures and similar facilities. The facilities
shall be facilities that meet the demands of residents and visitors to
Eagle County.
7. Land Preservation. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to
applicants to assure preservation in perpetuity of lands of high conservation value."
In this case, staff suggests that any variation granted will provide incentives for 1) avoidance of environmental
resources by not causing the grading of a new, alternate access road out of the subdivision; 2) committing to
water augmentation that will serve the water needs of multiple users and which will serve to improve firefighting
capacity for the entire neighborhood, and; 3) developing public facilities in the form of a water augmentation
pond and other, associated wildfire mitigation capacity improvements.
The subject property is located in an area of"moderate" wildfire hazard and, as part of the preparation for this
special use application, the Applicant has met with representatives from Eagle County and from the Basalt &
Rural Fire Protection District to discuss and coordinate alternatives (mitigation)to the dual access standard. As a
result, the Applicant has already constructed a 4.6 acre-foot storage pond on lands owned by the Applicant. Such
pond will serve as the primary augmentation for water use, but will also serve an important secondary function
for firefighting(infrastructure)capacity.
As noted above, staff believes the requested variation from improvement standards, in this case from the
"Road, driveway and access standards," is justified based on the variation achieving one or more of the stated
purposes of granting a variance. Further, the Applicant has acted in good faith with the County and with
the Basalt & Regional Fire Protection District to provide substantial water storage and firefighting capacity
(infrastructure) improvements in response to the lack of dual access. Such improvements should serve the entire
neighborhood in the event of a wildfire event.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variation request.
If the Board of County Commissioners so chosen to approve of the Special Use Permit request, staff suggests the
Board should also make a similar, separate motion to approve the requested variation from improvement
standards, citing Section 5-250.D — Basis for Granting Variations, ECLURs and listing those purposes
applicable to the recommendation.
Summary Analysis
Set against this policy and regulatory background, the Applicant is the first in Eagle County to apply for a
marijuana cultivation facility Special Use Permit in a rural zone district since adoption and enactment of such
13
07/22/2014
regulations. To this end, the Applicant has been in meetings with Eagle County staff for the previous seven
months for the purpose of first understanding the regulatory environment, and to ensure that plans for the
cultivation facility(and ultimately the Special Use Permit application)were informed by staff input as well as a
thorough understanding of technical submittal and performance requirements. Specifically, the Applicant has
met with, or contacted personnel from the Eagle County Building Department, Engineering Department,
Environmental Health Planning Department, and Wildlife Mitigation to identify and resolve regulatory and
code-related issues—prior to submitting an application.
Of note, the Applicant and their representative have spent considerable time and resources revising plans for
proposed greenhouse structures; meeting with the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District personnel (Fire
Marshall, Bill Harding), the Eagle County Engineering Department (Greg Schroeder), and the Eagle County
Wildfire Mitigation Specialist (Eric Lovegren) to assess and resolve issues with access to the site (Dual Access
standards), firefighting capacity and resources, and wildfire mitigation planning. This has been a positive
example of proactive collaboration and the Applicant has already committed substantial time and resources to
constructing a water augmentation pond which will serve the dual purposes of securing sustainable water for the
project, and providing auxiliary firefighting water supply.
Likewise, the Applicant has responded to referral comments from agencies such as the State of Colorado
Division of Water Resources (DWR) and the Parks and Wildlife Department (CPW) with the intent to
incorporate suggested conditions into the design or operations of the cultivation facility, and/or to eliminate or
mitigate potential impacts.
The proposal has been reviewed against the strategic policies and goals for Eagle County as evidenced
within the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan and staff has found
ample evidence within both documents to support approval of the proposal.
Overall, the proposed use appears to meet or exceed all applicable standards; the request for a variation
from improvement standards appears to be justified and properly mitigated (as conditioned), and; the Applicant
has demonstrated the ability and willingness to act on recommendations provided by County staff and other
agencies to minimize the impact of the project and to ensure compatibility with neighboring properties while
respecting the character of the area.
Recommendation
Therefore, based upon the efforts of the Applicant to date as well as a thorough analysis of the
proposal, staff believes that the proposal meets, or can meet (if properly conditioned), a preponderance of
required standards and findings necessary for the issuance of a Special Use Permit for Marijuana Cultivation in
the Resource Zone District.
However, if this is the first such proposal approved in unincorporated Eagle County, staff recommends a
cautious approach to vesting. Section 5-250, E— Conditions and Restrictions on a Special Use Permit (ECLURs,
p. 5-55)is pertinent to any consideration of conditional approval,wherein:
"The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may, in
approving any Special Use Permit, impose such restrictions and conditions on such approval,
the proposed use, and the premises to be developed or used pursuant to such approval, as it
determines are required by the general purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, and these Land Use Regulations,
to prevent or minimize adverse effects from the proposed development on surrounding land uses
and on the general health, safety, and welfare of the County. The County shall be authorized
to set limits on the length of any Final or Consolidated Special Use Permit that it issues
and to obtain assurances that the ongoing operation of the use will comply with all of the
applicant's representations and all conditions of approval, including, but not limited to,
requiring an annual compliance review. All conditions imposed in any Special Use Permit, with
the exception of conditions made applicable to such approval by the express terms of these Land
Use Regulations, shall be expressly set forth in the Special Use Permit."
14
07/22/2014
As such, staff recommends the following conditions crafted specifically to address development standards;
wildlife impact mitigation recommendations by CPW; performance standards such as lighting, drainage
and landscaping, hours of operation, and; access, emergency response and wildfire mitigation planning
recommendations by the County and the Basalt and Regional Fire Protection District.
IV. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The following conditions have been developed following review of the request(s) by the Eagle County
Engineering Department, the Eagle County Planning Department, the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, and in consultation with certain referral
agencies:
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. Any lighting associated with the site shall be downcast in accordance with dark/night-sky
compliant lighting standards; specifically, any on-site lighting shall be designed and installed so as
not to direct glare onto adjacent properties.
3. The Applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan with any building or grading permit.
application.
4. Hours of operation for the Cultivation Facility shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
until 5 p.m., with limited work permitted by the Applicant and associated family members on
weekend days and for limited periods of time (up to two hours) before 8 a.m., or after 5 p.m. to
allow for occasional maintenance and/or upkeep of the facility and associated crops and to allow the
Applicant to respond to emergencies such as alarms, or mechanical failures of equipment associated
with the cultivation activities.
5. The Applicant shall work with the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Department (CPW), and/or work to
address and incorporate all suggested mitigation and management measures provided in a letter from
Perry Will.
6. Pursuant to a letter from Chris Green, Ago Studios, dated May 22, 2014, and addressed to Greg
Schroeder, Eagle County Engineering, the Applicant shall verify completion of augmentation pond
and associated improvements such as dry hyrdrants, road shoulder extension for emergency vehicle
pull-off prior to completion of inspections by Eagle County, and occupation of the facility by the
Applicant.
7. The Applicant shall successfully apply for and obtain any and all state and local licensing
required for the cultivation of marijuana (Optional Premise Center License) for the cultivation
facility prior to commencing any cultivation activities.
