Loading...
Minutes 10/28/14 PUBLIC HEARING October 28, 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 Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Ryan stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of October 27,2014 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis, Finance 2. Approval of Payroll for November 13,2014(Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 3. Early Head Start Corrective Action Plan for Eagle County Health and Human Services Maggie Swonger,Human Services 4. Resolution 2014-087 Approving the Amendment of Resolution No. 2014-077: Approval of the Special Use Permit for Operation of the Oldcastle Fairgrounds Gravel Pit Bob Narracci,Planning 5. Resolution 2014-088 Concerning an Appointment to the Eagle Cemetery Board Bryan Treu,Attorney's Office 6. State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Wildlife Grant Agreement with Eagle County for the Gypsum to Dotsero Trail Asphalt Project Ellie Caryl,ECO Trails 7. Environment Review Form(Exhibit IV-B)between Eagle County and State of Colorado to Release Community Development BlockGrant Funds Tori Franks, Housing 8. Contract between State of Colorado and Eagle County Regarding the Grant Funds Awarded to Eagle County for a Colorado Division of Housing Roaring Fork Valley Down Payment Assistance Program Tori Franks,Housing 9. Agreement between Eagle County, State of Colorado and the Garfield Housing Authority for a Down Payment Assistance Grant from the Colorado Division of Housing Tori Franks, Housing 10. Plat for Minor Type B Subdivision to Subdivide Unit C-303 into Unit C-303 A and Unit C-303 B (Eagle County File No. SMB-5170) Kris Valdez,Planning 1 10/28/2014 Ellie Caryl provided an update on the Gypsum to Dotsero trail project. Grant funds would be used for the last section of the 2.3 mile project. The trail would connect the Town of Gypsum to the lava flow in Dotsero. The trail also connected to three river access sites. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for October 28,2014, as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Greg Phillips with the Eagle County Regional Airport introduced the new Administrative Manager, Erin Mercer. Today was also the all chamber mixer from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. pm inside the terminal. He encouraged everyone from the valley to visit. Citizen Input Chairman Ryan opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Business Items 11. Resolution 2014-089 Releasing Letter of Credit No. 827-0397 for Construction in the Public Way Permit No. 8453: Jeff Armistead do Mountain Builders Mike Horvath,Engineering Mr. Horvath stated that the letter of credit was for$2,000, collateral for permit number 8453. Work was performed in the fall of 2012 in Singletree. He inspected the site in October,2014, after the two year warranty period and everything looked satisfactory. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution releasing letter of credit no. 827-0397 for construction in the public way permit number 8453: Jeff Armistead do Mountain Builders. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 12. Final Settlement of Contract between Eagle County and Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. for the 2014 Overlay Project Gordon Adams,Road and Bridge Mr. Adams stated that the agreement was fairly straight forward. The project was on Edwards Village Boulevard and Homestead Drive in the Edwards area. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the final settlement of contract between Eagle County and Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. for the 2014 Overlay Project. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 13. Amendment No. One to Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County and Reilly Johnson Architecture, Inc.Regarding the Detention Center Remodel Rick Ullom, Project Management Mr.Ullom stated that the amendment was for the design development for work at the detention facility. The original agreement was within the purchasing guidelines, $11,600. This agreement was for$30,500,which required commissioner approval. Construction would begin in March and was an 8 to 12 week project. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the amendment no. one to agreement for professional services between Eagle County and Reilly Johnson Architecture, Inc. regarding the detention center remodel. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 10/28/2014 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. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Renewals 14. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Arrowhead Alpine Club #04-51098-0005 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards(Arrowhead). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year.All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 15. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Trappers Cabin #04-51098-0001 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 1 Opt. Premise on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 16. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Beano's Cabin #04-51099-0005 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 1 Opt. Premise on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year.All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 17. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Allie's Cabin #04-51098-0001 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 3 Opt.Premises on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 18. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant #04-51099-0001 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 2 Opt. Premises on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An. Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 19. Beaver Creek Food Services,Inc. d/b/a Toscanini #04-51099-0015 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 1 Opt. Premise in the Beaver Creek Plaza. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 20. Ski Resort Concepts,LLC d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill #02-87163-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 21. High Country Pizza,LLC d/b/a Local Joes Pizza #42-72643-0000 3 10/28/2014 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards(Riverwalk). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 22. WVR Colorado,LLC d/b/a Terrace-Black Diamond Bistro #28-72258-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 23. Delite&Bowl,LLC d/b/a Delite&Bowl #47-02524-0000 Renewal of a Beer and Wine License in Edwards(Riverwalk). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 24. Feather Petroleum Company d/b/a Stop N Save No 18 #04-41335-0016 Renewal of a 3.2%Beer Off Premises License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. 25. Gashouse,Inc. d/b/a Gashouse Restaurant #04-66775-0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year.All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for October 28,2014,as presented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Liquor Business 26. Special Event Permit-The Literacy Project APPLICANT: The Literacy Project REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: Los Posadas Holiday Celebration DATE: Sunday,December 7, 2014 REPRESENTATIVES: Colleen Gray, Literacy Project and Jen Radueg,NRC LOCATION: Eagle River Center—0794 Fairground Road, Eagle STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for a Holiday Celebration being held at the Eagle River Center on December 7 from 11:00 am to 7:00 pm. The celebration will feature live music, food,retail vendors, and kids' activities. Beer(cans)will be available for purchase. Security guards will be stationed at entrance/exits and will be checking ID's at the bar area. The applicant hopes to attract 1000 attendees. STAFF FINDINGS: 4 10/28/2014 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises October 17, 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 proof of server training, an alcohol management plan,and notified the Eagle County Sheriffs Department. CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Holi Snyder with NRC was present. This was a new event for them. A lot of their listeners had asked that they do a holiday event. The Literacy Project had been a good partner. Colleen Gray with the Literacy Project stated that they were going into their 25`h year. They serve adults that have low literacy skills and students that want to work on their English as a second language skill. They also have a middle school program that work on a one on one basis. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked Ms. Gray for the services provided by the Literacy Project. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the event theme. She believed it was a great opportunity to celebrate the holidays in a traditional way. She believed the two organizations did a phenomenal job reaching out to the Spanish speaking community. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Literacy Project event being held at the Eagle River Center,December 7,2014, 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. 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. 27. Special Event Permit-Hospice of the Valley,Inc. APPLICANT: Hospice of the Valley, Inc. REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: "Trees of Hospice"Fundraiser DATE: Wednesday-December 3,2014 REPRESENTATIVE: Monica Benderly LOCATION: Colorado Mountain College— 150 Miller Ranch Rd, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for an event being held at the Colorado Mountain College Campus in Edwards on, December 3,2014 from 4:00 to 8:30 pm. The applicant expects 100 attendees. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order,all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises October 17, 2014,at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 5 10/28/2014 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training, an alcohol management plan, and notified the Eagle County Sheriff's Department. CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Monica Benderly stated that the event was free and open to the public. The event was essentially a memorial service to the families that have had a loved one pass on. Handmade ornaments may be purchased at the event. Commissioner Fisher stated that this was the 25th Hospice Tree of Lights. The event started in Vail Village and had been held outside the county building for a number of years. It was a beautiful gathering and a way to honor people. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked Ms. Benderly for her services in the valley. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for Hospice of the Valley event being held at the Colorado Mountain College Campus in Edwards on December 3, 2014 from 4:00 pm to 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. 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. 28. Special Event Permit-The Youth Foundation APPLICANT: The Youth Foundation REQUEST: Special Events Permit EVENT: 7th Annual Eagle-Vail Turkey Trot DATE OF THE EVENT: November 27, 2014 REPRESENTATIVE: Kristin Morgan, Event Manger LOCATION: Eagle-Vail Community Pool—450 Eagle Rd., Avon STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for the 8th Annual Eagle-Vail Turkey Trot being held at the Eagle- Vail Community Pool on Thursday,November 27, 2014(Thanksgiving Day). Alcoholic beverages will be available to persons over 21 years of age following the trot. All drinks are complementary. Food service will include bagels and cream cheese, fruit, cookies, and granola bars. Lonestar Security Company will provide event security. The applicant expects approximately 800 attendees. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has submitted all the required documents and associated fees for the permit. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on October 17, 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 proof of server training, an alcohol management plan,and notified the Eagle County Sheriff's Department. 6 10/28/2014 CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Kristin Morgan stated that the event was held annually and they expected 800 attendees this year, dependent upon the weather. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Ms.Morgan to talk about the mission of the Youth Foundation. Ms. Morgan stated that the Youth Foundation served children from early childhood through to college scholarships. They served about 3,800 students in Eagle County currently. All of the programs were free. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Youth Foundation's 8th Annual Eagle-Vail Turkey Trot being held at the Eagle-Vail Community Pool on November 27, 2014 from*8:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. 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 to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 29. AFP-4873 Beaver Creek Subdivision,Lot 10,Filing 2 Sean Hanagan,Planning Isom&Associates,Applicant Steve Isom,Representative Tabled from September 23,2014 Action: The intent of this Amended Final Plat is to amend the Building Envelope for Lot 10,Filing 2 of the Beaver Creek Subdivision by reconfiguring the plated envelope onto a different shape and location on the lot while maintaining the current square footage of 5,850 square feet.This new proposed configuration would allow for an addition to the residence. Location: 63 Elk Tract Court,Edwards Area Reference: Staff Report in September 23, 2014 Meeting Minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM:Sean Hanagan DATE: October 22, 2014 RE: Amended Final Plat AFP-4873 Beaver Creek Lot 10 At the September 23rd hearing,the Board requested additional information on the following topics: 1) The Board tabled the file to allow time for the applicant to memorialize on the plat the restricted height of the addition associated with the amended building envelope. The new Plat Note(#9)reads as follows; 7 10/28/2014 "The addition created by this amended Building Envelope cannot be taller than one (1)story and the highest point of the new roof structure cannot exceed the height of the existing residence which is elevation 8,333.6 feet based on invert elevation of 8,280.3 for sewer MH 0020 in Beaver Creek." Staff believes that this additional plat note satisfies the intent to memorialize the agreement between both parties and therefore proposes the following motion; DISCUSSION: Commissioner Fisher recused herself as she didn't attend the first hearing. Mr. Hanagan stated that the board heard the file on September 23rd and tabled the filed to allow for an additional plat note to be added that would restrict the height of the addition and that was agreeable to all parties. The plat map had been approved by the adjacent property owners,the county attorney's office and staff. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if staff had received a letter from the adjacent property owner. Mr.Hanagan stated that he had a copy of an email that would be included as part of the file. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve file AFP-4873 Beaver Creek Lot 10 with no conditions. Chairman Ryan seconded the motion.The vote was declared unanimous. Other Special Recognition—Keith Montag Site Visit RFSC, LLC Marijuana Cultivation Facility Special Use Permit 421 Upper Cattle Creek Rd. 8 Miles North of El Jebel Tract 3,Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision Planning File El Jebel Community Center 20 Eagle County Drive El Jebel, Colorado 30. ZS-4960 RFSC,LLC Marijuana Cultivation Facility Special Use Permit Scot Hunn,Planning Robert Holmes,Applicant Chris Green,Representative Action: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to operate a marijuana cultivation facility, inclusive of up to two (2)4000 sq. ft. greenhouse structures, as well as ancillary buildings and improvements for storage, processing and drying of cannabis crops on 44.acres zoned Resource in unincorporated Eagle County.No manufacturing of infused produces or testing of cannabis is proposed with this application. Location: 421 Upper Cattle Creek Road; Tract 3.Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision, accessed via Upper Cattle Creek Road. 8 10/28/2014 HEARING DATE: October 28, 2014 FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4960/Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: RFSC LLC Marijuana Cultivation Facility LOCATION: 8 miles North of El Jebel; Tract 3,Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision OWNER: Robert Holmes,Peter Tramm APPLICANT: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Green,AGO Studio STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn,AICP STAFF ENGINEER: Greg Schroeder RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Request and Process The Applicant proposes a marijuana cultivation facility consisting of two (2) 4,000 square foot greenhouse structures, and up to 6,000 square feet a a of storage, propagation, drying, curing and packaging facilities on Tract 3, Pleasant Valley "'":;;\ Ranch Subdivision, a 44 acre parcel located the g �r ` Resource Zone District near the Eagle-Garfield " � .. county line. The proposed footprint of the facility is approximately 1.3 acres, or 60,800 square feet; this � represents approximately 3.1%of the total land area of Tract 3. "Marijuana Cultivation Facilities" in the Resource i,�. Zone District require a special use permit in G addition to local and state licensing. Additionally, as provided for within Section 5-250, C. - Variations Authorized, ECLURs (p. 5-55), the Applicant re q uests a variation to improvement or standards for dual access to and from the site as part of the special use permit review. �� '' r _ arcel 1 ;rm-'11402 � [�.�y� tgf 4 C2:11'""""' i �4 ��... 7� f1 AxwiYam��r Staff is recommending approval with conditions �-'-. • `"'�" n for the Special Use request, as well as approval of the requested variation. Likewise, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission reviewed the file on October 2°d and 16th and ultimately voted unanimously to recommend approval of both requests,with conditions. 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). 9 10/28/2014 • 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 whether to permit cultivation operations in the County's three most-rural zone districts was the goal of encouraging appropriately scaled cultivation operations (and any associated odors or other potential impacts) in settings where ample buffering distances are more likely to be provided as a result of large lot zoning. 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 cultivation 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 substantial 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 The following sections of this report provide a brief background regarding the request(s),referral agency responses, 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. 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. BACKGROUND& SITE DATA: Proposal Overview The Applicant owns Tract 3, a 44 acre parcel of land located within Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision upon which the proposed facility will be located. The Applicant also owns adjacent and/or nearby parcels of land(Tracts 1, 7 & 8)within Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision. Tract 3 is bordered by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 4(Alexander Co. Cultivation SUP) to the north; by Upper Cattle Creek Road to the south; Tract 8 (vacant) to the west, and; by Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision, Lot 9 (vacant) to the east. 10 10/28/2014 :747-1,r,otrcly. u / 17 ` Pi r " 41 € . try r ;. r' ! q 7r aura V >? ? s ,r « 107e 4 #yY t. 1 a Tx'SY N `� " rn 11 raw #,Zo-r a PA,.r°x r# "" a t.. 'e... 47. ! +. "4.4,"f r,* ],:,.✓+r. d° .x r .._ttt 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, but without county review) via land survey plat in 2003. Portions of the subdivision(and a small portion of Tract 3) are located within Garfield County. Pleasant Valley Ranch is accessed via Upper Cattle Creek Road, a"Rural Collector"as well as by a private access road—Pleasant Valley Ranch Road/Ten Peaks Mesa Road— which provide privately maintained access to Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision and Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: All lots within Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision as well as surrounding lands within Eagle County are zoned Resource. The facility is proposed generally in the middle of Tract 3 (see attached site plans and subdivision layout), and will be provided two access points to Pleasant Valley Ranch Road (also known as Ten Peaks Mesa Road), a private access road connecting to Upper Cattle Creek Road. The Applicant has shown two potential site plans in anticipation of the project location shifting slightly depending on sub-surface (pumice) conditions. In either scenario, staff believes the project can be designed and constructed to meet standards and maintain rural character. Tract 3 is bifurcated by the Eagle-Garfield County line, although the majority of this 44 acre parcel is located on the Eagle County side of the line; as such,the site design shows the entirety of the 1.3 acre development located on the Eagle County side of that line, but with some amount of disturbance (grading for a new driveway, pond and associated landscaping) and re-vegetation occurring within Garfield County. Note: This application was referred to three separate departments within the Garfield County Government— Planning, Road and Bridge, and the Garfield County Sheriff's Office. Staff did not receive a response from any of these departments. Any site work or other improvements occurring within Garfield County may require review and permitting through Garfield County. According to the application, the facility will consist of two (2) greenhouse structures, along with a barn and small accessory buildings for storage,propagation of young plants, drying, curing, 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 along with a small parking area for employees. 11 10/28/2014 Each greenhouse is proposed at 4,000 square feet. The total square footage proposed for greenhouse cultivation will be 8,000 square feet. The total footprint (total site disturbance) proposed for the project is 1.3 acres, or approximately 3.1 percent of the total acreage. The total building footprint (greenhouses, barn and other ancillary structures is estimated at 14,000 square feet. The Applicant proposes to construct a 1.5 million gallon augmentation pond on the Garfield County side of Tract 3. This pond will store water to be used in the cultivation facility operations, and, importantly, will serve Tract 3 and potentially the surrounding neighborhood with critical firefighting capacity in the event of a wildfire. No hours of operation are proposed, but the application states, "There will be approximately four employees working an eight to ten hour day seven days a week." Further, the application provides a basic overview of security measures proposed, inclusive of fencing around the site, security cameras, and monitoring of alarms and motion detectors by a private security company. Such details will be required and approved by the State of Colorado Department of Revenue(Marijuana Enforcement Division) as a part of the Applicant's state application. The Applicant intends to start construction of the access driveways and the facility as soon as all necessary local approvals and permits have been obtained. Review Timeline and Issues This request was formally submitted on or around June, 2014. However, the Applicant has been meeting with representatives from Eagle County and other local entities for approximately the last six months 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-four (24) different public, quasi-public and private organizations, for review over a 21 day period, with only three entities (the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Division, or "CPW", the Colorado Historical Society, and the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District) providing formal, substantive responses to the referral. Of those responses, only CPW's recommendations for design and mitigation within the project resulted in any substantive(recommended)conditions of approval. Impacts and Tradeoffs Potential negative impacts to the environment and community include the elimination or reduction of capacity of mapped 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 could be weighed against: 1) Similar or greater potential for impacts generated from uses `by right' within the Resource Zone District; 2) The potential benefits to the local community and economy resulting from the special use, and; 3) The proposal's overall conformance to applicable goals and policies of Eagle County Government and specific Area Community Plans such as the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan. Special Use vs.Uses `By-Right' For example, Tract 3 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 or impervious coverage) along with a caretaker unit (accessory dwelling unit), dwellings for bona fide ranch hands, 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. This is not to say that the property owner could not apply for a building permit for a single-family home on the same property in the future. Development of Tract 3 is not an `either-or' proposition. 