Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/18/2000 PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 18, 2000 Present: Tom Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was an "Executive Session". Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn into and "Executive Session" to receive legal advice and determine position relative to the lease of water rights from the Neilson South Ditch; receive legal advice and determine position relative to Alexander J. Allen Trust litigation; receive legal advice regarding offsite road impact fees and school land dedication issues relative to the Two Rivers development; receive legal advice regarding hearing dates under County Regulations for 1041 permits and development applications; receive legal advice regarding Adams Rib, Frost Creek and other related matters. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 8:38 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from the "Executive Session" and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:29 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for weeks of December 18 & 25, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for December 28, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of October 17,2000 D) Investor held Certificates of Purchase to be canceled E) County held Certificates of Purchase to be canceled F) Rudd Construction Contract for construction of the new satellite community building at the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm G) Bi-weekly payroll schedule for 2001 H) Assignment of Certificate of Deposit for Ropir Cablevision, Certificate No. 0263283228 in the amount of $2,000.00 I) Agreement for recycling services between Eagle County and State of Colorado and BPI 1 12-18-2000 Waste Systems of North America, Inc. J) Resolution 2000-179, Establishing Regular Public Meeting Days for The Eagle County Commissioners K) Resolution 2000-180 Concerning Appointments of the Colorado River Water Conservation District Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there was anything needing to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated there are a number of contracts with Zerox which were set up by the vendor and require Bill Lopez, Director ofInformation Technologies, signature. The Board can either authorized Mr. Lopez to sign those or change it for the Board to sign. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated these contracts were due previously and he gave authorization for Mr. Lopez to sign them. The Board does needs to radify that action however. Jim Fritze stated there is another contract with MAPMP that also needs to be ratified. Lanie Martin, Information Technologies, was present representing Mr. Lopez. She stated MAPMP, is Major Account Price Maintenance Program. She stated they have not yet received the maintenance schedule and they could resubmit or authorize the Chairman to sign upon receipt. Mr. Ingstad stated they would like the Board to ratify or approve Mr. Lopez' signature on those agreements. He stated they would have missed out on this opportunity to get these as there were only a few available. Chairman Stone stated M, N, and P and will need to be ratified. On 0, it is a little different situation. Commissioner Phillips stated she has corrections to the minutes. On page 2, last paragraph, it says, he will and then it continues on but there is a space. It needs to be moved up. Same is true on page 3 where it starts gravity flows, that also needs to be moved up. On page 45, upper portion it should reads three area plan and should state 3 mile area plan. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the corrections to the minutes as stated, ratifying M, N, and P with 0 receiving approval for signature once the additional information is received. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: AFP-OOI09. Cordillera Subdivision. Filin2 29. Lot 5. An Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to relocate and reconfigure the previously platted building envelope. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate;' b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number AFP -00109, Cordillera 2 12-18-2000 Subdivision, Filing 29, Lot 5, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00259. Berry Creek Ranch. Filin~ No.4. A Re-subdivision of Lot 2. Block 2. A Minor Type B Subdivision, the intent of which is to re-subdivide Lot 2, thereby creating two (2), ~ duplex lots, Lot 2A and Lot 2B. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number SMD-00259, Berry Creek Ranch, Filing No.4, a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, incorporating staff findings and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-181 To Apnrove The Valley View Homes Subdivision Preliminary Plan (Ea~le County File No. SUP-00002). The Board heard this file at its regular meeting on December 4th, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-181, approval of the Valley View Homes Subdivision Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-182 To Approve A Petition To Grant A Variance From The Improvement Standards Established in Section 4-620 and Section 4-630 Of The Ea~le County Land Use Re~ulations For The Red Sky Ranch pun (File No. VIS-0011). The Board considered the Applicant's petition on October 30th, 2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-182 approval of a Petition To Grant A Variance From The Improvement Standards Established in Section 4-620 and Section 4-630 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations For The Red Sky Ranch PUD (File No. VIS-0011). Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-183, Certification of Mill Levies Julie Snyder-Eaton, Finance Department, presented Resolution 2000-183, Certification of the 2001 Mill Levies. She stated she has received all of the certifications for the special districts, cities, towns and education districts. She has compiled that information and the Board has that for their reVIew. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-183, Certification of the 2001 Mill Levies authorizing the Chairman and Clerk to sign the certification. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 12-18-2000 Resolution 2000-184, Adopting a Revised Budget Julie Synder-Eaton presented Resolution 2000-184, adopting a revised budget and appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2000, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. She stated there were a couple of necessary items to appropriate budgets from being the insurance reserve fund and the capital improvement fund. It also reflects a reduction in spending. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-184, adopting a revised budget and . appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2000, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2001 Office Supply Bid Sandy Skiles, Finance Department, presented the 2001 Office Supply Bid. She stated she sent out the request for bids and is recommending a spit of the bid between Corporate Express Imagining for copy supplies and Lewan for paper. Chairman Stone asked about the process. Ms. Skiles stated they advertise for three weeks and then send bid packages to all local entities. She stated Skully's was the only local bidder. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, explained this bid process is required by Statute. Chairman Stone asked ifthere were difference from last year. Ms. Skiles state it was much the same. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the, 2001 Office Supply Bid for Corporate Express Imagining and Lewan. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0030, SSA-0008, Adam's Rib, Frost Creek Chairman Stone stated item A is 1041-0030 and SSA-008 and items B - F which are PDP- 00015/PUD Preliminary Plan, Adam's Rib Frost Cree, ZC-00035/Zone Change, Adam's Rib - Frost Creek, C. is VIS-12 Frost Creek, PUD, D. is SD-0020 Adam's Rib Metropolitan He stated the goal today is to establish a public hearing date for deliberation of item A and establish a public hearing schedule for agenda items B through F. He stated they are about ~ of the way. Jim Fritze stated the Board has 120 days after the conclusion of the hearing to make a decision. He stated the regulations provide it can be continued further at the request of the applicant. If it is not decided within that time frame it would be deemed to be approved. Commissioner Phillips asked when the 120 days begin. Mr. Fritze stated either today or following the hearing if it is continued. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated he would recommend they establish hearing dates and have the applicant continue the hearing rather than conclude. Randy Cloyd, representing Adams Rib, stated he would like to read a letter from Fred Kummer for the record as follows: "Dear Commissioners, We continue to work with mediator Barbara Green and the Town of Eagle in an effort to establish what we will do with out land holdings in Brush Creek. We have, in cooperation with representatives ofthe Town of Eagle, established a memorandum that defines the general perimeters of a possible agreement. I would not want to indicate that we are close to agreement since the devil is certainly in the details, and we have some very large and complex issues to work through. I believe it would be unwise to be either optimistic or pessimistic, but it is certainly worth our effort to see 4 12-18-2000 if agreement is possible. We, and the Town, have both been her before on this matter only to see our efforts fail in the end. The Town and we know this is our last opportunity to deal with this land in a comprehensive and organized way. I, because of age and infirmity, must settle this matter now. I believe your good offices are a very positive force in this effort. Please continue your support. Sincerely, Fred S. Kummer." Mr. Cloyd stated they are asking to continue this hearing and work through the mediation. He stated they have a meeting on January 5 and hope they can work through this. They hope to have this completed by January 15th. Ed Sands, representing the Town of Eagle, stated they concur with the statement read by Mr. Kummer. Both parties have worked diligently on the mediation. They are not there yet, but are working in great efforts to come to a workable solution. He stated they have a meeting tonight. He stated they are talking and working in good faith. They endorse Mr. Kummer's suggestion this be continued. Roxie Deanne Town of Eagle Mayor, stated she echos Mr. Kummer's letter and they are working hard at this. She wished Commissioner Phillips good luck in her retirement. Commissioner Phillips asked ifthis discussion included annexation into the Town. Chairman Stone stated it was not permissible to ask that. Mr. Fritze stated Mr. Loeffler provided some dates and it would be his suggestion these matters be continued at the applicant's request to Tuesday, January 16th for resetting. At that time they will take the appropriate action. Commissioner Phillips asked if it would be possible to do this on the 5th. Chairman Stone stated he will share Commissioner Phillips' concerns with the new Commissioner. He asked if they can continue all the files together. Mr. Fritze stated they should make two motions, one regarding A and E and the other for B, C, D, and F. Commissioner Gallagher moved to set January 16,2001 as the date they will set the hearing dates for 1041-0030, SSA-0008 and 1041-33 and SSA-lO at the applicant's request Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to establish public hearing schedule for PDP-000015, Adams Rib Frost Creek PUD Preliminary Plan, Frost Creek, ZC-00035, and VIS-00012, B, C, D, and F. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00065, Eagle Rock & Stone Chairman Stone asked if there were members of the public who would like to speak to this file today. There was a large show of hands. He asked those wishing to speak to limit their comments to 3 minutes and to sign up accordingly. Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number ZS-00065, Eagle Rock and Stone. At its hearing on November 15th, the Eagle County Planning Commission responded positively to the applicant's proposal, and considered the following in its decision to recommend approval, with conditions, of file ZS-00065 : The Quarry will produce a local product that serves a local demand. Eagle County's Master Plan provides for the extraction of local resources prior to the ultimate development of a site. The site was previously permitted for a similar use. He showed the maps of the location. The Commission furthermore recognized that the Quarry will be a relatively small operation. It was determined that the traffic increases to U.S. Highway 24 would not be significant. M.ost Commissioners felt that the potentially negative impacts of noise and visual scarring while the quarry is in operation would not be significant. One Commissioner disagreed, siting noise, negative public comment and non-compatibility of a mining operation on a Scenic Byway. The Commissioners where unanimous in their opinion that 15 years was too long a period for the 5 12-18-2000 quarry operations. Approval of the project became contingent on a maximum duration of seven (7) years. The Commissioners determined that the site could be sufficiently reclaimed at the cessation of mining, but added that reclamation must be promptly initiated, and must be completed within two years. One Commission member acknowledged the remote setting of the site, stating that it will be important for adjacent neighbors to monitor operations and advise the County of problems. It was determined 5:30 in the morning was not a reasonable time to begin quarry operations; a start up time of 6:30 was recommended. The Commissioners agreed that an annual review would be important. The new Access Permit and issues related to site distances at the access point on Highway 24 would also have to be resolved. The significance of the status of Highway 24 as a Scenic Byway and concerns for the compatibility of the quarry operation with adjacent land uses was noted by several Commission members. It will be important to not set a precedent for this type of use in adjacent areas. In the course of deliberation, the Commission revised several of the conditions recommended by Staff. Staff concurs with these changes. Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve this file, a revised set of conditions are attached to this report for the Board's consideration. Eagle Rock and Stone is requesting a Special Use Permit to mine quartzite rock on a privately owned 30.48 acre parcel of land located approximately 3 miles south of the town of Red Cliff and just east of Highway 24. The property encompasses cliff bands and steep talus slopes on a ridge that separates Highway 24 from the Eagle River at the point where the river enters a shallow canyon as it flows north from Camp Hale towards Redcliff. The cliffband and talus slope to be mined faces Highway 24 with a southwest orientation, and ranges in elevation from approximately 9200 to 9450 feet. That portion of the property that faces the Eagle River to the east will not be included in the permit area. A single family home currently exists on the site. The nearest neighboring residence, believed to be a summer home only, is located approximately one mile to the north, as is a U.S. Forest Service campground. There are also residential units associated with the NOVA Guide operation located in Camp Hale approximately 1.5 miles to the south. Several four wheel drive roads exist to the east and west of the site, and primitive campsites are found in close proximity to the south and west. The applicant's proposal includes haul road construction, removal and stockpiling of overburden, drilling, blasting, hauling, processing, loading and shipping of various rock and stone products. Approximately ten (10) acres will be disturbed over a 15 year period. No secondary crushing ofrock on the site is proposed. The single family dwelling that currently exists on the property is proposed to be used as an office and to house 2 employees of the mine. This home will revert to use as a single family dwelling once mining has ceased. Total on site employees: Hours of operation requested: Five April- November 5:30 AM - 8:00 PM, Monday - Saturday (active mining, processing) December - March No time identified (shipping only) Estimated Daily Traffic Trips* Single Family Home 10 (5 in, 5 out) Dump truck 4 (2 in, 2 out) Flat Bed 20 (10 in, 10 out) Employee 12 (6 in, 6 out) Delivery 4 Total 50 * Data taken from traffic study submitted Per County Engineering, Accel and decellanes are not required for an access permit. Expected Blasting Schedule (average)* Year l, August - October Year 2, April - November Year 3, April- NovemberhYear 4 - 15 two/ week two/ week one/three weeks one/month 6 12-18-2000 *Note that each blasting event requires an average of 30 hours of drilling with track mounted percussion drill Estimated tonnage produced* Yearl-5 Year6-8 Year9-12 Year 13 - 16 Total *lnformationfrom submitted report (letter of9/29/00). Mr. Simonton reviewed the chronology of the application. The proposed rock quarry is located on a private holding made up of three mining claims originally staked in 1879. The claim, located in the historic Battle Mountain Mining District, was actively mined by the Badger State Mining Company from 1887 to 1924. According to the geologic report submitted by Applicant, a number of mine shafts are known to exist in the mountain below the site. A single family residence was constructed on the site in 1984. Ownership of the lot was transferred from Jane Arata to Eileen Wilson in 1994. In 1996, a Special Use Permit was issued to Mr. Randy Cole, agent for Ms. Wilson, for the purpose of "Decorative Stone Extraction" (ZS 386 96). The permit allowed for the removal of surface rock from existing rock slides. No subsurface extraction was to occur. Mr. Cole proceeded to excavate the site, blast the cliff face above, move property pins to accommodate a trespass onto Forest Service land to the South (where considerable damage was done) and conduct general mining operations without a State Mining Permit, all in violation of the conditions of the Special Use Permit. In March of 1999, acting on the misrepresentation that the activity on the site was legally allowed, Eagle Rock and Stone purchased the property from Eileen Wilson. On August 30 of that same year, a revocation hearing was held and, citing unauthorized activities, Special Use Permit ZS 386 96 was revoked by the Board of County Commissioners. No activity other than that associated with residence in the single family dwelling has occurred on the site since that time. The USFS is presently investigating the trespass violation by Mr. Cole., and that portion of damaged land south of the site will need to remain accessible but undisturbed during the course of the investigation. Referral responses are as follows: The date for referral returns was October 24,2000. Eagle County Engineering · Submitted drawings should be of proper size, and should be signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer. · Truck entering signs should be shown on site plan. · A stop sign will be required at access point. · Details for storm water retention, utilities, signage, drainage and erosion control features must be shown. · Road cross sections must be included. · Erosion and sediment control measures should address temporary and permanent mitigation · Details regarding the new access, consistent with the requirements of the State Access Highway Permit, must be shown. Eagle County Environmental Health · A Storm water Discharge Permit from the Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, will be required. A County approved Storm Water Management Plan will also be necessary. · Given the size of disturbance, a fugitive dust permit will not be required by Air Pollution 44,500 tons 26,550 35,100 32.980 139,130 tons 7 12-18-2000 Control Division. The County should require a Fugitive Dust Control Plan for purposes of enforcement. · Applicant must clearly demonstrate how they will remain in compliance with all Industrial and Commercial performance standards. Specific attention should be given to fugitive dust control and noise suppression. · Additional details are required regarding the storage of hazardous materials on site. · Existing ISDS should be adequate for the proposed Special Use. · Site plans should include more detail on the specific locations for fuel storage, equipment storage, and erosion control facilities. Colorado Geological Survey · No potential geologic hazards exist that would preclude the Special Use as planned. · Owner should be required to comply with all regulations of the Colorado Division of Mines and Geology. · There are rock dyes and stains that can be applied to create a weathered appearance on newly exposed rock, should that be necessary. Colo State Forest Service · No significant wildfire hazards exist. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service · Concern expressed regarding the success of replanting efforts, especially given the lack of sufficient amounts of top soil. · Seed application methods questioned (no specifics offered) and a weed control plan suggested. Top of the Rockies Scenic and Historic Byway Committee · Expressed concern for additional trucks on Highway 24 and road safety, given the nature of the road and the nature of the drivers that use the road. · Expressed concern for impacts to the scenic quality of the Scenic and Historic Byway. Town of Minturn · Expressed concern regarding the preservation of the beauty of the Scenic Byway. · Expressed concern for safety of children and pets given increased truck traffic on Minturn's Main Street. · Expressed concern regarding their responsibility to respond to possible accidents on Battle Mountain Pass. Additional Referrals were sent to the following, with no response: Eagle County Assessor, Attorney, Road and Bridge, Sheriff; Colorado Division of Wildlife; CDOT; Colorado Water Conservation Board; Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control; Colorado Department of Minerals and Geology; US Forest Service; Town of Red cliff; Parkville Water District, Lake County. The Town of Redcliffresponded late, on November 30, and expressed concerns for traffic and road safety, site stability, fugitive dust, and economic impacts from decreased tourism and increased road repairs. Statements were also made regarding the loss of "quality of life" given impacts to wildlife, degradation of "natural" areas and disruptions to the remote quietness and solitude of the area. No Additional Referral responses have been received since the Planning Commission's public meeting. A representative of the USFS Holy Cross Ranger District was in attendance at the meeting, however, and stated that the USFS supports the applicants proposal for a quarry on the site without reservation. All referral responses are attached at the end of this staff report. Additionally, and also attached, Staff has received 12 letters from the public. 8 12.18-2000 Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: o Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Oualityl Submitted plan complies, with the exception of Guidin~ policy 5) Maintain Air Quality - localized, short term degradation to air quality from dust and vehicle exhaust would occur. The Applicant has offered the use of palliatives with supplemental water as means to contr01dust. Open S-pace2 Submitted plan complies, with the exception of Guidin~ policy 1) Determine features that make open space parcels valuable and work to preserve them. The valuable feature of this isolated, rural setting, relative to open space, is its pristine nature, especially when one considers its role as a corridor for a Scenic and Historic Byway. A surface mining operation would alter this. DevelopmeneSubmitted plan complies, with the exception of Guidin~ policy 4) Maintain natural appearance of mountain skylines, preserve County's rural character and scenic quality. Allowing a surface mine operation on a ridge over looking a designated scenic corridor is in conflict with this policy. FLUM4 The Future Land Use Map section of Eagle County's Master Plan, in its discussion of Rural Lands, states that "commercial activities are limited to isolated uses which are permitted by special review when they are compatible with the character of adjacent uses and meet the other criteria of the land use code". Staff has concluded that the character of adjacent uses for this setting is best described as "low intensity outdoor recreation and sight seeing". The Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that supports their claim that a surface mining operation would be compatible with this type of use. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x Xi 9 12-18-2000 II.. ............... .........................1 .............ijiXe(l................ C()rif()rffi~i1~ :i I I I x I x II x x x Visual qualityl Open Space Plan Policy Statement # 11 states that It is the policy of Eagle County to assure that development is compatible with preservation of high visual quality. Of the eight criteria identified by the Open Space Steering Committee, visual quality ranked as the most important. The development of a surface mining operation in the foreground of views available to those traveling on Eagle County's "Scenic and Historic Byway" does not conform to the intent of this policy. [-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN NOT be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. With the exception of one of its members, the Planning Commission generally disagreed with Staff's finding regarding consistency with provisions of the Master Plan, and determined 1) that impacts to visual quality would not be significant, 2) that quarry operations would be compatible with adjacent uses and 3) that provisions allowing for the extraction of resources in the resource zone justified approval. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Staff finds the Special Use. as proposed. inappropriate for its location and incompatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The area is rural in nature, and noted for its high scenic quality. Highway 24 was designated a Top ofthe Rockies State Scenic and Historic Byway in September of 1993. No mining operation of the nature proposed exists elsewhere along this road or in the nearby vicinity. While much of the activity for this operation is proposed to occur on a portion of the site well screened from adjacent areas by berms and trees, a considerable amount of equipment and activity associated with drilling, blasting and removal of rock products from the exposed steep hillside and cliff band above the trees along Highway 24 will be necessary for some amount of time. This same hillside will be traversed by cut and fill slopes from haul roads, and will serve as the location for the mine's proposed overburden stockpile area. The visibility of these proposed improvements and activities are exacerbated by the elevated nature of the site. The Applicant has agreed to remove mining equipment from the hill side and cliff face at the end of each day and on weekends as a means of lessening visual impacts. The Applicant has provided sufficient evidence that the area disturbed by the mining operation can be adequately reclaimed once mining has ceased, and that resulting visual impacts will be minimal. Staffis concerned, however, about the visual impacts that will result during the life span ofthe operation; which is proposed to be fifteen (15) years. Requests by Staff for concurrent reclamation (top soiling and replanting of areas already mined, top to bottom) to reduce visual impacts during the operations period were dismissed for safety reasons by the Applicant's engineer. Staff has identified noise as a second issue relative to compatibility. While the Applicant has made a general statement that all industrial and commercial standards will be met, sufficient evidence regarding how standards will be met has not been provided. It is Staffs opinion that noise generated from truck engines, truck back up signals, air compressors and percussion drill rigs (which will be required to operate for many hours at a time) will have a potentially negative impact on the "character" of adjacent land uses. Traffic generated by the quarry operation, while projected to be relatively low in volume, raises additional concern. Highway 24 is a two lane mountain road with minimal shoulders, few passing lanes and few turnout areas. Portions of the road over Battle Mountain Pass are particularly steep with many 10 12-18-2000 sharp turns and switch backs. The road is frequented by commuters traveling to and from Lake County, by tourists entering or leaving the County and by those seeking recreation on adjacent public lands. The route is also a favorite of many local bicycling enthusiasts. Given this mix, one might expect that the driving habits of those using the road to vary considerably. Traffic increases proposed by the Special Use, while not significant in number, will take the form of heavily loaded 54 foot flat bed trucks and dump trucks. The Applicant has provided mitigation in the form of limitations to travel times, restricting travel by north bound trucks to after 8:00 AM and south bound trucks to before 4:00 PM, but Staffhas concluded that additional heavy truck traffic at any time of the day will present an increased risk for those using this road. Referral Responses from the Town of Minturn and the Top of the Rockies Scenic and Historic Byway Committee reflect similar concerns. It is further noted that the above listed restrictions to travel would likely be difficult for the County to enforce. Staff has weighed the impacts that will result from the proposed Special Use against the relatively long term of the requested permit and has determined that adequate mitigations for appropriateness and compatibility are not available. [-] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS NOT appropriate for its proposed location and IS NOT compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Again, with the exception of one member, the Planning Commission generally disagreed with Staff's finding regarding compatibility. It was determined that the site could be reclaimed, and that degradation of visual quality during quarry operations would not be significant since the site is only briefly seen from those traveling on the atYacent roadway. Noise impacts would be minimal, especially when one considers that noise from cars and trucks already exists at the site. It was determined that impacts from traffic would not be significant. The Commissioners were concerned, however, with a permit duration of 15 years, and strongly conditioned their approval of the project to a duration of seven (7) years. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall complywith 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 AIJTJlicable to Particular Residential. A~ricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The proposed quarry and surface mine will be located in an area zoned Resource. Table 3-300, Residential. Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule of Eagle County's Land Use Regulations lists "Extraction or Exploration" under Industrial Uses, and allows the same through the Special Review Process. Section 3-310.P - Zone Standards for Exploration, Extraction, and Processing Operations [+] 1. Environmental Impact Report. The applicant..... shall submit an Environmental Analysis report.... in accordance with Section 4-460. .....Included in the report shall be a depiction of location, scope and design of the proposed use, and an explanation of its operational characteristics and impacts. Staff finds that these standards have been met. [-] 2. Compliance. The proposed Special Use will be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State, and Federal Governments, and shall not adversely effect: a. Water. Existing lawful use of water, through depletion or pollution. b. Adjacent Land Uses. Adjacent land uses, through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration or other emanations; or c. Wildlife. Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions to wildlife, impacts on wildlife habitat, or patterns or other means. A Fuel Spill and Containment Plan has been prepared, and found sufficient. It is difficult to find that the standards for b. Adjacent Land Uses have been fully met, given the possible negative impacts to 11 12-18-2000 adjacent lands from dust and noise, the visual impacts of site disturbance, and the possible negative impact that increased truck traffic will have on users of Highway 24 (please see earlier discussion under Section 5-250.B.2). [-] 3. Site Plan. ...a detailed site plan shall be submitted, including landscaping sufficient to meet the standards found is Section 4-230 Landscaving Desi'iln Standards and Materials. Security may be required to guarantee landscaping, drainage and erosion control.... Staff finds that this standard has not been fully met. As noted in referral responses from Eagle County Engineering and Environmental Health, the Site Plans submitted are lacking detail related to utilities, storm water control, drainage and erosion control measures, and specifics for on-site storage locations for fuel, blasting materials, and other substances that may be related to the servicing of vehicles and machinery. The site plan also lacks sufficient detail regarding site improvements as they relate to phasing the project over time (reference information attached to Applicant's letter of September 29, 2000). A Landscape Plan was provided. However, Staffhas found inconsistencies in information related to water requirements for the project and the need for supplemental watering and/or irrigation to insure the success of seeded and planted areas. Staff is not convinced by the applicant's assertion that a maximum of 4000 gallons delivered to the site by water truck each day will be sufficient to supply needs for dust control, drilling operations and irrigation, especially given the elevation and southwest orientation of the site. Water from the on-site well is designated for domestic use only, and may not be used for purposes outside the existing residence. This, again, is a restriction that would be difficult for the County to Enforce. [+] 4. Fabrication, Service and Repair All fabrication, service and repair activities associated with the use shall be conducted within a building (except for incidental repair activities) unless the applicant demonstrate that it is not practical to do so and insures that all impacts from outside activities are mitigated. Staff finds that this standard has been met, and would agree that, given the well screened nature of the lower work and storage area on this site, a building to accommodate fabrication, service and repair would not be necessary. [+] 5. Storage. All storage of materials associated with the operation shall occur within a building, or shall be obscured by an opaque fence. Staff finds that this standard has been met. All storage of materials and equipment is proposed to occur on the lower work and staging area. The natural screening of this bench by large stands of trees, combined with plans by the Applicant for additional berming, results in adequate isolation of materials stored on the site from the view of adjacent land users. [-] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES NOT fully comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and Resource Uses STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. 