8. Pursuant to local and state licensing requirements specific to renewal of licensing and annual
verification of`good standing', the Applicant shall provide a brief report or other evidence to Eagle
County Planning Department on an annual basis, demonstrating that the license for cultivation is
valid at both the state and local levels, and, therefore, that the special use permit remains in
compliance with local regulations as well as applicable conditions of approval for the special use.
9. The Applicant shall provide a detailed grading plan, showing existing and proposed grades, as well
as proposed limits of disturbance for the site prior to or concurrent with any grading and/or building
permit application.
V. SITE DATA:
15
07/22/2014
The project site is located approximately 8 miles north of El Jebel, Tract 4 of Pleasant Valley Ranch (See
attached land survey plat). Pleasant Valley Ranch is an exempt 35-acre subdivision zoned Resource(R)that was
created via Land Survey Plat in 2003. Land Survey Plats are not required to be reviewed and approved by Eagle
County; they are prepared by licensed professional surveyors and are then recorded in the Office of Clerk and
Recorder.
The site is bordered by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 6 (vacant) to the north; by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 3
(Vacant)* to the south; by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 11 (Single-Family Residential owned by the Applicant)
to the west, and; by Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision, Lot 1 (Vacant) to the east.
* Tract 3 is the site of another proposal for marijuana cultivation currently in the
review stages of the special use permit process.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:
All lots within Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision as well as surrounding lands within Eagle County are
zoned
Resource.
Land Lilo
North: Residential/ Resource(R)
Agricultural
South: Residential/ Resource(R)
Agricultural
East: Residential/ Resource(R)
Agricultural
West: Residential/ Resource(R)
Agricultural
Resource Zone District
w N/A
Viter ` Vacant;open range.
:- Sa•e,grass;moderate slopes.
p, 6 J j A N S
Totaled, .. ] 35.5 : l
+tom�t� � � N/A
abet: Well
wer« �R` ,;Pub.'; N/A OWTS
Upper Cattle Creek Road;Pleasant Valley Ranch Road
VI. RF,FFRRAL RESPONSES:
Referral copies of this a pp lication were sent to twenty-eight (28) agencies es for review on April 30, 2014. The
following section summarizes the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle
County prior to the date of this report. Please see attached referral agency response letters/emails for full text of
each response:
Eagle County Engineering Department(Greg Schroeder):
- All road standards as detailed in Section 4-620 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations
("ECLUR") shall be followed.
- Dual Access standards will need to be met; provide demonstration on how this standard will be met or
request a variation from standards.
- (See Applicant's response to the Engineering Department letter, attached).
16
07/22/2014
Colorado Parks& Wildlife(Perry Will):
- The parcel is located within the mule deer and elk winter ranges, as well as "severe elk winter
range".
- Winter and severe winter range designations are"critical" areas of habitat for a given species.
- Site visits to the property show evidence of recent use by deer and elk during winter months.
- Mule deer use the area year-round.
- Site is also located within bald eagle winter forage range, but the nearest nest site is in Aspen
Glen Subdivision.
- Impacts from proposed development will be direct loss of habitat in combination with increased
human activity and barriers to movement(fencing).
- While wildlife may show adaptability to such impacts, reduction of habitat and increases in human
activity are stressors.
- The proposal will result in increased vehicle traffic,noise and light pollution.
- The CPW recommends: clustering of buildings and activity; installing bear-proof trash
containers; minimal use of perimeter fencing and the use of woven wire or chain-link fencing up to 8
feet in height, only where necessary for wildlife "exclusion"; timing construction to coincide with
spring, summer and early fall months.
- (See Applicant's response to the CPW letter, attached).
See condition(s): 4
Colorado DNR. Water Resources Division (Ivan Franco):
- The Applicant's plans to use multiple sources of water (trucked-in and pond storage) will be
acceptable.
- The undecreed 4.6 acre-foot pond being constructed by the Applicant (on another parcel) will
supply water for irrigation purposes during "free water" periods when water can be collected in
priority.
- In periods of "critically dry years" the pond water may not be available (if calls on the water rights
take priority).
Colorado State Historical Society (Edward Nichols):
- No cultural resource inventories have been performed for the area and no historic properties have
been recorded within the subject property.
- There remains a possibility that cultural resources may exist on the property; if found during
construction,please adhere to state law.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION:
On July 3, 2014, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a site visit as well as
public hearing to consider the requested Special Use Permit and associated variation to improvement
standards for dual access. The Planning Commission ultimately made two separate motions to approve both
requests, with conditions.
The following is a brief summary of the Planning Commission's deliberations and recommendation for
conditional approval:
- Overall, the Commission discussed the location of the proposed use in context to the
surrounding rural, low density neighborhoods, as well as the proposed operation in relation to potential
for noise, odors, lighting and other impacts.
- One commission member asked for clarification regarding the use of heavy equipment on the site,
with the Applicant confirming that small (bobcat or skid-stear) equipment will be used to move
supplies around on the site.
17
07/22/2014
- One commission member questioned the placement of an access gate on the north side of the site,
stating that such placement may cause more disturbance to the overall site if vehicles are required to
drive around the fenced-in area of the greenhouse structures to get to the access gate; the Applicant
responded that the gate will be removed from the plans and that there was no intention to cause more
disturbance outside of the fenced-in area of the facility.
- Another commission member questioned proposed lighting on the property, specifically lighting for
cultivation (inside the green house structures), with the Applicant clarifying that cultivation is intended
to use natural day lighting, and that any nighttime lighting will be limited due to the tight controls and
scheduling of artificial and natural light (plants are grown with approximately 12 hours of day light,
and 12 hours of darkness), but that artificial lighting will be used during the flowering stages of
cultivation and such activities will take place in an enclosed area within each greenhouse.
- One commission member questioned the color of the proposed greenhouse structures, with the
Applicant confirming that the structures will have grey colored framing/structural members.
- One commission member questioned the water storage pond and, specifically, whether such pond
could be re-designed to be smaller or somehow reduce the amount of surface area in order to reduce
evaporation/evapotranspiration, and; whether the pond or another storage solution could be constructed
closer to the facility to avoid pumping water uphill. The Applicant stated that the pond had already been
constructed according to water rights associated with his properties and that there would be limited
means or opportunities to either move the pond, or reduce rates of evaporation. The Applicant further
stated that he plans to run the pumps for water on a very limited basis (5-10 minutes per day) and that
opportunities to reduce that amount, or to somehow provide alternative (renewable) energy sources such
as solar would be limited as well.
- The same commission member proposed a condition of approval wherein the Applicant is to explore
additional means to store water closer to the facility (in order to reduce the energy required to pump
water from the nearby pond up to the site) and to explore means to reduce evaporative loss of water from
the pond.
- Another commission member questioned the proposed grading and disturbance associated with the .5
acre site, with the Applicant providing clarification that proposed grading and disturbance with be kept
to a minimum; that the plans specifically "step" the proposed structures up the slope of the lot to
minimize cutting and filling on the site, and; that plans will be revised to show proposed grading and
limits of disturbance outside of the proposed fencing for the site.
- The same commission member suggested a condition of approval requiring a detailed grading plan to
demonstrate how the project site will blend into the surrounding slopes.
Following deliberations, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the request(s),
incorporating staff's recommended conditions, and adding two additional conditions(as noted above).
VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS:
1. Approve [File No. ZS-4799] 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),
2. Deny [File No. ZS-47991 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
18
07/22/2014
•
Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other
applicable master plans).