12 10/28/2014 However, staff has provided this comparison to illustrate the relative compatibility and impact of the proposed use, regardless of whether the property is ever used for residential purposes. Traffic Impacts Likewise, although the total projected number of employees (4-6 full and part-time employees according to the application) 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 (average of 10 vehicle trips per day,per the International Traffic Engineers manual) and potential Accessory Dwelling Unit,both of which are uses `by right', it could be argued that traffic impacts from the proposal will be equal to, or less than those already permitted via zoning(See memo from Greg Schroeder dated October 9, 2014 for more detailed analysis). Incidentally, the review process for this request as well as a recently approved proposal for cultivation by a neighboring property, revealed 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 that are believed to benefit the larger neighborhood. Wildlife Concerns Eagle County— via the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan - places a high value minimizing impacts from development on land resources through design while promoting the economic, cultural and social goals through the continuance of agriculture and open space uses in rural areas of the county. Related goals for protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat act to direct development away from sensitive or hazardous land forms, water bodies and critical wildlife habitats. In this regard, staff suggests that the Applicant's proposed project is in substantial conformance with the master plans considered in this review due to its: 1) Limited size and scope; 2) Potential to maintaining rural, agricultural economies and lifestyles; 3) Placement,and; 4) Design and mitigating features specific to protection of wildlife. 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' rural residential and agricultural uses in the area. Based on the above analysis, as well as referral agency comments 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 developrrient on a limited portion of the parcel), staff finds that the proposal meets a preponderance of required findings for approval as summarized below. III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission held two hearings on the matter of the Special Use request as well as the Variation from improvement standards. At their regular meeting of October 2,2014,the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission voted to table the review of the RFSC LLC Marijuana Cultivation Special Use Permit application to October 16, 2014. Upon voting to continue the file, the Commission requested that the Applicant provide additional information and/or analysis regarding the following: 1. Traffic 13 10/28/2014 2. Sanitary(wastewater)Disposal Details and Code Requirements 3. Wildlife Impacts(associated with a proposed pond to be constructed in Garfield County) 4. Detailed Grading, Erosion Control and Re-vegetation Plans Traffic The Planning Commission members questioned the estimated traffic or trip generation numbers and requested that the Applicant provide more detailed explanation of proposed number of employees, trips and deliveries. The Applicant subsequently provided additional information which was reviewed by Greg Schroeder(see transmittal by Chris Green and a response from Greg Schroeder verifying that Eagle County Engineering has no issues with the estimates or the methods used to calculate trip generation). Sanitary Disposal Details and Code Requirements This issue was brought forth by a commission member who believed that the development would eventually be required to provide indoor, plumbed bathrooms and, therefore, full-blown Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (septic and leach field) based on the type of construction. While such details are typically provided and discussed during a building permit process, the Applicant agreed to provide further research into relevant codes/code sections to demonstrate that this development will not trigger any requirement for indoor, heated/conditioned sanitary facilities or OWTS; that the Applicant's proposal to use portable toilet facilities and hand washing stations for employees will be adequate. Wildlife As detailed in a memo addressed to the RFVRPC from staff, dated October 8, 2014 (attached), staff directed the Applicant to not respond to additional questions or concerns regarding wildlife. After discussing the issue and the request by one Planning Commission member to have the Applicant (and the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Division) address wildlife safety with regard to the proposed storage pond, staff determined that such request was not appropriate (considering the proposal, including details for the pond, had already been reviewed by CPW) or germane (considering the pond is proposed within Garfield County jurisdiction). Nevertheless, an officer from the CPW was at the October 16th hearing and testified that the pond (and any associated pond "covers" to mitigate evaporation) may pose impacts to area wildlife. That same officer followed-up with information for the Applicant to use in designing the pond and in mitigating any potential for harm to wildlife that might be attracted to the pond. Detailed Grading,Erosion Control and Re-Vegetation Plans Two commission members were concerned that the Applicant had not provided enough detail on plans with regard to grading, drainage, erosion control, and re-vegetation for the site. Staff advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant had, in staff's opinion, provided a more than adequate amount of detail for the purposes of Special Use Review and for the Variation request; that such details are either not required (in the case of drainage and detention), or will be provided in greater, final detail, with any building and/or grading permit application. Therefore,the Applicant was advised to not respond to such request. During their regular meeting of October 16, 2014, the Planning Commission discussed the additional information provided by the Applicant. There was brief testimony from Taylor Elm, CPW and Greg Schroeder. After brief deliberation, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Special Use request as well as the Variation, with conditions. The Commission specifically approved of staff's recommended conditions, but did recommend modifying condition number four to specifically require the Applicant to address potential wildlife issues associated with the pond construction. IV. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this application, with conditions. Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned 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. 14 10/28/2014 Special Use Standards Specifically, the following excerpts from Section 5-250 B — Standards, 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 improvement standards 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): 1. 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 strageties. 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: 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 design and scale of the proposed use will have 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, staff suggests that the project has been designed specifically to minimize any adverse impacts to the subject property, the 15 10/28/2014 surrounding area, residents and wildlife populations. Staff has recommended a condition of approval requesting that the Applicant continue to work with the CPW to mitigate any potential wildlife impacts to the highest degree possible within the scope of the project. 