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. While Staff recognizes the Applicant's sincere desire to "do what ever is necessary" and notes the considerable effort that has been made to lessen and/or mitigate adverse impacts anticipated by this use, Staff cannot find the plan. as proposed. in full compliance with this standard. Plans to reduce visual impacts related to operations on the lower bench of the site through berming and landscaping are well conceived and adequate, but mitigation treatments proposed to reduce visual impacts on the upper hill 12 12-18-2000 side and cliff face have remained centered on: 1) the fact that the upper area is visible to people driving by for only a short period of time, and; 2) the mined site can be significantly reclaimed after mining has ceased fifteen years from now. As mentioned, measures to concurrently reclaim portions of the mined area as mining precedes have been ruled unsafe by the Applicant's engineer. The applicant has agreed to control visible fugitive dust, and to remove equipment from the upper mining area when not in use. However, alterations and scarring to the hillside terrain resultant from haul roads, terracing, and stockpiling of overburden material cannot be avoided. Staff disagrees with statements made in the Applicant's Environmental Analysis Report, inferring that "impacts will be low given the visibility of the site from a very limited area". There are adjacent areas from which the site is very visible, and while it may pass by quickly to someone driving a car, it will remain in view of a nearby hiker or biker for a considerable time. Regardless of the time that it is "witnessed" by adjacent land users, Staff concludes that an adverse visible impact will be present for the duration ofthe project. In similar fashion, the Applicant has made reasonable efforts to reduce traffic impacts to travelers on nearby Highway 24 by limiting the times that trucks will be allowed to leave the site to after 8:00 AM (heading north) and before 4:00 PM (heading south). Staffhas concluded that the addition of heavily loaded flatbed tractor trailer trucks to Highway 24, at any time, especially given the nature of the road and the nature of those who use the road, may create additional hazards. While the applicant has stated that noise generated by the quarry will comply with section 4-520, Noise and Vibration Standards, no specific measures have been proposed to mitigate the noise typical of quarry operations, which Staff believes would include vehicle back up signals, compressors, percussion drilling rigs and short term blasting events. The Applicant asserts that "since there are no neighbors, the impact from noise will be minimal". While it is true that the nearest residence is located a considerable distance from this site, a variety of land users (campers, hikers, fishermen, mountain bikers, etc.) could be in close proximity to the area at any time, especially during the summer months, and would be negatively impacted by noise emanating from the subject property. While staff would agree that there should be no long term or cumulative environmentalimvacts from the proposed operation. the interim impacts from terrain modification. noise and increased truck traffic on Highway 24 are significant in relation to the location of the proposed Special Use. and cannot be fully mitigated. [-] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES NOT adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it CAN NOT avoid adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding noise and traffic, and COULD create a nUIsance. As previously discussed, the Planning Commission did not fully agree with Staff s negative findings relative to visual impacts, noise and road hazards due to increased truck traffic. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.5 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. While this proposal demonstrates substantial conformance with the requirements of this section, Staff cannot find the plan. as proposed. in full compliance with this standard. As previously discussed under Section 5-250.BA, the degradation of scenic resources for that period oftime that the mine is in operation is believed to be unavoidable. [-] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use CAN NOT fully minimize environmental impacts, and though it will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, it WILL cause significant 13 12-18-2000 deterioration to scenic resources. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.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. The quarry proposed will be small in scale, employing between two and five full time employees. The site has existing potable water and sewage disposal, and the applicant has agreed to purchase bottled water and install portable toilets, should additional needs be identified. Impact on parks and schools should be minimal, as employees will likely be existing residents of Lake or Eagle County. The Quarry is in a rural setting and is outside the limits of any fire and/or medical districts. As such, there may be some impact to these services as they respond to the site from nearby municipal centers. Through referral response, the Town of Minturn has expressed concern regarding the need to respond to traffic accidents that might occur on Battle Mountain Pass as a result of increased truck traffic. The closest town, Redcliff, did not respond to referrals, nor did Lake County Government. This not withstanding, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that standards related to Impacts on Public facilities will be largely met. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) To the degree that they might apply, Staff finds standards related to parking and loading have been met. Given the dynamic nature of the operation, establishing dedicated parking spaces is not reasonable. There is sufficient flat space available to accommodate parking for both residents of the single family dwelling and the employees of the mine. Specific standards for Loading would not appear to apply to this use, although it should be noted that it is not clear from the site plan how large trucks are expected to turn around once on the site, as the necessary turning space has not been provided. [+/-] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Please see earlier discussion under Section 3-31O.P.3 regarding landscaping. Some illumination is proposed for the west end of the site for security purposes. Details for lighting were not submitted, and the location of security lighting was not indicated on a site plan. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). As identified by Eagle County Engineering, the site plan should indicate a stop sign where the access enters Highway 24, and truck turning signs as necessary on Highway 24 to the north and south of the project. No other signs are anticipated. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - Lacking comment from the Division of Wildlife, Staff would accept the Applicant's report regarding Wildlife, and would agree that no significant impacts are anticipated from this Special Use. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Slopes on much ofthe proposed permitted area are greater than 30%. A Geologic Hazards Report was submitted and found adequate. The Colorado Geologic Survey has stated that as long as the owner complies with all regulations of the Colorado Division of Mines, no potential geologic hazards exist that would preclude the Special Use as planned. [+] Wil4fire Protection (Section 4-430) - Colorado State Forest Service has indicated that no significant wildfire hazards exist. [nla] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed. [nla] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) This site is not identified as an area of possible Ridgeline impact on related maps. 14 12-18-2000 [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and deemed sufficient. [+/-] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [-] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) - Please see earlier discussions under Sections 5-250.B.2, 3-31 O.P .2.B, and 5-250.BA regarding noise. While the applicant has agreed to comply with all applicable standards, sufficient evidence has not been submitted to demonstrate that noise standards would be met [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards. are not anticipated as a result of this development. Some short term violation of standards may occur on cold mornings when equipment engines are warming up. Background air quality levels have been established by the Applicant's EIR. [n/a] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Heat, glare, radiation and/or electrical interference are not expected to originate from this development. [+/-] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) A Spill Containment Plan for proposed fuel storage has been prepared. While the applicant has agreed to comply with all applicable laws and standards, details on the specific location of hazardous materials storage. to include explosives and substances related to the maintenance of vehicles and mining equipment. were not submitted with this plan. The applicant is expected to conform to local, state and federal regulations and laws regarding the storage and disposal of all hazardous materials. [+/- ] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Pending approval of a Storm Water Management Plan, no discharge of surface or ground water pollutants are anticipated from this project. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) As noted by Eagle County Engineering, submitted engineering drawings were not of proper size, and were not signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer. [+/-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and found to be adequate. Line of sight considerations require the moving of the existing access point north to a new location on Highway 24, as well as an agreement with the Forest Service to remove those trees necessary to establish proper line of site distances at the point of access. A new State Highway Access Permit will be required. As noted by Eagle County Engineering, details related to the construction of the new access was not submitted, nor was required information for road cross sections. [n/a] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) This section does not apply. [+/-] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) (Please see earlier discussion under Section 3- 310.P.3 ) Water for landscaping and reclamation is proposed to be provided by truck from the Parkville Water District. No information on delivery systems for irrigation water relative to landscaping and reclamation was submitted. [-] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Considerable data and discussion is offered regarding drainage in the applicant's plan, but as noted by Eagle County Engineering and Eagle County Environmental health, detailed information regarding drainage facilities on related site plans is not sufficient. [-] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) A specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan was not submitted. As noted by Eagle County Engineering, details regarding temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control methods are needed. Staff also found that detail regarding the specifics of grading and erosion control as it relates to the phasing of the project not sufficient. [-] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Utilities were not indicated on site plan and details on proposed security lighting were not provided. [+/-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) (Please see earlier discussion under Section 3- 310.P.3) While supply of domestic water seems adequate, Staff questions the adequacy of a 4000 gallon water truck to supply the daily needs of the operation. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Reference the response from Eagle 15 12-18-2000 County Environmental Health, the existing ISDS system should be adequate for the proposed Special Use. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do not apply. [-] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES NOT fully comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.