3. Table [File No. ZS-47991 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give
specific direction to the petitioner and staff.
IX. SUGGESTED ONDITIONS:
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. Any lighting associated with the site shall be downcast in accordance with dark/night-sky
compliant lighting standards; specifically, any on-site lighting shall be designed and installed so
as not to direct glare onto adjacent properties.
3. The Applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan with any building or
grading permit application.
4. Hours of operation for the Cultivation Facility shall be limited to Monday through Friday,
8 a.m. until 5 p.m., with limited work permitted by the Applicant and associated family
members on weekend days and for limited periods of time (up to two hours) before 8
a.m., or after 5 p.m. to allow for occasional maintenance and/or upkeep of the facility
and associated crops and to allow the Applicant to respond to emergencies such as alarms,
or mechanical failures of equipment associated with the cultivation activities.
5. The Applicant shall work with the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Department (CPW), and/or work
to address and incorporate all suggested mitigation and management measures provided in a
letter from Perry Will.
6. Pursuant to a letter from Chris Green, Ago Studios, dated May 22, 2014, and addressed to Greg
Schroeder, Eagle County Engineering, the Applicant shall verify completion of augmentation
pond and associated improvements such as dry hyrdrants, road shoulder extension for
emergency vehicle pull-off prior to completion of inspections by Eagle County, and occupation
of the facility by the Applicant.
7. The Applicant shall successfully apply for and obtain any and all state and local licensing
required for the cultivation of marijuana (Optional Premise Center License) for the cultivation
facility prior to commencing any cultivation activities.
8. Pursuant to local and state licensing requirements specific to renewal of licensing and annual.
verification of `good standing', the Applicant shall provide a brief report or other evidence to
Eagle County Planning Department on an annual basis, demonstrating that the license for
cultivation is valid at both the state and local levels, and, therefore, that the special use permi1.
remains in compliance with local regulations as well as applicable conditions of approval for the
special use.
9. The Applicant shall provide a detailed grading plan, showing existing and proposed
grades, as well as proposed limits of disturbance for the site prior to or concurrent with any
grading and/or building permit application.
APPENDIX
'A'
19
07/22/2014
1. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits
Section Purpose:
Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district,
but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon
individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition
of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with
surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section.
Standards:
Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is
competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this
Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may
recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to
ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan,
requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the
operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit
STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.1]
The proposed Special Use shall be in substantial conformance with the Eagle County
Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents
pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets the majority of applicable Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and
policies, inclusive of those specific to the Missouri Heights Character Area of the Mid-Valley Area
Community Plan.
Below, staff has analyzed the proposal against the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (2006), as well as the
Mid-Valley Area Community Plan(2013),with a focus on development(land use),water, environmental and
economic aspects of both plans.
Eagle County Comprehensive Plan
The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006 and includes specific policies and
implementation strategies for unincorporated Eagle County and specifically those areas not included
within sub-area master plans such as the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan provides overarching policy and implementation direction in the following areas .
of strategic importance for Eagle County:
1. Governance
2. Development
3. Economic Resources
4. Housing
5. Infrastructure and Services
6. Water Resources
7. Wildlife Resources
8. Sensitive Lands
9. Environmental Quality
The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan clearly and specifically supports the preservation of agricultural uses
in rural areas of the County. Likewise, certain Comprehensive Plan goals and strategies support
20
07/22/2014
diversification of local "economic infrastructure", while others provide direction for protecting the
environment and reducing impacts from new development proposals. Many policies of the Comprehensive
Plan are not germane to the review of the proposed use(s).
Therefore, staff's analysis of the Comprehensive Plan focuses primarily upon the overarching intents
and policies of each strategy area applicable to the current proposal. Specifically, the following section
highlights those policies, goals and recommended strategies related to Development; Economic Resources;
Infrastructure and Services; Water Resources; Wildlife Resources; Sensitive Lands, and; Environmental
Quality.
3.2.6-General Development:
Policy "a"— Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today
should be preserved for future generations.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the
natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County.
Staff Response:
The proposal has been sized and designed to work with the site topography, access, drainage and
screening. Specifically,the layout and design of the greenhouse structures step up the site,thus
reducing the overall grading and disturbance(cutting and filling)while maximizing solar access
to capture more of the sun's energy for cultivation(reducing the amount of electrical energy
needed to power the facility). Staff suggests that the overall footprint of the development is small
in comparison to the total acreage
of the parcel,and the design maintains rural scale and character.
❑ Work to preserve vestiges of the County's western heritage and the rural quality of life
found in outlying areas of the county.
Staff Response:
The proposed use should be considered agricultural in nature and,therefore, should be viewed
favorably in context to the stated strategy of preserving western heritage. As designed and with
appropriate conditions of approval,this special use permit should not adversely affect the
quality of life for this area of Eagle County.
Policy "c"— Growth should be managed toward future sustainability—a healthy balance between
economic success, quality of life, and the preservation of the environment.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy
economy.
Staff Response:
The proposed facility will principally employ 4-6 persons in a bonafide agricultural
industry. The proposed use adds to the health of Eagle County's overall economy
through the creation of jobs, the creation of trade and taxation, and the support of
ancillary businesses and industries associated with the marijuana industry.
Policy `j"- Development should be fully responsible for the mitigation of development related
impacts upon both the natural and built environment.
21
07/22/2014
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Assure that each development application fits the policies and applicable mapping of all
master plans and area community plans.
Staff Response:
The area is designated as"Rural Agricultural"on the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan Future
Land Use Map(FLUM). As such, the Plan states that the Rural Agricultural designation,
"Applies to lands where agriculture or very low density residential uses exist or would be
appropriate."Therefore,the proposal conforms to this strategy.
❑ Design and locate development to minimize and/or mitigate identified impacts.
Staff Response:
The proposal has,to a significant degree,been located within Tract 4 and designed
specifically to lessen overall footprint/disturbance on the site; minimize grading,maximize
solar access;provide wildlife compliant fencing, and; reduce night-time impacts from
operations via restricted hours of operation,lighting control and security.
3.3.9-Economic Resources
Policy "b"- A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's
character and resources should be fostered.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Match the economy to the natural and built characteristics of Eagle County and
ensure that it is of a scale and scope that best fits the environmental and social values.
Staff Response:
The proposal responds to policy decisions wherein marijuana cultivation was deemed to be
generally appropriate for rural settings, specifically upon large acreage parcels,as long as the
size, scale and scope of cultivation operations were vetted through the special use review
process to meet specific standards, and therefore,to ensure compatibility with surrounding
properties and uses.
❑ Encourage and help existing businesses to remain vigilant and adaptive to changing
economic realities.
Staff Response:
The Alexander Company is an existing small, family-run business.The proposed cultivation
facility,which is intended for use in growing marijuana as well as other cash crops such as
flowers for landscaping and herbs for sale to local restaurants, should act to bolster this existing
business.The facility responds to or"adapts"to changing economic realities—the policy
decision to allow for marijuana cultivation in the Resource Zone District and the creation—
statewide—a new industry.
❑ Explore and pursue opportunities that diversify Eagle County's tax revenue streams.
Staff Response:
See above.
Policy `j"- Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's
historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations.