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 as a result of development of approximately 1.3 acres of Tract 3,the project—the greenhouse, barn and site layout-has been designed to limit the overall amount of disturbance of the site, and to reduce the amount of energy needed to operate the facility by maximizing thermal mass and solar orientation (orienting the greenhouse structures from east to west across the site to capture sunlight efficiently). Further, the bulk, mass and architectural intent of each structure acts to protect scenic resources by either maintaining low, utilitarian profile (the greenhouse structures), or furthering the design of a traditional agricultural building(the barn). 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. The public facilities and/or services impacted will be 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 Sheriffs offices, as well as the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. The Applicant 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. It is expected that traffic generation from the use will be minimal; potentially less than that generated from a residential use. 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.No signs are proposed(or permitted)with this type of special use request. 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, ECLURs. 16 10/28/2014 Cultivation Standards In addition to the standards listed above, cultivation facilities within the Resource Zone District must also meet the following standards specific to the cultivation of marijauna. Below is a summary of the standards and staff's response to how such standards have been, or can be,met. Section 3-310 F.f—Marijuana Cultivation,Manufacturinji or Testinjit 1. Separation Requirements: separation distances of at least 200 feet between the proposed use and the next nearest single-family residential structure have been met. 2. Minimum Lot Size:the parcel meets the minimum lot size(35 acres) for the Resource Zone District; in this case,44 acres. 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(or permitted) on or from the site. 6. Visual Screening: a fencing and landscaping plan has been submitted which, if implemented as proposed, should act to provide visual screening even though the site is not likely visible from public rights-of-way; staff believes that the scale and layout 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 (a new 1.5 million gallon pond) and dual access within the Tract 3 intended to enhance neighborhood firefighting infrastructure. 9. Access: legal access is provided via Pleasant Valley Ranch Road, a privately maintained road. While basic estimates 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. However, the Applicant should be prepared to address how on-site security and, particularly, monitoring by a local security company,will protect the property and the security of neighboring properties. Variation Standards As referenced earlier in this report, the subject property does not have dual access. Such standard is important for fire, life-safety purposes, particularly in areas of the County where wildfire hazards may exist. The private access 17 10/28/2014 road that serves the Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision, as well as the Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision, is classified as a"Rural Cul-de-sac"(Section 4-620. D. 10—Rural Cul-de-sacs,p.4-73, ECLURs). However, as an exempt subdivision (one that was never formally reviewed or approved by Eagle County), the subdivision was never designed or built to meet this particular County standard. Nevertheless, upon making application for a special use on Tract 3, 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 to the landscape), 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,which states: "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. (am 05/08/12) 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 18 10/28/2014 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 ca 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. 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. S. 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 granting of the requested variation will provide incentives for 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 intends to construct a 1.5 million gallon pond on lands owned by the Applicant. Such pond will serve 19 10/28/2014 as the primary augmentation for water use within the property, but will also serve an important secondary function for firefighting(infrastructure)capacity. As noted above, staff believes the requested variation 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 commit to providing 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 so choses to approve 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 only the second property owner in Eagle County to apply for a marijuana cultivation facility Special Use Permit in a rural zone district since enactment of the revised regulations allowing for such use. To this end, the Applicant and their representative have been in meetings with Eagle County staff for the previous six-eight months for the purpose of first understanding the regulatory environment, and, then 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 Wildfire Mitigation to identify and resolve regulatory and code-related issues—prior to submitting an application. Of note, the Applicant and their representative have met 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 Lovgren) 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 incorporated suggested conditions from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department (CPW)into the design of certain project elements with the intent 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, while there may be impacts to 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 rural character of the area. Recommendation: Approval Based upon a thorough analysis of the proposal—by county staff and key external agencies-staff is recommending approval of the request. Specifically, 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 as well as for the granting of a Variation to Improvement Standards. 20 10/28/2014 However, because this would be only the second 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 FLUM 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." 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, and; access, emergency response and wildfire mitigation planning recommendations by the County and the Basalt and Regional Fire Protection District. V. SUGGESTED MOTION(S)AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Proposed Special Use Motion&Conditions Should the Board wish to approve the special use request,the following language can be used: "I hereby move to approve File No. ZS-4960, incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions, because the proposed uses meet all of the standards for approval of a special use permit. The proposed uses will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed uses are attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed uses are in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan." Should the Board wish to deny the special use request,the following language can be used: "I hereby move to deny File No. ZS-4960 because the proposed uses do not meet the standards for issuance of a special use permit. The proposed uses will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed uses are not attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed uses are not in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and/or the Comprehensive Plan." 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, 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. 21 10/28/2014 3. The Applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan with any building or grading permit application. 4. 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. 5. The Applicant shall successfully apply for and obtain any and all state and local licensing required for the cultivation of marijuana (Cultivation License) for the cultivation facility prior to commencing any cultivation activities. 6. 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. 7. The Applicant shall provide a detailed grading plan, showing existing and proposed grades, as well as proposed limits of disturbance, drainage and erosion control measures for the site prior to or concurrent with any grading and/or building permit application. 