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. No other applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations were found relevant to this proposal for Special Use. [+] FINDING: The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics Chairman Stone asked what areas is it not in compliance. Mr. Simonton stated because of non-compliance with the open space provision of the Master Plan this is an open space parcel that is made valuable by the scenic quality. Given the disturbance on the hillside and the elevated nature of the site caused them to challenge this application. The compatibility is also an issue as Highway 24 has been deemed an historic and scenic byway. Under the visual quality and under the open space plan mayor may not be an issue. When a corridor is labeled scenic, given the disturbance on the hillside, they do not find it compatible. Terril Knight, Knight Planning, introduced Dick Craig, applicant. Mr. Craig stated he and his wife are the owners. He introduced Troy White. He stated they are very in-tuned to those not in agreement with this project. He stated before they purchased the land they met with the previous owner and watched a video that showed the blast. He stated as far as some of the concerns are delineated, it is not a dust problem. He stated there are items they can use to keep dust down but it wasn't a problem. He stated the previous owner operated on this land for two years and used a lot more equipment than they plan to use. He stated they just received a letter from the Mayor of Minturn regarding the trucks. He stated there are a lot of trucks that come down Highway 24 and they don't feel like they will be adding additional road traffic. Terryl Knight stated one of the first points made were the concerns by the Town of Minturn. He stated they appreciate Mr. Simonton's assistance in this. He showed the Board some photographs of the quarry. He stated the pictures are part of their presentation and on display. He stated these were presented at the Planning Commission meeting. They also show a computer simulation showing the later phases of the plan. He stated they are proposing the first phase be a clean up of the existing problems. They came in two years ago when the previous owner had some problems. The Planning Commission did recommend favorably. They are proposing to use this as a local resource. It does exist and it is a previously mined area. They had determined through the review process that Mining Safety and.Health Administration and the Division of Mining of Minerals of Colorado gave them direction of how to proceed. The key issue was clean up of the Forest Service property. He stated they are committed to cleaning the area up. That remains a part of their first phase. They would like to have all the scattered rock picked up and removed and any scares reclaimed as much as possible. They have also asked to put up a physical barrier. The material is quartzite which is a very valuable material for rock and stone facings. They think it is clear there is an existing rock face which will not change except it will be moved farther from the road. The project does have minor impacts one being the impact of trucks. They feel this will actually be a benefit because they can control the site. The site is naturally screened by trees and their goal is to maintain the natural screening and expand the berming. They will control traffic and the hours of operation. The state permit has been issued. He compared it to the gravel pits and the desire to 16 12-18-2000 use it before development. He stated they have worked with County staff in revising the plan and to provide the requested details. He stated they do have revised site plans of the existing condition and the future condition. He stated they have an erosion control plan, drainage and storm water plan, they have an environmental impact report. All have been submitted to staff as has the dust control plan, weed control plan and landscape plan. They have an erosion control plan and have submitted a bond accordingly. They have addressed the specific areas regarding stabilization and seeding plan. They are committed to properly control the drainage to control the berm and the drainage. He spoke to the storage in case of a leak. They have been approved for a State Highway Access Permit. It does require some modification of trees and they have agreed to do that. They have a road access easement across the Forest Service lands. They also have an agreement for water and will provide water for dust control coming from Leadville. There is potable water available in the dwelling which is primarily employee housing with a maximum of five employees on the site. The company they have contracted with for blasting is certified and insured. Mr. Knight showed the photographs and the contour maps showing the existing conditions. He explained the approximate 10 acres that would be the maximum area of disturbance. He showed the house, the driveway to the house, the area for storing the stone and the access points. He showed a second map which depicts the mining plan. He stated the slope back would be a lesser degree than exists today. He showed the road that would be used during the operation and the creation of the berm. He stated the area is surrounded by public lands with some isolated private lands within the area. He spoke to the old mining claims and the purchase of those lands. Concerning the Master Plan, it encourages use of resources. They proposed a 15 year life plan, the Planning Commission suggested seven years, they proposed a compromise of ten years. He suggested that the mitigation will be sufficient and it will be monitored for the operation. They want to avoid the problems created by the previous owner. The Planning Commission was concerned about the traffic, but they will control that. They will not put any trucks on the road during prime commuter traffic and will limit their work during business days and hours. ...He spoke to an adjusted recommendation by MSHA and the timeliness of revegetation. Troy Jackson spoke to the revegetation and reclamation. He stated one ofthe concerns brought up was phasing. The engineer was familiar with a standard of reclamation after and not during. The MSHA guidelines speak to the safety of the workers. He stated he discussed this with MSHA and any proposal they could make for phasing. It can be done, but it is just not standard. They can phase in and do the reclamation one bench at a time. They have to have a bench between to do so with the proper berming. Mr. Knight stated they have taken this very seriously. They have involved mining engineers and have done the computer simulation. The fact it can be controlled is important. He is concerned with the approval and the only objections have been to two issues. Concerning open space and visual quality, they have shown how they can and are screening. Concerning the Master Plan, it is only the Future Land Use Map which does not show the mining. It is incumbent upon them to show it is a resource in place that is used in this area. They have instituted controls for noise, weeds, and dust. They can control the timing and operation. They feel they meet the purpose and use of the Master Plan. The application is complete and meets the standard of the regulation. He spoke to the timing of the permit and the timing of inspections. They have to show compliance with the permits. The only difference with the Planning Commission is their belief that ten years is a better time frame. He concluded and stated they would be happy to respond. Sidney Summers, a Red Cliff resident and Town Council member, suggested this is short term thinking of the profit of a few. She does not believe the people have been put in mind. She spoke to the campers and day users and the inconveniences caused them. The wildlife will not benefit as they will have year round hunting conditions. She asked how this will benefit the County and if this material can be acquired elsewhere. She spoke to the scenic area and the lack of sewer and water. What revegetation can be done to fix the side of a mountain. She suggested this will encourage upwards of 50 truck trips daily. 17 12-18-2000 Alan Christensen, Town Attorney for Minturn and Red Cliff, stated they have a number of concerns. This is an application for a special use permit and they are asking for denial. This is basically a strip mine surrounded by Forest Service. He spoke to the Scenic byway and the use involving drilling, blasting and increased truck traffic. The people of Minturn and Red Cliff do not believe it is compatible and does not minimize the environmental impacts. Highway 24 is a major traffic area. Traffic is already at a maximum. He spoke to people wanting to leave there because of the truck and traffic noise. The staff has recommended denial and they don't believe it is appropriate. He stated there are local resources that will be impacted. He spoke to the incompatibility. He stated the history of reclamation is pathetic. This proposal should be denied in the present form until they can show compliance. Bob Siegal, Town of Red Cliff, stated traffic impacts will be an issue and do they believe they can really control the traffic patterns. He asked if they are really mediating the public. He stated he travels from Minturn to Red Cliff daily and experiences the traffic daily. He stated he is worried about the traffic going up the mountain. They are plagued with the traffic. There are now guardrails on Battle Mountain. He spoke to the compatibility with bicycle traffic and will have to reconsider the safety. The Town of Red Cliffhas a water shed ordinance and the Eagle River is one of those. If the mining dust effects the water shed, they are forced to protect it. They don't have the funds to enforce this and will have to come" back to the County for that. They, the Town Council recommend denial. Lisa DeGraf, Minturn Town planner, stated they responded to the referral request. She spoke to the scenic byway and the traffic concerns. Battle Mountain Road is a dangerous road and the accidents are growing with more traffic. The fire department is the responding agency. The fifty trips per day will effect the Town. She spoke to the Minturn Market and the increased traffic issues. They ask if this approved that a condition be placed they not run on Saturdays. The Town of Minturn agrees with the planning staffs request for denial. Carolyn Bradford, a resident of Red Cliff, thanked the board for allowing them to speak and asked for a delay in approval until the Forest Service has been able to meet with the previous owner and the current owner. She suggested they have not taken bids as of yet for restoration and no agreement has been reached. She suggested the former owner of the site has been found and they should have the time to work out the legal restoration before a new permit is approved. She stated the restoration plans don't show enough detail for a comfort level. She spoke to the lack of irrigation. She suggested they need to study the mineralization of the rock and the leaching into the run off water. The retention pond is only for ten years. If there are flood or storm occurrences the water runs off and ultimately goes into the Eagle River. She stated it is tough for the County or the Forest Service to monitor sites within the county. She spoke to the previous owner and there was not the monitoring needed. If the County is to accept this plan they should also specify what type of monitoring will take place. She spoke to the increased truck traffic and the effects on bikers. She spoke to following a large truck today and the delay of fifteen minutes. Commissioner Gallagher asked if at the Planning Commission meeting the Forest Service supported the operation. Mr. Simonton stated they did. Ms. Bradford stated they, the Forest Service, believe a restoration plan should be in effect beforehand. Majorie Western-Phelps asked if the Board has