22
07/22/2014
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Encourage and promote agricultural enterprises and activities.
Staff Response:
See above.
❑ Encourage the maintenance of water rights on agricultural lands to ensure the long- term
viability of agricultural uses.
Staff Response:
The proposal makes use of existing senior water rights and seeks to improve upon such rights
through further augmentation and adjudication.
❑ Encourage best management practices for agricultural operations, and promote safe,
effective, and sustainable agricultural techniques to minimize detrimental impacts on land,
water and other components of the environment.
Staff Response:
The Applicant has designed the facility(as well as the operations plan)to ensure safe,
effective and efficient agricultural practices through improved solar access, efficient water
use, minimizing electrical use, and providing safe storage of soils and compost.
Policy "n"- A sustainable job base and wage structure should be encouraged in Eagle
County.
Applicable Recommended Strategies
❑ Promote and encourage more stable, long-term, year-round job opportunities that pay
adequate wages relative to Eagle County's cost of living.
Staff Response:
See above.The proposal creates 4-6 local jobs and bolsters an existing, small business.
3.5.6-Infrastructure and Services
Policy "e"- To preserve mountain character, county roads should be adequate and safe for
their intended use, but not over-designed.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ So long as safety considerations are met, apply minimal road standards in outlying areas
to preserve the county's agricultural heritage and rural mountain character.
Staff Response:
Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision along with the Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision both access
Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained access road.This road serves two rural
subdivisions,yet because both subdivisions were"exempt"from subdivision regulations,Eagle
County road standards,inclusive of Dual Access requirements, have not been applied or
required in the past. Therefore,there is no dual access currently serving lots/tracts in both
subdivisions. This is typical of 35-acre, exempt subdivisions in Eagle County. However, with
this review, Eagle County has identified the need to mitigate this condition and the Applicant
has responded by 1)meeting with key representatives from Eagle County and the Basalt and
Rural Fire Protection District, and 2) committing to substantive mitigation actions such as
constructing a 4.6 acre foot pond to serve a secondary firefighting water supply function, and
providing dry hyrdrants as part of that capacity that can be used for firefighting on Tract 4 as
well as the surrounding community.
23
07/22/2014
❑ Assure adequate access for emergency responders.
Staff Response:
See above response. Staff believes that given the current condition and maintenance of Pleasant
Valley Ranch Road, as well as the design of the facility (close to the road, and provision of
parking/turn-around areas)access will be adequate.
Policy "i"- Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents,
visitors and second homeowners.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Refer all development proposals to potentially affected emergency and service
providers for comment.
Staff Response:
The proposal was referred to several emergency, service and law enforcement agencies and
providers for comment.
❑ Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by
emergency and community services.
Staff Response:
See above responses.
3.6.6-Water Resources
Policy "a"- Protect the long-term viability of both ground and surface water sources.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their
development.
Staff Response:
See above responses. Staff believes the Applicant has provided adequate evidence to support the
proposal in terms of water rights and water resource protection(ie. long-term viability).
❑ Promote water conservation.
Staff Response:
See above responses. The application summarizes how the operations for cultivation will include
careful hand-watering of individual plants which will provide the highest degree
of water conservation and(water)waste reduction.
Policy "c"- Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be
implemented.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
PP g
❑ Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation
measures.
Staff Response:
24
07/22/2014
The Applicant is voluntarily(as a matter of best practices for this particular agricultural
practice)proposing water conservation techniques and measures.
Policy V"- Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable
standards.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water
runoff, and work to identi6 and treat other non point sources of pollution.
Staff Response:
The application shows grading, drainage and re-vegetation plans which should result in the
proper, effective control of storm water runoff—during and after construction of the facility.
Likewise, a small(but properly sized)retention area is shown on the plans to ensure any runoff
from the site is captured.The application states that no hazardous(non-organic)pesticides,
fungicides or fertilizers will be used; composting and soils storage will occur next to
greenhouse structures and Onsite Wastewater Treatment will be handled by a composting toilet
or similar facility approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department.
Policy "g"- Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial
and development related impacts.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new
development.
Staff Response:
See above responses.The Applicant intends to have minimal storage of compost and soils
piles that will be re-used in the operations and the drainage and retention plans demonstrate
that any surface run-off will be directed to bio-swales and retention areas.
❑ Adhere to established Land Use Regulations, and implement appropriate water quality
best management practices(BMPs) on all development proposals.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the Applicant is voluntarily proposing and committing to BMPs applicable to
any agricultural practice, and specific to the marijuana cultivation industry.
❑ Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use
of pervious paving systems.
Staff Response:
The facility(fenced-in area surrounding the facility)totals approximately.5 acres of land
disturbance; all fmal grades(areas for parking and areas surrounding greenhouse structures)
will be gravel and,therefore,pervious to some degree. There is no paving proposed for the site.
3.7.6-Wildlife
Policy "a"- The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in
Eagle County should be preserved
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
25
07/22/2014
❑ Encourage owners of large land parcels to protect riparian areas and other identified
wildlife habitat.
Staff Response:
Although concerns have been raised by CPW concerning the incremental loss of deer and elk
habitat,the Applicant has been proactive in responding to the CPW and has certain standards
which should act to mitigate potential impacts from the facility.
Policy "d"- Development in areas critical to the continued well-being of Eagle County's
wildlife populations should not be allowed.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat.
Staff Response:
To a significant extent, the proposal does limit disturbance while clustering (directing)
development in an area that is directly adjacent to the access road. In context to `by right'
uses already permitted in this residentially zoned area, and considering the extent of
undisturbed lands surrounding the site, staff believes this strategy is met.
Policy "e"- Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be
required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Continue to refer development applications to the Colorado Division of Wildlife
("Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department').
Staff Response:
The proposal was referred to CPW and the Applicant has responded to CPW's written
comments.
❑ Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials.
Staff Response:
Referral recommendations have already been incorporated into the design and
operations plan for the facility; conditions of approval also reference CPW's
recommendations.
Policy `J"- Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental
development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for
in the decision making process.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Guard against habitat fragmentation, and encourage development patterns that result
in large, interconnected areas of natural open space.
Staff Response•
Given the nature of the proposal and the surrounding area, staff believes this strategy is met.
The overall development footprint is approximately 1.4% of the total acreage of Tract 4;the site
is"clustered"near an existing road, and; large areas of interconnected habitat are therefore
preserved.
26
07/22/2014
Policy "g"- Wildlife friendly measures should be incorporated into the design of
individual home sites and neighborhoods.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Follow the recommendations provided by wildlife specialists and/or the Colorado
Division of Wildlife for the development("Colorado Parks & Wildlife Department').
Staff Response:
See above responses.
3.8.5-Sensitive Lands
Policy "a"- Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Utilize available hazard mapping, GIS mapping and other state-of-the-art analysis tools
in the analysis of development proposals.
Staff Response:
The Applicant has provided a brief analysis of geologic hazard mapping, and staff is unaware
of any other hazards (other than wildfire which has or will be mitigated through design).
Policy "b"- The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the
integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the
greatest extent possible.
Staff Response:
See above responses.
❑ Require a wildfire management plan for all new development.
Staff Response:
The Applicant has provided details for wildlife compliant fencing and trash
storage/removal.