8. The Applicant shall provide final details regarding pond construction and any dry-hydrants, or other firefighting infrastructure to be provided on the site, along with a schedule of anticipated construction of the pond and firefighting infrastructure, prior to or concurrent with the application for any building or grading permits associated with the cultivation facility. Proposed Variation Motions Should the Board wish to approve the Variation from Improvement Standards request, the following language can be used: "I hereby move to approve the variation to improvement standards for Dual Access as part of the review and approval of the accompanying special use request (Eagle County File No. ZS-4960), and incorporating those conditions of approval applicable to the Variation request, because the proposed variation Special Use Permit achieves the incentive for the Applicant to develop public facilities or private commercial facilities which will provide a public benefit." Should the Board wish to deny the Variation from Improvement Standards request, the following language can be used: "I hereby move to approve the variation to improvement standards for Dual Access as part of the review and approval of the accompanying special use request (Eagle County File No. ZS-4960), and incorporating those conditions of approval applicable to the Variation request, because the proposed variation does not achieve one (1) or more of the purposes outlined in Section 5-250.D—Basis for Granting Variations, ECLURs." VI. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-four (24) agencies for review on July 24, 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: Colorado Parks& Wildlife(Letter from Perry Will&Email from Taylor Elm): The parcel is located within the mule deer and elk winter ranges, as well as"severe elk winter range". 22 10/28/2014 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. Email from Taylor Elm regarding pond construction and protection of wildlife(10/17/14): - Maintain 4:1 slope, or install wildlife escape ramps for wildlife to escape the pond if necessary. Utilize wildlife friendly pond covering to prevent entrapment; or redesign pond. Plant native,riparian species for habitat around pond. See condition(s):4 Colorado DNR, Water Resources Division (Ivan Franco): The applicant proposes to provide water to the site by storing water in an on-lot pond for irrigation throughout the year. There is no information on how water will be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes at the site, or how waste water from the site would be managed. There is also no estimate of the total annual volume of water required at the facility. - This office has no record of any existing water wells being located on the property, and the applicant has not indicated that any exist on the lot. - The C&L Highline Ditch runs through the property and has been historically used to irrigate the majority of the lot, including the lands where the proposed marijuana cultivation facility would be located. However, the applicant does not intend on utilizing the C&L Highline right to provide irrigation water to the proposed greenhouses during the irrigation season. Rather, the C&L Highline ditch would be used to divert water under periods of free river to fill a proposed on-lot pond. - It is likely that during most years, but not all, water would be available for this use. It is unclear in the applicant's proposal what the actual storage capacity of the pond would be and whether the total storage would be adequate to supply all uses. - The applicant also describes future plans to provide water to the site by constructing a non-exempt well on the property. In order for such a well to be permitted by this office, the applicant would need to be included in a water court decreed plan for augmentation for all intended uses. The applicants plan to construct an on-lot pond filling from the C&L Highline Ditch during periods of free river is a potentially adequate water supply, however the following supplemental information should be provided prior to a favorable review by this office. o The applicant should provide information regarding the source and quantity of drinking/sanity water that will be used at the facility o Provide an estimate of total irrigation water supply required at the greenhouse facility o Describe whether the remainder of the property would continue to be irrigated with the C&L Highline Ditch right o Describe whether the remainder of the property would continue to be irrigated with the C&L Highline Ditch right 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. 23 10/28/2014 - There remains a possibility that historic and/or prehistoric resources may exist on the property which resources maybe affected by the project; if found during construction,please adhere to state law. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District(Bill Harding): - The access provided to and within the site is"acceptable." - The proposed water supply and storage will "more than meet" water requirements for firefighting; the District requests that a dry hydrant assembly be installed in conjunction with the pond construction. - Structures constructed within the facility may be required to meet "F-Occupancy," or factory occupancy ratings as part of building permit plan submittal. - The proposed structures will not require sprinklers; the plan is compliant with the Fire Code. - Addresses for Tract(s) 3, 4 (Alexander Property) and the entirety of the Pleasant Valley Ranch and Ten Peaks Mesa subdivisions will need to be rectified working with the property owners, the District, Garfield County and Eagle County. VII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. ZS-4960] 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-4960] if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table [File No. ZS-4960] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. APPENDIX `A' 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] 24 10/28/2014 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 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, overall grading and disturbance (cutting and filling) has been minimized, while the orientation of the structures maximizes solar access to capture more of the sun's energy for cultivation (reducing the amount of electrical energy needed to power the facility). Staff 25 10/28/2014 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, could also 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, but may provide a means to maintain a rural, agricultural way of life in this area of the 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 bona fide 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 (property and retail sales tax), 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. 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, staff believes the proposal conforms to this strategy. • Design and locate development to minimize and/or mitigate identified impacts. Staff Response: Although the Eagle-Garfield County lines dictate to a significant degree the location of the proposed facility within Tract 3, staff believes the proposal has been located and designed 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. 26 10/28/2014 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. In this context, staff believes the proposal supports this strategy. • Encourage and help existing businesses to remain vigilant and adaptive to changing economic realities. Staff Response: Both Applicants have established local businesses in Eagle County. The proposed cultivation facility will support those businesses. The facility responds to or "adapts" to changing economic realities related to the policy decision to allow for marijuana cultivation in the Resource Zone District and the creation a new industry. • Explore and pursue opportunities that diverse 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. 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. The design also features wildlife compliant fencing around the facility and dark sky compliant lighting. 27 10/28/2014 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 directly creates 4-6 local jobs and bolsters an existing small business located elsewhere in unincorporated Eagle County. 