had time to review the letters and faxes from those sent. She asked if Eagle County is prepared for additional traffic and safety issues. She asked if they will know when the chain law is in effect on Battle Mountain. She spoke to the blasting decibels. Mr. Knight stated they are 60. Ms. Western-Phelps asked about the general truck noise and that of working the rock. She spoke to a Vail Daily article and how peaceful and quiet life used to be here. She spoke to the campgrounds in the area and the Forest Service access areas within 1/1 0 of a mile. She spoke to the jobs being generated and the overwhelming job market. Jobs aren't something Eagle County is lacking. She spoke to the magnesium chloride and the ban in other counties for dust control. She asked about water spreading 18 12-18-2000 trucks and the fact the streets aren't even washed. She feels the pristine resources and the wildlife will be disturbed and urged the Board to deny the permit. Destroy the environment and people will not come. She spoke to the opening of Blue Sky basin on Friday. Leave the rocks alone. Teresa Olsen and her husband Jim Olsen, live on Tennesee Pass and have for more than fifteen years. She questions how, when staff recommends denial, can the Planning Commission recommend approval. She asks how a single family home can end up as a quarry. She suggested the first permit just went through. The most valuable resource up there is the environment. The tourist dollars provided will diminish with the quality experience being ruined. Economically they will see the dollars by leaving it alone. She asked if the Board has made a trip up there recently. She encouraged them to deny the permit. Toni Parrish, a new resident to Red Cliff, stated she has been driving the road for four years and has experienced the delays from following the trucks. She stated the drivers behind them are the issue. She questions them saying they will have agents visiting homes and sites within the two miles radius. She asked if they will be notifying the residents of Red Cliff. She spoke to the Colorado Geological survey and the rock slides that may happen. She questioned the rocks that may fall. She spoke to the applicants comments about being sensitive to concerns and if they are, perhaps they will look elsewhere. She urged the Board to deny this unless they will use pick and shovel. She thanked the Board for the guardrails but suggested they will not hold trucks of this size. Ross Palmer stated he is concerned about this type of use on a Colorado Scenic Byway. If this land was purchased two years ago he had to know it is inconsistent with the Master Plan and the land use plans. The staff is recommending denial and he would ask the same or a tabling until the concerns can be met. He stated he has seen as many as 1000 bicycles on the road in a day and this is not compatible. He thanked the Board. Kim Langley stated she has lived in Eagle County for 31 years and the main reason she doesn't want to see this happen is the traffic. People take chances all the time and more trucks will exaggerate this. Mining is just not appropriate. It is the gateway to the Holy Cross area. During the summer there are many bike tours that go through the area with hundreds of bikers. She stated it is impossible to drive during those times and will make it more of a problem. Tanya Miller, resident of Red Cliff and native of the Vail Valley, stated she is concerned about traffic and the driveways. She stated eliminating the trees will make it more of an eyesore. She spoke to the needed signage and the very least they will need to give them an opportunity to know they are there. She is also concerned about the impacts that are outside of the site. She asked what considerations are given to those who live within the area. Did the reports acknowledged there are people that live there. She stated there is also a campsite that is in the area and those who use it should be given the consideration. She spoke to the quality of life in Red Cliff and though it was a mining town, the people want to be there for the quality of life. She asked if the reclamation will be something they will see in their lifetime. Jonathan Stauffer, representing Colorado Wildlife, spoke to his letter and the need to seek formal. consultation regarding the endangered species act. He spoke to the link between Leadville and Vail and the increased development that may be detrimental to the wildlife. He spoke to the movement of wildlife and the increased traffic and noise. He spoke to the lack of information requested from or given by the applicant Randy Carter, a 30 year Eagle County resident who lives on Tennessee Pass, stated there are not ten rock trucks on the road today, but if this is approved, is the County going to dedicate the resources needed to police, maintain fire and take care of them. The Eagle County Sheriff is not up there daily. There are hundreds of people coming up there daily. They don't need to increase the amount of slow moving vehicles on the road. He stated putting this quarry up there is kind of like putting a quarry between Yoman Park and Sylvan Park. This is not Highway 6. This is a recreation zone. Ennis Isom, a Tennessee Pass resident and an Eagle county resident for his entire life, stated his wife witnessed someone killed up there. This is a way to make it less safe. You can put a dollar amount 19 12-18-2000 to the worth of the rock but this is a proposal that doesn't work in this environment. Chairman Stone closed public comment. Terrill Knight stated they appreciate the people's concerns and have completed a traffic study. He stated he does not have the traffic count on Highway 24 but 50 trips which is the maximum they are allowed including employees. They have taken care to see they have a safe site distance and that their project will not impact the road negatively. He stated they will be displacing some portion of the truck traffic that exists today. They will have the ability to control the truck traffic and will ensure they will do what they say they can do. They will have to live by the information in their application. He doesn't believe the County ignores the enforcement aspect. It is consistent with the Master Plan and they are committed to using materials that are in the area. He stated there are truck signs required which are in their plan and will be installed. Their increase is a minor percentage of that which goes on today. Adam Summers, Eagle County Engineering Department, stated typically a traffic report is required when a development will increase the traffic by 400 trips per day. US Highway 24 currently has 1900 trips per day. He spoke to the function level. He stated currently the road is functioning at a level B and that will not change with the increase of 50 vehicles. He stated the road would continue to function within the land use code. He stated the state access permit will be required and has been applied for but has not yet been approved. Mr. Knight stated the Planning Commission asked them not to function on Saturdays and they have agreed with that. He stated they have taken into account the neighbors comments. Commissioner Phillips asked if the public have seen the photos before and after. They indicated they had. She pointed out that Highway 24 is not a County road and they rely on the state for improvements. She suggested the major problem is the traffic. She stated every time she goes up that road she is thankful she doesn't make the drive daily. She suggested there is less traffic now than when Gilman was running. She spoke to her husband's family mine. She suggested she is concerned with the Planning Commission's approval and the staff recommending denial. She spoke to the approval of the quarry up the Colorado River road and the restrictions placed on it. She asked to look back at the map and to see the houses that are close by. Mr. Simonton showed the house of Jack Holmes and the other residents with Nova Guides. Red Cliff is about two miles away. Commissioner Phillips asked where the trucks will travel. Mr. Knight stated at least 85% will go north and the remainder will go south. The majority of the truck traffic with go towards Vail and Beaver Creek with a limited amount to Leadville. He pointed out the Planning Commission brought up concerns about the bike races and that they will suspend hauling during the races and would gladly agree to do so. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this a seller haul or a buyer haul operation. Mr. Knight stated in most cases they will commission a truck to haul. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they would permit a buyer to pick up. Mr. Knight stated they would. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the drilling and the noise. Mr. Knight suggested it is not inaudible. Mr. Jackson spoke to the decibel level and the highest being at 60 at the southeast side of the property. Everything else is in the high 30's. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the blasting. Mr. Jackson explained. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has visited the site and the house previously and again just recently. He stated the house is pretty much the same but the backside if very different. That amount of work being done without anyone knowing was interesting and there were no complaints. He stated in a previous life he has done safety and rescue work. He questions the level placed by CDOT. He is concerned about the impact on the road and the fact it hasn't changed since the 1950's. The amount of 20 12-18-2000 traffic and use is probably over its capacity. He is also concerned by one operation they are increasing the multi-unit traffic. He is concerned with the character of the surrounding land uses and that being recreation. He stated it might look good when it is reclaimed but that is twenty years. While it may ultimately look okay he is concerned with the interim impact. Mr. Knight stated they have very serious concerns about making this a better situation when they leave than where they are now. Throughout the life of this project there will be some disturbance on the site and that is why they have taken care to make it a better project. He stated there aren't many trees in a lot of places now with significant meadows and cliffs. He stated there is a particular tree they used as a trademark in their photographs. It is there today, near the edge of the site. They have used that as a benchmark to state that tree will stay. He suggested there will be very little difference in the number of trees as they will be mining the barren areas. Chairman Stone stated he was part of the Board that revoked the special use permit and was wondering if Mr. Jackson has done any mitigation from the previous owners. Mr. Jackson stated he is surprised that the Forest Service has not cleaned up some ofthe stuff there. He spoke to the crane that is there. Mr. Knight stated they have been told they could not make changes to the site until they have completed this process. This will be at the applicant's cost not the Forest Service. They are committed to the reclamation plan but have been prohibited from doing any work until another permit is in place. Chairman Stone asked about the plans possibly being deficient in scope and detail. Mr. Simonton stated while the submittal was complete to make it to this point, they are concerned about details of phasing and utilities. He spoke to a more recent submittal and based on the details provided they would want those resolved. Mr. Knight stated they have responded to issues such as utilities and there are none that will change. They will remain the same. He spoke to the additional documents submitted. Mr. Simonton stated staff finds the following: Pursuant to Section 5-250.B.2, the plan as proposed is not appropriate for its location nor compatible with surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the site is valued for its natural beauty and recreational opportunities. Highway 24 