Policy "c"- Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that
include visual,historic,and archeological value.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ Identify and inventory significant views, historic sites and structures,
and archeological sites in Eagle County. •
Staff Response:
This proposal was referred to the Colorado State Historical Society.There are no mapped
archeological sites or structures in this area. However,this does not mean that none exist. The
Historical Society recommends contacting the state if any such resources are discovered during
excavation/grading.
3.9.6-Environmental Quality
27
07/22/2014
Policy "a"- Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the
aesthetic expectations of local residents.
Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary re-vegetation of
stockpiles, and permanent re-vegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have
been established.
,Staff Response:
The plans include provisions for limiting site disturbance and providing for re-vegetative
efforts following construction.
Policy "b"- Lighting plans that reduce nuisance glare and protect the quality of the night sky
should be encouraged.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
❑ For commercial uses, require applications for commercial uses submit a lighting plan that
conforms to applicable regulations.
Staff Response:
The Applicant has provided lighting plans and has described the intent to provide lighting for
code compliance and, in certain instances, for security, which will be in compliance with the
standards of Article 4, ECLURs.The application states,
Mid-Valley Area Community Plan
The (updated) Mid-Valley Area Community Plan was adopted in 2013 and includes specific policies and
implementation strategies for four distinct but interrelated character areas: the Highway 82
Character Area; the Missouri Heights Character Area; the Emma Character Area, and; the Frying Pan Valley
Character Area. Each character area is discussed within the Plan in context to the following policy-related
areas of focus:
1. Land Use
2. Design, Character and Appearance
3. Public Services and Infrastructure
4. Natural Resources and Environmental Quality
The following analysis is intended to review the overarching intent and general guidance provided within the
Master Plan, as well as a more specific consideration for specific and directly pertinent implementation
strategies; this analysis may also provide additional potential considerations and strategies not necessarily
contemplated within the Plan as alternatives for achieving stated policy goals for the area.
Missouri Heights Character Area
The subject property is located within the Missouri Heights Character Area. The aspirational Vision
Statement for this sub-area speaks to maintaining the rural, agrarian and open nature of the place:
"Missouri Heights provides a high quality rural living environment that is geographically
separated from but still close to El Jebel and the urbanized Highway 82 corridor. Residents and
visitors enjoy quiet solitude, beautiful vistas,access to open space and outdoor recreation, good
roads and adequate public services. Upper Cattle Creek Road is a primary collector, and can
be busy at times, but traffic volumes on neighborhood spur roads are generally low. Bicyclists
frequent local roads, and developed trailheads provide parking for pedestrian and equestrian
access to both BLM and Forest Service lands. Many properties support agricultural and/or
equestrian land uses, and wildlife is abundant. Spring Creek Reservoir enhances views, supplies
irrigation water to agricultural properties and provides valuable habitat for waterfowl. "
28
07/22/2014
Further, the Future Land Use Map for the Missouri Heights Character Area designates this are as
"Rural Agricultural".The Plan states that the Rural Agricultural designation,
"Applies to lands where agriculture or very low density residential uses exist or would be
appropriate."
Therefore, staff's analysis of the Plan focuses on only those specific policies and recommended
strategies applicable to the agricultural, non-residential nature of the proposed cultivation uses. As such, not
all policies or strategies are listed.
Land Use
Policy 1.1.2—Maintain the quality and distribution of agricultural land uses.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Preserve existing agricultural zoning
Staff Response:
The proposal does not propose a zone change and should not have any negative or
speculative implications on the preservation of zoning of the area.
b. Support efforts to maintain viable markets for agricultural products in the
Mid-Valley area.
Staff Response:
This proposal does support markets in the Mid-Valley area as well as other parts of the slate.
d. Maintain irrigation rights and associated irrigation water delivery systems in
the area.
Staff Response:
The proposal, as conditioned and as represented by the Applicant,meets this strategy.
Specifically,the proposal makes use of existing senior water rights and seeks to improve upon
such rights through further augmentation and adjudication.
Policy 1.1.4— Assure land use compatibility.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Preclude new uses that would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of
residential neighborhoods in the area.
Staff Response:
The proposal is agricultural in nature and does not include uses that would otherwise interfere
with the quiet enjoyment of the area.The subject parcel(Tract 4,Pleasant Valley Ranch
Subdivision)is a 35acre tract of land surrounded by other large lot parcels and neighborhoods.
Therefore, and specifically considering the distances between the proposed cultivation facility
and the nearest home sites, staff believes the proposal is properly sited to reduce or eliminate
any potential impacts.
b. Preclude non-agricultural commercial activities and recreational activities
that would be incompatible with residential and agricultural uses in the area.
Staff Response:
The proposal is commercial yet agricultural in nature and intent. Further, staff believes
29
07/22/2014
the proposal is in keeping with agricultural uses in the area and, as conditioned, can also be
compatible with residential uses in the area. Specifically,three rural zone districts—
Resource,Resource Limited, and Agricultural Residential—have been identified as
areas where the cultivation of marijuana, if permitted and conditioned properly, may be
compatible with the rural,residential and agricultural nature of the area.
c. Avoid zone changes or special use permits that negatively impact the rural
character of Upper Cattle Creek Road.
Staff Response:
The proposal does not propose a zone change and staff believes that, as conditioned and as
represented by the application,the proposed cultivation facility will not negatively impact rural
character in the area. Specifically, the proposed design,bulk,mass and architectural nature
(greenhouse construction) can be viewed to be consistent with the rural character of surrounding
uses and buildings.
d. Support efforts of local homeowner associations to minimize land use
compatibility issues within their subdivision boundaries.
Staff Response:
This application was referred to the Pleasant Valley Homeowners Association,the Ten Peaks
Mesa Homeowners Association, and the Cottonwood Estates Homeowners Association.No
response was received from either association.
e. Encourage best management practices on agricultural lands to minimize
compatibility concerns.
Staff Response:
Although"best management practices"are not further defined within the Mid-Valley Area
Community Plan,the proposal seeks to minimize impacts to surface and ground water through
site design and construction. Likewise,the proposal includes numerous aspects of energy
efficiency and water conservation techniques to be employed as part of cultivation operations.
f. Foster an understanding and acceptance by local residents and visitors of
activities, noises and odors associated with agricultural land uses.
Staff Response:
While this strategy does not specify which entity is responsible for implementation, staff
believes the proposal will produce minimal impacts on residents and visitors, and that the
proposal,as conditioned and represented by the a pp lication, will further this strategy of
education and acceptance of local agricultural enterprises.
h. Provide adequate setbacks and/or buffers between residential and
agricultural land uses and sensitive natural areas.
Staff Response: the proposal is sited appropriately and in compliance with separation distance
requirements specifically imposed on marijuana cultivation facilities.There are no identified
sensitive natural areas on or near the site.
Policy 1.1.5—Adhere to the purposes and intents of the Future Land Use Map for the
Missouri Heights Character Area.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Consult the Future Land Use Map, and consider the summaries provided
30
07/22/2014
by the Future Land Use Map Designation Descriptions in the review of any new
land use proposal.
Staff Response:
The Future Land Use Map for the Missouri Heights Character Area designates this are
as"Rural Agricultural".The Plan states that the Rural Agricultural designation,
"Applies to lands where agriculture or very low density residential uses exist or
would be appropriate."