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 upon their creation, 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 1.5 million gallon pond to serve a secondary firefighting water supply function to increase capacity (infrastructure) that can be used for firefighting on Tract 3 as well as the surrounding community. • 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 (internal circulation, vehicle turn- around/hammerhead design, and the provision of dual access driveways within Tract 3), 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: 28 10/28/2014 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: 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). Staff is of the understanding that the Applicant has addressed the concerns of the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources and, therefore, has demonstrated that there will be legal, physical, adequate and dependable water supply for the cultivation facility. • Promote water conservation. Staff Response: The application summarizes how the operations for cultivation will include water conservation and(water)waste reduction. Policy "c"- Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented. Applicable Recommended Strategies: • Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures. Staff Response: The Applicant is voluntarily(as a matter of best practices for this particular agricultural practice)proposing water conservation techniques and measures. Policy "f"- Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards. Applicable Recommended Strategies: • Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of stormwater runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution. Staff Response: The application shows conceptual level grading, drainage and re-vegetation plans which, if finally designed and implemented properly, should result in the effective control of stormwater runoff— during and after construction - from the facility. Final, detailed designs for grading, drainage and erosion control will be required with any building and/or grading permit application. 29 10/28/2014 Likewise, 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 porta-let serviced on a month basis. 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 1.3 acres of land disturbance; all final 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: • 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. 30 10/28/2014 Staff Response: The proposal does limit disturbance to approximately 3% of the land area of this 44 acre parcel. In context to `by right' uses permitted in this residentially zoned area which do not limit the amount of disturbance, and considering the extent of undisturbed lands surrounding the subject property where mapped habitat is preserved, 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 `f"- 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 3% of the total acreage of Tract 3, with substantial areas of the subject parcel being preserved or maintained in agricultural use. 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. 31 10/28/2014 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: • Identibr 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 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. 32 10/28/2014 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. 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." 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: 33 10/28/2014 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 state. 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 3, Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision)is a 44 acre 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 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 properly vetted and conditioned,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 Applicant, the proposed cultivation facility will not negatively impact rural character in the area. Specifically, the proposed design, bulk, mass and architectural intent 34 10/28/2014 (greenhouse and barn 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 Ranch 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 Applicant, may serve to 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 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 35 10/28/2014 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: 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: 36 10/28/2014 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 can 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. STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2J The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potential Sw'rounding Land Uses 1 Zoning. Comp tibitity' �SSUe� North: gesidprdiattAg, Resource(R) ✓ South: i deptintl, g Resource(R) ✓ East: Resid tiallAg:` Resource(R) ✓ West: ReSideOttottA$4. = = Resource(R) ✓ 37 10/28/2014 Staff Response: The site is bordered by Pleasant Valley Ranch, Tract 4 (Alexander Co. Cultivation SUP) to the north; by Upper Cattle Creek Road to the south; Tract 8 (vacant) to the west, and; by Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision, Lot 9 (vacant) to 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 1000 feet 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 appropriate 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 1000 feet 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. 7. Adequate Water: evidence of adequate water rights has been submitted. Staff is of the understanding that the Applicant has addressed the concerns of the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources and, therefore,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 38 10/28/2014 allowed per month" and the times of such deliveries could be added to enhance the operations plan for the facility. 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.4J 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 or anticipating 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 1.3 acres existing vegetation (grasses and Alfalfa). Therefore, wildlife habitat will also be affected. However, total disturbance (3% of the total acreage of the parcel) represents a comparably small development footprint in comparison to other potential `by right' uses that could otherwise occur on the subject property; there is no limit on the area of the lot that could otherwise be covered by a home, accessory dwelling units,barns and accessory agricultural structures. 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. 39 10/28/2014 STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] 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, respectively), 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. cu w e t $ e Article 4,Site Development Standards e } X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2) 2 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) X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450) 40 10/28/2014 X Environmental Impact Report(Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards(Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration(Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates(Section 4-530) X Heat,Glare,Radiation and Electrical Interference(Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials(Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards(Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards(Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650) 7 X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660) 7 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: Mr.Hunn presented the proposal. The applicant was requesting a special use permit for a marijuana cultivation facility. A site visit took place prior to the meeting. As part of the special use permit the board would also consider a variation to improvement standards, specifically dual access in and out of the subdivision. The proposal was for two 4,000 square foot greenhouses,one 5,000 sq. foot barn and one 1,000 sq. foot storage structure. The location was Tract 3 of the Pleasant Valley Ranch Subdivision. The site was vacant and surrounded by mostly vacant 35 acre lots. The property was for a 44 acre parcel within the resource zone district accessed by Upper Cattle Creek Road. He reviewed the Special Use Standards. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions. He reviewed the marijuana cultivation standards. This was a wholesale operation and all sales would be conducted offsite. Eric Lovgren conducted a wildfire assessment of the property and made some recommendations which would be reviewed during the building permit review process. There were 28 agencies that received referrals for the application, and of those, staff had only heard from the Parks and Wildlife Division and the Division of Water Recourses. Staff believed each of the issues had been adequately addressed. The Parks 41 10/28/2014 • and Wildlife Division provided a fairly comprehensive response letter. They made recommendations about how to mitigate the impacts of any development on this site. The applicant was very proactive in responding to those recommendations. The applicant had senior water rights and was proposing augmentation on the site itself. Access was provided by privately owned road and there was no dual access out of the subdivision. As such,the applicant requested a variation from improvement standards. He reviewed the Planning Commission deliberation and their issues which included traffic, sanitary disposal,impact to wildlife,pond covers, and a detailed grading and erosion control plan. Staff was recommending approval with conditions. Staff believed the project complied with Master Plan policies and goals. The development incorporated and conformed to applicable standards. The applicant had been proactive in addressing referral agency recommendations. There may be impacts to traffic and wildlife but the development was designed to minimize impacts and incorporate solar access and orientation. He introduced Chris Green, Rob Holmes and Pete Tramm. Mr. Green presented a presentation. There had been a fair amount of effort to work with Eagle County Wildfire and Basalt Rural Fire Protection District and Colorado Water Law. They considered all of the standards and provided some detailed responses in the application. The applicant,Pete Tramm,had been involved in helping develop the policies and Rob Holmes provided the business know how. As far as compatibility,the applicant believed the proposal was compatible with the area. This was a small cultivation operation. Commissioner Fisher wondered how much marijuana would be grown and who would be buying the product. She wondered if there were a maximum number of cultivation operations permitted in Eagle County. Mr. Green stated that the number of plants that could be grown in a facility was dictated by the state. He believed the limit was 3,600 for this site. Unless one was well-funded and aware of the cost associated with a grow facility, not everyone could do it. Commissioner Fisher wondered when enough had been grown in the community to supply an appropriate amount of inventory for an appropriate amount of sales within the region. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that based on the current regulations, several people that could apply for a permit but there were some practical issues that came into play from a financial aspect. Each application would be analyzed on a case by case basis. The board did not get involved in supply and demand,perhaps the market would take care of that. Pete Tramm stated that they paid an excise tax for every pound that they produced. He believed that that would be the only way for the county to track the amount grown. Mr. Green stated that in relation to the comprehensive plan,they were proposing full time employment, and good wages. The proposal was an in-basin water use of historic documented irrigation rights. Daylight would be used for the growing of plants. They would have an energy efficient drying and processing building. They would be taking advantage of solar lighting and there would be an efficient use of water. The drying building would have energy efficient envelope with energy efficient ventilation systems. The applicant supported the agricultural use. The applicant worked with the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager and Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District recommendations. The greenhouses would be oriented to take advantage of sunlight. Traffic would be minimal. The lights would be turned off after 7 pm. Security was governed by Colorado Statutes. Landscaping with trees would provide a visual barrier and windbreak. The applicant believed they were meeting the intent and requirements of the Resource Zone,the Comprehensive Plan, and the Mid Valley Community Plan. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Green to talk about the construction of the greenhouse. Mr. Green stated that the greenhouse would have a traditional greenhouse look. The exterior would be a double wall polycarbonate with a steel structure inside. The north wall would be a bit more opaque. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the product would be shipped out from the site. Mr. Green stated that the amount of product to be shipped would most likely be shipped in a UPS size vehicle. More often than not,the product would go out in a truck or van or personal size vehicles. Mr. Schroeder spoke about the traffic study. There would most likely be more traffic during the peak work hours, in the morning and afternoon. The numbers did not trigger any road improvements or hit any thresholds that would cause any problems. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that Parks and Wildlife provided four recommendations and asked the applicant if they had any concerns with meeting their recommendations. Mr. Green stated that they had a good discussion with the Parks and Recreation Department and understood their concerns. Mr.Hunn reviewed the proposed conditions. Chairman Ryan opened public comment. 42 10/28/2014 Elaina McNulty stated that her and her mother sold the property to Ten Peaks Mesa. She was against the proposal and believed it was inappropriate for the area. She read an article from the Aspen Daily News about marijuana grow operations and that local neighborhood caucuses needing to be brought into the land use process as early as possible. She did not believe the property had adequate water. The proposal interrupted the water flow and could affect the surrounding properties. She expressed concern for wildlife as well. The proposal was not real agriculture. Chairman Ryan closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she'd just received an email from a woman who wanted to attend the public hearing and was unable to attend. The woman wondered about the security for the growing operation and was concerned for criminal activity on the property. Mr. Hunn stated that the State required that the site be secure. There may be some possible neighborhood level solutions as well. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked the applicant and staff for the thorough presentation. Her concerns had to do the Parks and Wildlife recommendations and the traffic monitoring. It was up to the applicant to comply with those issues in a responsible manner. The proposal met with the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. She believed the file met all the recommendations in place at this time. Commissioner Fisher stated that she had nothing to add. Chairman Ryan agreed with Commissioner Chandler-Henry that the proposal met the zone standards, adverse impacts,traffic and wildlife, and met the cultivation standards. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve file no. ZS-4960,RFSC LLC Marijuana Cultivation Facility—Special Use Permit incorporating, staff's findings and staff's conditions,because the application as conditioned met all of the standards for approval of a special use permit. The proposed uses will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed uses are attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed uses are in compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the variance from improvement standards for dual access as part of the review and approval of the accompanying special use request, incorporating staff's findings and conditions of approval applicable to the variance request because the proposed special use achieves the purpose of providing incentive for the applicant to develop public facilities which will provide a public benefit and the granting of the variance was necessary for that purpose to be achieved. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ot fP"F There being no further busin-ss befo - ?:. °t : eeting was adjourned until No - .;r 18, 2014. Attest: °toRr:a° Clerk to the Board Ch.' an 43 10/28/2014