is a designated Top of the Rockies Scenic and Historic Byway Terrain on the hillside above the road will be significantly disturbed for an extended period of time. Quarry activities will generate industrial noise. Quarry activities will generate traffic in the form of heavily laden trucks. Pursuant to Section 5-250.B.3, and as referenced by referral responses from Eagle County Engineering and Eagle County Environmental Health, plans submitted by the Applicant are deficient in both scope and detail (please see body of staff report, and details addressed in item 1 of the recommended conditions). Pursuant to Section 5-250.BA, and 5-250.B.5 the plan as proposed does not adequately minimize adverse and/or environmental impacts. Disturbances and activities on the hillside and cliff band will be visible, and cannot be fully mitigated. Noise generated from quarry equipment and drilling will be incident on adjacent lands, and cannot be fully mitigated. Increased truck traffic may adversely impact users of Highway 24 Commissioner Gallagher moved the board deny ZS-00065 based on staff's recommendation and the information provided. Commissioner Phillips seconded for discussion. In discussion Commissioner Phillips stated with the Planning Commission recommending 21 12-18-2000 approval and that statutorily the applicant has the right to mine this area. She suggested if they were going to go to Leadville and provide the signage and turn lanes. Chairman Stone stated he is generally supportive of the use of natural resources while at the same time he is supportive of many forms of recreation. He also must take into consideration the economic benefit and the visual impact. He stated they do on many occasions have differing views from the planning staff as they are looking at the letter of the law and to not put in their personal opinion. The Planning Commission, who he appreciates very much, takes a different interpretation of the requirements. The Commissioners have a third viewpoint and they listen to the planning staff and the Planning Commission and to try to make the decision of their constituents. He suggested the Planning Commission is supportive of the natural resource use but there are appropriate and inappropriate uses. He suggested it is unfortunate they have to take down trees to lessen the road impacts. He suggested that since this is a scenic byway, how are they disrupting the quality of this area. He spoke to the history of mining and looking at the future. He tends to support the denial and thinks there may be a more appropriate area. Unfortunately minerals and resources are where they are. Commissioner Gallagher expressed his sympathies to the property owner who may have purchased with something else in mind. Commissioner Phillips stated she understands this is zoned resource, not recreation. She feels this is a scenic roadway and believes the traffic would be very hard to accept. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye and Commissioner Phillips voting nay. Commissioner Phillips stated she will not vote against, but stated she has a major problem with the reasons the staff recommended denial and believes the Planning Commission had a better handle on the reasons for denial. She then voted in favor of denial of this proposal. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant should be encouraged to come back with a changed plan that meets the findings. He asked for recommendations from the Board. Commissioner Phillips suggested to look at fewer trips, a different route, and that ten years would be a time frame for wrapping up. PDS-00025 Star Route PUD Cliff Simonton presented file number PDS-00025, Star Route PUD. He stated the applicant seeks approval for a PUD that would support a development of a small mixed use enclave on 3.6 acres of a 10.55 acre parcel. Proposed uses include a centralized cafe/restaurant and retail outlet, three art studio workshops, two employee housing units (located on top of the cafe), office space, and related commercial support facilities. Seven acres (mostly flood plain)would be set aside as open space. Total square footage of buildings would be approximately 15,000. Access is via Interstate 70 and Highway 6. Water will be provided by well, sewage disposal by ISDS. He stated all staff findings are positive at this level and staff would recommend approval. Staff findings are as follows: At its public meeting of November 15, the Eagle County Planning Commission responded positively to the Applicant's proposal and unanimously recommended approval of the sketch plan for the Star Route PUD, incorporating all Staff findings, with conditions. The applicant agreed to all conditions, and no revision to the conditions presented by Staff was made. Star Route Enterprises is proposing a PUD that would create a small mixed use enclave on a 10.55 acre parcel in Dotsero. With the exception of an unoccupied dilapidated house and an occupied mobile home, the site is vacant. Present zoning on the parcel is Resource. The Applicant proposes an artisan's workshop community, with a centralized cafe/restaurant and retail outlet, three studio workshops, two employee housing units located on top of the cafe, office space, and related commercial support facilities located on that portion of the lot that exists outside the adjacent flood plain of the Colorado River (approximately 3.6 acres). The remaining 7 acres (in the flood plain) would be allocated 22 12-18-2000 to open space uses. A proposed green house would support seasonal sales from a road side stand. Pedestrian path systems would connect internal facilities to open space areas and a proposed picnic site. Water would be provided by well; sewage disposal would be by ISDS. The first phase of the project would include the construction of a proposed new access from US Highway 6, the removal of the two existing structures and the construction of the central cafe/employee housing unit building with well, septic system and parking lots. Three artisan workshop structures would follow. Total building square footage at build out is estimated to be 15,000. No significant land use actions have occurred on this parcel that predate this application. A plan for a restaurant was contemplated for this site in the spring of 1996 (reference letter to Bill Joseph from Terri Bernath, 5/3/99, file PA-00163) but was never formalized. Referral responses are as follows: Eagle County Engineer Roads are not labeled on Vicinity Map. Rivers are not labeled on Vicinity Map. Footpaths are not well delineated on site plan, and are not indicated at all on engineering plans. Ownership of roadway/driveway should be identified. Location of proposed vegetable stand could interfere with traffic flow. Additional study required. Number of Parking spaces for cafe/retail structure may not be adequate when shared use is considered. Gate across drive accessing greenhouse should be set further back. Roadway and driveway geometry will be closely studied at Preliminary Plan. Additional on-site detention/filtration facilities may be required. Consider providing measures to mitigate poor quality well water. Fire protection system will require review by Gypsum Rural Fire District. Additional information required relative to 100 year flood plain. State Highway Access Permit will be required. Additional work is required related to proposed pedestrian crossing on US Highway 6. Colorado State Forest Service Vegetation is generally cottonwoods, willows, sagebrush, rabbit brush and native grasses. Wildfire hazards are generally low. As it exists, fire could easily bum through the area. Proposed development will reduce the potential for wildfire. Fire resistant roofing material should be used on all structures. Eagle County School District Cash in Lieu of School Land is estimated to be $59.39, payable at Final Plan approval. Natural Resources Conservation Service Responded with no comment, will respond at Preliminary Plan Northwest council of Governments (NWCCOG) Proposed leach field is very close to 100 year flood plain, and may intersect ground water during high flow events. Applicant should explore alternative sites. Standards outlined in NWCCOG's 208 Plan regarding Water Quality Protection, specifically standards related to erosion and sediment control and storm water and urban runoff, should be applied to this development. Setbacks and buffer zones related to the average high the water mark should be established to prevent impacts to aquatic resources. Proposed roads and buildings shown within the boundary of the 100 year flood plain should be relocated. Eagle County Housing Department Approximately 102 employees will be required to support the proposed PUD. Provisions to provide housing to 20% of these employees should be made, preferably on site. 23 12-18-2000 Relocation accommodations should be made to assist residents currently living in the mobile home on the site. A future reduction in the square footage and/or number of employee housing units should not be allowed save by the "major modification" process outlined in the PUD Guide. Construction of employee housing should be a part of Phase 1. Specific detail is required related to the long term control of employee housing units to include possible restrictions to sales and/or lease agreements. The PUD Guide should include language specific to long term maintenance of on site employee housing. Individual building envelops and lots are mentioned in the PUD Guide, but no indication of the same is given on site plans for the project. If the project is to be subdivided, housing requirements should be attached to specific lots. Town of Gypsum Types of retail sales should be restricted. A liquor store with package sales and carry out would not be appropriate. Preliminary Plan should adhere to Town of Gypsum Standards in the event that this area becomes annexed by the Town in the future. Colorado Division of Water Resources Copy of contract with Colorado River District for Wolford Mountain Water not provided. No information provided concerning physical adequacy of water supply. An augmentation plan will be necessary. No indication that application has been made. Colorado Division of Water Resources (cont') Existing exempt wells on parcel must be included in augmentation plan, or plugged and abandoned Lacking a court approved augmentation plan, the proposed development will cause material injury to decreed water rights. Colorado Geologic Survey Geologic and geotechnical constraints such as debris flows and hydrocompactive soils exist, and should be considered in the planning process. A site specific geotechnical investigation and analysis should be required prior to platting. Grading and erosion and sediment control plans should also be required. The geotechnical engineer should review site grading plans for conformance with recommendations of the geotechnical investigation. Additional Referral A~encies, not responding: Eagle County Assessor, Attorney, Road and Bridge, Sheriff, and Environmental Health; Colorado Division of Wildlife; CDOT; Colorado Water Conservation Board; BLM; US Army Corps of Engineers; Gypsum Rural Fire District. No additional referrals have been received by Staff since the Planning Commission's meeting. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.l.a, Overview and Purpose. PUD Sketch Plan Review; the review of a Sketch Plan for PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for the proposed development. Consideration is given as to whether the application of a PUD to the site will result in significant improvements that would not otherwise be available through conventional subdivision, and whether the improvements proposed by the PUD are generally compatible with surrounding uses. Issues and concerns that should be addressed relevant to the approval of a Preliminary Plan are identified at this time. Staff utilizes the Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD, as detailed under in Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-240.F.3.e., and the Standards for Sketch and Preliminarv Plan for Subdivision, as detailed in Section 5-280.B.3.e in the review of a PUD Sketch Plan application. The . 