Public Services and Infrastructure
Policy 2.1.1—Assure adequate infrastructure and levels of service appropriate to the rural
residential and agricultural character of the area.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Utilize comprehensive and collaborative planning processes to plan for
infrastructure or service upgrades.
Staff Response:
The Applicant undertook a proactive approach to planning for the development and for
preparing this land use proposal. Specifically, the Applicant worked proactively with the Eagle
County Engineering and Wildfire Mitigation Departments as well as the Basalt&Rural Fire
Protection District to assess existing access,code requirements and mitigation.
b. Support measures that enhance law enforcement,fire and life safety services to
all developed properties. Preclude development on properties that cannot be
adequately served by law enforcement,fire and life safety services.
Staff Response:
The Applicant has worked with Eagle County and the Basalt&Rural Fire Protection
District to ensure proper access and firefighting/wildfire mitigation strategies and
improvements.
Policy 2.1.2—Promote appropriate and efficient vehicular and pedestrian connectivity.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Assure adequate and safe vehicular access to all developed properties and public
trailheads.
Staff Response:
Adequate access is provided via Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained road
serving two subdivisions.
Policy 2.1.3- Assure public health and safety.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Avoid development in areas of high and extreme wildfire hazard.
Staff Response:
31
07/22/2014
The subject property has been rated"moderate"wildfire hazard.
Design, Character and Appearance
Policy 3.1.1—Encourage site designs that meet or exceed applicable standards
and expectations for access,parking, circulation, and energy efficiency.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Promote creative site designs that respond appropriately to the topography, geology,
exposure, drainage, natural resources and hazards of the area.
Staff Response:
The proposal incorporates sensitivity to topography, exposure(solar access, prevailing winds),
natural resources and natural hazards into the design of the site and operations.
b. Encourage compact development that minimizes infrastructure needs and visual
impacts, and that maximizes opportunities for connectivity and resource
sharing.
Staff Response:
The proposal should be considered"compact"and proposed architecture and screening
should act to provide screening and to protect visual resources.
Policy 3.2.1—Protect and/or enhance elements that contribute to the existing
appearance and character of the area.
Applicable Recommended Strategies:
a. Discourage new land uses that would negatively impact the rural character of
the area, or that would negatively impact the quiet enjoyment of residential
neighborhoods.
Staff Response:
The proposed use—as designed and as conditioned via this special use permit request
—should have no negative impacts on the rural character of the area.
b. Support the continuation of ranching, equestrian and agricultural land
uses.
Staff Response:
The proposal is intended to further the continuation of ranching and agricultural uses
and heritage in this area of unincorporated Eagle County.
d. Encourage the screening of outdoor storage, utility and work areas that
detract from the character and appearance of the area.
Staff Response:
The facility will be screened with landscaping and,to a lesser degree,wire mesh
fencing.
32
07/22/2014
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.
?�+yp•y.yy]�▪ ��'▪ �yy [� yh 7 r � li t yrf``t r ' k � a���arit' ���'
Y RtF'al1}.u^ding�4! f�4I M��t N Z k tlrx i 9 F' 9 { k f i
t A {
�d r I gd Y d4 Resource(R)
❑
����, Resource(R)
South: �, k ❑
East: �� 17: :]-:; "1:-!-. Resource(R) ❑
i 4.:':!!!!'g
West: � ibl �` Resource(R) ❑
Staff Response:
The site is bordered by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 6 (vacant) to the north; by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 3
(Vacant)* to the south; by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 11 (Single-Family Residential owned by the Applicant)
to the west, and;by Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision, Lot 1 (Vacant) toe the east.
With regard to potential conflicts or compatibility issues, staff views the proposed Special Use as having minimal
impacts on the surrounding area. The closest (existing) residence is approximately .5 miles away; likewise,
while there are no building envelopes platted on surrounding (vacant) parcels within Pleasant Valley Ranch
and Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivisions, staff suggests that the general distances to likely building sites (based on
topography, slope and likely access points from the private road) on surrounding parcels will be significant.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view the proposal as having adequate separation from neighboring
properties/activities and the uses proposed are in general keeping with agricultural and natural resource
extraction(pumice mine located to the southeast of the subject property)land uses in the surrounding area.
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.
Staff Response:
Staff believes this standard is met. Specifically, the proposal has been designed to comply with all
applicable standards specific to marijuana cultivation:
1. Separation Requirements: separation distances of at least 200 feet have been met. The next closest
residential structure/use (owned by the Applicant, but on a separate parcel) is approximately .5
miles away from the proposed cultivation facility.
2. Minimum Lot Size: the parcel meets the minimum lot size (35 acres) for the Resource Zone
District.
3. Parking and Storage: parking and storage have been designed to meet the standards.
4. Signs and Illumination: there are no signs proposed for the site or the operations and only minimal
lighting is proposed for the exterior of buildings to comply with building code requirements.
5. Sales: no retail sales are proposed on or from the site.
6. Visual Screening: a fencing and landscaping plan has been submitted which, if implemented correctly,
should act to provide visual screening even though the site is not likely visible from public rights-of-way; the
scale of the facility is appropriate in context to the character of the surrounding area.
33
07/22/2014
7. Adequate Water: evidence of adequate water rights has been submitted and, via correspondence with the
State Division of Water Resources, staff believes that the Applicant has demonstrated that there will be legal,
physical, adequate and dependable water supply for the cultivation facility.
8. Wildfire Hazard: the Applicant has met with the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist and has
received a wildfire rating. While the site has been rated as "moderate" fire danger, the Applicant has
responded by committing water resources and infrastructure (pond water and dry hydrants) specific to
firefighting purposes.
9. Access: legal access is provided via Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained road.
While details have been provided regarding the limited nature of vehicle trips to and from the site by
employees and delivery vehicles, staff suggests that additional details regarding the "maximum number of
deliveries allowed per month" and the times of such deliveries could be added to the operations plan.
10. Odor Mitigation Plan: at this time, due primarily to the location of this marijuana business, and the
resultant proximity (distances) to other residential or agricultural uses, staff has not required an Odor
Mitigation Plan for the project. However, the Applicant has indicated that mitigation such as carbon
filtration systems could be installed within each greenhouse structure if needed in the future. Such systems
are typical of most cultivation operations currently licensed in Eagle County (all of which are within
commercially zoned areas of the county).
11. Security: although the Applicant has provided details regarding proposed security (cameras and lighting)
on the site, all security requirements are a matter of State review and permitting.
SECTION 3-310.REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE
USES
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.
Staff Response:
Staff believes this standard is met due to the distance of the facility from any surrounding (existing or future)
residential structures, as well as the operational planning and mitigation efforts proposed by the Applicant.
Specifically, staff is not aware of any permanent or persistent noise, glare or vibrations that will be generated
from the installation of the cultivation facility. According to the application and representations
made by the Applicant, the facility will have minimal traffic coming to and from the site; night-time lighting for
growing operations will be minimal and will be screened, and; staff is not aware of any operations, other than
normal agricultural activities such as unloading occasional deliveries and/or using machinery to move/manage
soils and compost piles, that will produce noise. Additionally, the project's distance from adjoining properties
and any future residential improvements on those (currently vacant) properties is advantageous and should work
to eliminate or mitigate any potential impacts.
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.51 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.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard, although there will be some impacts. Specifically, the proposed
use will affect the biotic community by removing approximately .5 acres existing vegetation(sage and grasses).
Therefore, wildlife habitat will also be affected. However, total disturbance (.5 acres) represents
approximately 1.4%of the total acreage of the parcel.
34
07/22/2014
The cultivation facility will most likely NOT be highly visible from public roadways (Upper Cattle Creek Road),
but most likely WILL be visible from adjacent properties. It is difficult to judge the total impact or effect on
the visual resources of the area, despite the use of visual simulation techniques and renderings provided
by the Applicant. And, when viewed in context to the visual quality of surrounding development in the area
(Farmsteads, single-family home properties, a gravel mine), it could be argued the proposed use has been
designed to complement typical agricultural architectural character found in the area. Therefore, staff believes
the proposal will not significantly degrade the existing visual resources of the area, and that the proposed
use and design is complimentary to the rural, agricultural character of the area.
STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6J The proposed Special Use Permit 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.
Staff Response:
Staff believes the proposal meets this standard. Specifically, the subject property is located in a rather remote,
rural portion of unincorporated Eagle County. As such, and given the nature of the proposed use (private
agricultural enterprise), staff suggests that very few "public facilities" will be impacted or necessary, with the
exception of roads, fire protection, and emergency medical services.
While the site is accessed by way of publically and privately maintained roads (Upper Cattle Creek Road;
Pleasant Valley Ranch Road), the operational plan for the cultivation facility should result in minimal traffic
being added to local roads,public or private. For example,the application states,
"While in operation a limited number of cars will travel to and from the facility once in the
morning and at the completion of that day's operations. There are to be no regularly scheduled
deliveries to the location, and finished product will be transported by licensed employees only.
The facility is intended to be self-sustaining and efficiently operated to manage and minimize
traffic, noise and other impacts."(p. 12)
Importantly, the Applicant has met several times with the Eagle County Engineering Department to discuss
(Engineering) comments related to Dual Access Standards of the ECLURs, and has committed to making
certain, substantial improvements as mitigation for meeting this standard.
Specifically, the has constructed a pond which will serve the dual purpose of providing irrigation water in dry
times, as well as a water source for firefighting capacity in the event of a wildfire event. Likewise,the Applicant
has met with the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District as well as the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist to address access, firefighting and water source issues. As a result, the Applicant has committed to
installing a dry hyrdrant system and to make improvements to Pleasant Valley Ranch Road (for emergency
vehicle parking near the dry hydrants) that will work in conjunction with the pond and which is intended to serve
the entire neighborhood in the event of a wildfire.
STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply
with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
r T 7 la a +4 �m < 9&e.;� Yki , r Ssq Ek,q i,,, "r f a r^ � s i o a s '!, 4�,i
,a
,
,:.,
� 00j&,1 G .' C t l�a % tiAc .a �� N 1 � te° N ' � fi *44W N O sh aq
x
' ax � a y s r Y' 4 � 4k1 � 0 3tit,ri iii,4 5 x } {r'1 5 .
475 ,: ` � h :.,^* M e s s " ? . -0 1— l�
{
u E r F d a a # t �r ° I t s r i *ird x
? `J yW400100*$ r r `q I w � 4 a$ N i np s dIV4 �vi
+ C y i w kfi v y y . 9 W a l� l„o r a s 4s y . e m ,, xyq y4 1Jv s r' j Y e C0 r *a 3 } z l 4 d� a r
e , c 41 p rm om T ' 5 ` � 8 71; 44.0*
S� . r a 1{ • r 3 r v � " a 0 , � ky hA ff .
p 4', , r : . R .. vz t l .. a, q a"s ,_. P ;44.10 . . We:411114: .. _ o J s
X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1)
X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2)
35
07/22/2014
X Sign Regulations(Division 4-3)
X Wildlife Protection(Section 4-410) 4
X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420)
X Hillside Development(Section 4-425)
X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430) 6
X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440)
X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450)
X Environmental Impact Report(Section 4-460)
X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards(Division 4-5)
X Noise and Vibration(Section 4-520)
X Smoke and Particulates(Section 4-530)
X Heat,Glare,Radiation and Electrical Interference(Section 4-540)
X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials(Section 4-550)
X Water Quality Standards(Section 4-560)
X Roadway Standards(Section 4-620) 5
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) 9
X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670) 2
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)
Staff Response:
Staff believes the application is compliant, or substantially compliant,with the majority of applicable Site
Development Standards. In this instances where a standard has been indicated as NOT satisfying a particular
standard, staff has referenced a condition of approval meant to mitigate non-compliance, or otherwise cause the
proposal to achieve a higher level of compliance.
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.
Staff Response:
The only"other provisions" would be those standards specific to marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, or
testing listed in Section 3-310,F.f.
As noted elsewhere in this report, staff believes the proposal meets or exceeds each of the required standards
of Section 3-310, F.f.
DISCUSSION:
36
07/22/2014
Mr. Hunn introduced the file and presented a synopsis of the request and marijuana regulations for Eagle
County. He reviewed the Special Use Standards such as consistency with comprehensive plan,compatibility,zone
district standards, and whether the design minimizing adverse impacts. He reviewed the cultivation standards such
as no retail sales,visual screening, appropriate scale and adequate water,wildfire hazard, access and a requisite
odor mitigation plan.He added that there was a proposed security fence,but the requirement was state based,not a
county requirement. The applicant had worked with Eagle County staff for issues related to Wildfire habitat,water
and access. Any disturbance to the site would be minimal and include the removal of.5 acres of mapped wildlife
habitat. He clarified that the applicant could build a single family home with no size restriction along with an
accessory dwelling unit with an 1800 square foot limit along with an unlimited number of out/support buildings.
The proposal would have 4—6 employees coming to the site. Staff felt that the proposed use could be less
significant than a normal residential use. The owners could still build out uses by right on the property. Water
rights were critical to this type of operation as residential uses could be used for agricultural purposes. The
applicant had constructed a pond to store irrigation water rights as well. Within the fenced area there would be
drinking and sanitary water which would be trucked in. The water rights were seasonal and the free water periods
could be unavailable during severe drought years. Access was provided by a privately maintained road,there was
no dual access, and the applicant was requesting a variance from improvement standards and would provide
mitigation such as water storage, firefighting capacity and facilities to address fire danger.
Chairman Ryan asked Mr.Hunn to explain dual access to the audience.
Mr. Hunn explained that this meant two access routes into and out-of a subdivision which could be used in
emergency situations. He indicated that the requirement for defensible space would be addressed during the
building permitting process. The Planning Commission discussed the location and site design, grading and
disturbance,wildlife impact, lighting and water storage. The commission voted unanimously to approve the
request incorporating staff's recommended conditions and adding conditions related to water storage and mitigation
of evaporation and grading of the buildings. The condition related to the water storage had not been added,but the
grading of buildings was included. The pond had already been constructed on a different parcel in Garfield,not
Eagle County. He explained that the project complied with a preponderance of Master Plan policies, incorporated
and conformed to applicable standards, and was compatible with rural and agricultural land uses and would
minimize impact. He reviewed the recommended conditions.
Chairman Ryan wondered why there was a condition suggested which limited the hours of operation.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry concurred and asked to hear from the applicant as to the need for this type
of restriction. She spoke about the road variance access issue as well.
Chris Green,representing the Alexander Company spoke to the board. He gave an overview of where the
state and county were with marijuana today and an application overview. Recreational marijuana was legalized in
2012 and was governed by Colorado law. Resource zoning was available with appropriate review. Their
application responded in detail to the Comprehensive plan,Mid Valley plan, Site Development standards,Retail
Marijuana Business regulations wildfire regulations, land use standards and Colorado water law. The name of the
operation would be Cattle Creek Cultivations and be a stand-alone facility with no direct attachment to any other
cannabis business. The site was 7 miles from the Catherine Store, 10.5 miles from El Jebel and there were no
schools or public facilities in the area. He reviewed the compatibility with all plans and regulations.
Commissioner Fisher asked what would happen if a home and ADU were to be added in the future.
Mr. Green stated that a well could be used for a single family home and those rights were different than the
agricultural uses. Water serving a single family home would be on a different system.
Chairman Ryan asked for detail regarding the free water.
Mr. Green indicated that the owners would address in detail this issue. The project has been sited to take
advantage of natural daylight. He spoke about the assurance of public health and safety. The pond was an
enormous element of public safety that has been added to the area. The operation was expected to employ 4—6
employees including the family living on the property. There would only be natural lighting used and all would be
dark sky compliant. They expected an average of one delivery per week. There would be an 8 foot high fence
around the perimeter. They believed this was an appropriate use of resources, an agricultural operation which
maintained the rural character of Eagle County and created long term jobs for the employees. They intended to be
good neighbors and business operators.
Mr. Green explained that a dry hydrant was only active upon hook up by the fire department which pulled
water into the piping.
Josh Alexander spoke to the board. He explained that the water would be captured during"free river"a
time when there was no call on water rights. They were allowed to capture and retain water during these periods.
37
07/22/2014
They hoped to be able to fill in the spring and fall, otherwise they would supplement by buying and trucking water
in. In the future,they hoped to try to supplement their water rights. They would like to use surface water as much
as possible. They believed they'll need 500 gallons a day—they had 1,000,000 gallons stored,which would last a
full year even considering evaporation. Their historic water right did not allow storage of water. For this reason
they would fill their pond during"free river"periods.
Chairman Ryan asked Mr.Alexander what he thought about the hours of operation limitations.
Mr. Alexander explained that when first developing the plan they were trying to be super sensitive to any
potential impacts. He felt that it would be better for taking care of the operation and would be preferable for the
family to be able to take care of the plants during hours outside of the 8—5 periods.
Chairman Ryan understood the need for this type of restriction in other more dense areas,but didn't feel
these necessary in such a rural and dispersed development area.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked if the applicant planned more development on the property.
Mr. Alexander stated that they had no intent on adding any additional structures. They believed they could
make this operation feasible with surface rights.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry wondered about the email from Adam Palmer and the owner's response.
Mr. Green stated that in looking at this as an agricultural issue related to Eco Build it would have been
difficult to meet the points required. The Eco build staff had informed the application about thermal mass walls,
solar use and natural light use. They believed it would be a passively efficient project but it would be almost
impossible to meet the points required by Eco build due to the agricultural/horticultural operation.
Mr. Alexander indicated that the entire greenhouses were vented and according to the engineers the
ambient temperature would never exceed 7 degrees more than outside temperature. The wind would also provide
cross ventilation.
Commissioner Fisher wondered about light at night.
Mr. Alexander explained that there would be one single 100 watt light bulb in green to light the
greenhouses for emergency night time access.
Chairman Ryan opened public comment.
Elena McNulty spoke to the board. She felt that the whole thing was very negative. The water was an
issue as her father bought her ranch and she platted the area and built the homes. She showed the covenants and it
broke the covenants with Ten Peaks. She felt there was not enough water. There was the responsibility to water
the fields. They would need to buy water frequently. It went against the home-sites for families. The drug
business was not appropriate. The water rights were for irrigating fields. This was home for deer, elk, eagles and
polluting with smell of marijuana was not good. This area should be used for good wholesome living.
Gideon Murray an operator of a dispensary and manufacturer of infused products in Aspen spoke. He was
very interested in doing something in Eagle County. He wondered what defined the visibility of a grow operation
from the community and whether this could be duplicated on another piece of property.
Mr. Hunn responded that the standards required when a facility was visible, screening be provided.
Mr.Murray was fascinated by the concept.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about the covenants on the property.
Mr. Alexander stated that the covenants had not been legally recorded,nor were they bound to them on the
property.
Ms. Ayers—Oliver stated that she was not aware of covenants on the property but the county did not
enforce private subdivision covenant compliance. This would not factor into the decision making process.
Commissioner Chandler—Henry asked about the variance on the dual access on the road. She doesn't
think it fit with the conditions. She compared the standards with the conditions. She requested the addition of the
intent for public use of the dry hydrant as a public benefit.
Ms. Ayers—Oliver stated that the board could authorize variations to various limitations on site
development standards, one of which was the request for a variance to dual access. The board in granting a
variance must find that the special use achieves one of the purposes..
Commissioner Chandler—Henry felt it achieved public facilities. She questioned the hours of operation.
Her tendency was to treat it as an agricultural operation. The annual report and check in would suffice. She did not
find it was consistent with the comprehensive plan and appreciated Ms.McNulty's comments. The county has
chosen to treat this as an agricultural crop requiring a Special Use Permit. She believed it was compatible with the
area and in compliance with the zone district minimizing adverse impact.
38
07/22/2014
Commissioner Fisher wondered what would happen in really dry years. She referred to the"free water"
and being at the bottom of the hill, wondered how they could count on adequate water.
Mr. Alexander responded that the pond would only be filled with free water and on very dry years water
could be trucked in. His father would simply bring daily water to the property if the pond could not accommodate
the watering needs. In the long term there was the potential for his well to supply the 500 gallons needed each day.
A residence would use 5 or 6 times the water as a use by right.
Commissioner Fisher stated that growing marijuana was going to happen somewhere in the county.
Mr. Alexander's intent was to try to be responsible and they were praying for snow for the next 5 years.
Commissioner Fisher stated that there was a use by right on the property as well.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry spoke about a letter from Bill Hardy about addresses being the same.
Mr. Hunn stated that the applicant was working with Sean Hanagan to resolve the issue.
Chairman Ryan agreed that it was compatible with surrounding uses as an agricultural use. The design
minimized adverse impacts. It met the cultivation standards and the variance request standard met the purpose due
to the pond for wildfire protection for the neighborhood. She agreed with removing condition 4 but adding
verbiage on wildfire mitigation.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve file number ZS-4799/Special Use Permit,
incorporating staff's findings and conditions as amended. These conditions are necessary to ensure that the
proposed use will not adversely impact the public,health, safety, and welfare; so that the proposed use is attuned
with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and so that the proposed use is in compliance
with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the associated request for a variance from improvement
standards for dual access because the special use permit achieves the purposes of creating public facilities, and that
the granting of the variance is necessary for those purposes to be achieved,
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business before the 71 ( 4-; " 'ng was adjourned until J ly • 414.*1,/
Attest: co<oRwo° /I -
Clerk to the Board C/zirman
16 Li . , -L1.j V -
39
07/22/2014