24 12-18-2000 reader will note that there is some redundancy as these standards are applied. Pluses and minuses appearing before each Finding indicate where Staff has found that the proposed development meets or could meet that Standard ([+D, will not be able to meet that Standard (as proposed) ([-D, is of mixed conformance ([ +/ -]), or that the Standard does not apply ([ nla D. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that all of the land that is part of the proposed PUD is owned by Rudi Neumayer. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule'~ or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for P UD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized. Proposed uses of retail sales, open space, and studio for arts are designated as uses that are allowed as a Special use, or allowed as a Limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Districts Use Schedule", in the existing Resource zone district. Proposed uses of multi-family dwellings, restaurant, office space, art gallery, specialized shop space and commercial services are not designated, and will require Variation pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized. [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT entirely those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. USES not allowed MAYBE provided through a Request for Variation at the time of Preliminary Plan application STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F. 3.f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access andfire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are consistent with those found in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the existing Resource zone district designation, with the exception of lot size. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of 7500 square feet per lot and/or per use. The applicant will request Variations to dimensional limitations with respect to minimum lot size as a part of their application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE, with the exception of lot size, those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the sketch application for PUD. Variations ofthese dimensional limitations MAY BE authorized at the time of Preliminary Plan application pursuant to Section 5-240 25 12-18-2000 F.3.f., Variations Authorized,. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. Provisions for off street parking and loading, as detailed in the PUD, are consistent with applicable standards In Eagle County's Land Use Regulations. Additional information will be needed before a final determination can be made regarding the adequacy of spaces allocated for the potential combination of uses that are contained within and found upon the area surrounding the central restaurant building. The Applicant has indicated that the off-street parking and loading standards will be met at Preliminary Plan stage. Given the density proposed, the intensity of use and the available space, it is reasonable to expect that related standards can be met. The Planning Commission did recommend that the applicant consider increasing the area allocated to parking in order to better accommodate the uses proposed for the site. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD DO comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off- Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A landscape plan for a PUD is intended to address issues such as type and placement of trees and other landscaping along streetscapes and in common areas, and how areas disturbed during development will be re-vegetated. Landscaping Design Standards provide that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. For developments that contain lots larger than two (2) acres, "landscaping should include preservation or replacement of existing trees, shrubs and ground cover and revegetation of areas that are disturbed by development." The Conceptual Landscape Plan is required to illustrate the overall intent of the Applicant with regard to these provisions. An illumination plan is necessary to establish standards that prevent intense glare or direct illumination that would create a nuisance, detract from the use or enjoyment of adjoining property, or cause traffic hazards to motorists. Provisions for landscaping and the Conceptual Landscape Plan, and provisions for the regulation of illumination, as submitted by the applicant, are consistent with the intent of applicable standards. The Applicant will be required to provide a detailed landscaping and illumination plan, to include plans for irrigation systems, with the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5) Provisions for landscaping and lighting provided in the PUD ARE consistent with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. The Landscape Plan DOES NOT, at present, adequately delineate specific areas that will be disturbed, or how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved or replaced or how the areas disturbed will otherwise be re-vegetated. However, these details MAY BE addressed at the time of Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs. Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign planfor the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the P UD. 26 12-18-2000 Signs standards contemplated for this PUD are consistent with applicable guidelines. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is proposed for inclusion in the PUD Guide for Preliminary Plan. Applicable provisions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations will apply. [+/-] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] Sign standards ARE included in the PUD Guide, and MAY BE able to fully conform to applicable standards as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations at the time of Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for P UD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water sUlJlJlv. The Applicant has proposes to install a new 15 gallon per minute well and a 10,000 gallon storage tank to serve as back up should the well pump fail. Placement and design of various water system components will be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan. The development is anticipated to divert 4.95 acre-feet of water per year and to consume approximately 1.8 acre-feet. Watt;r rights are proposed to be obtained through a Wolford Mountain Reservoir Contract. As outlined in the referral response from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, a Water Augmentation Plan will be necessary prior to the approval of water rights for this development. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to clearly demonstrate that related approvals and permits are in place and that they are sufficient to meet the needs ofthe PUD as set forth in Eagle County's Land Use Regulations. Sewage dislJosal. It is proposed that an engineered ISDS be utilized for the proposed development. Given the proposed size of development, it appears that ISDS would be appropriate for this PUD, however, the use of the site for the production of art, photography and metallurgy products may require separate disposal and/or treatment of "specialized" waste. Provisions specific to the use and handling of these materials on site should be added to the PUD Guide. In addition, Staff concurs with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments that the location of a leach field in close proximity to the 100 year flood plain could be problematic. Prior to submittal for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate sewage disposal facilities for all uses will be provided and that terminal components of the system will be properly engineered and located. Solid waste dislJosal. No service provider is proposed. Given the adjacent commercial uses, it is reasonable to assume that service for the removal of solid waste would be available to this site. At the time of submittal for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that solid waste disposal services will be provided. . Electrical sUlJplv. Per letter from Ted Huskey (08/29/00) electrical service can be provided to this site by Holy Cross Electric. Fire lJrotection. Information provided by the Applicant indicates that a flow rate of 1500 gpm would be required for fire suppression on this development. A jet hydrant pulling water from the Colorado River is proposed to satisfy this requirement. Eagle County Engineering has requested that specific plans be developed regarding service lines and hydrant locations, and that buildings be further equipped with sprinkler systems given the anticipated long fire fighting response time. In addition, The Colorado State Forest Service has suggested that roof materials on buildings be fire resistant. Lacking a response to referral, it is not known whether the Gypsum Fire Protection District will agree to serve this site. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate fire protection measures have been taken, and that adequate fire protection services will exist for this development. Roads. Access to the site is via Highway 6. A new access is proposed for a location 400 feet west of the intersection of Cotton Lane and Highway 6. As noted by the Eagle County Engineer, a new CDOT 27 12-18-2000 permit for this access must be obtained. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that necessary access permits have been approved and are in place. Proximitv to schools. police and fire protection. and emer~encv medical services. The nearest elementary, middle school and high school are located in Gypsum, approximately five miles to the east, as is the nearest Fire Station. The nearest Sheriffs Office and Ambulance Station (Western Eagle County Ambulance District) are currently located twelve miles away in the Town of Eagle. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services will be available to this development. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT sufficiently demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and that it will be will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, such demonstration MAYBE made at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. The development, as proposed, should be able to meet the specifics of this standard without difficulty . (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. As noted by Engineering, the proposed internal and external pathways should be clearly indicated and dimensioned on site plans and engineering drawings at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. No difficulties are anticipated regarding the applicant meeting this standard. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. A State Highway Access Permit will be required prior to application for Preliminary Plan . Approval. This development, as proposed, should otherwise be able to meet the specifics of this standard without difficulty. 28 12-18-2000 (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Large snow events are uncommon inthis area of Eagle County. However, the site plan indicates that adequate space is available on site for the storage of snow plowed and/or removed from roadways and parking lots. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that all standards of this Section regarding Improvements will be satisfied at submittal for Preliminary Plan Approval. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. These standards MAY BE met at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The property immediately to the north and east, known as the Neumayer-Brown Subdivision, was changed from Resource to Commercial General zoning in November of 1983 (ZC 191 83), and is currently home to Aren Design and Rocky Mountain Concrete. The property across the river to the west is owned by William Stephens, and is now a part of the Two Rivers PUD. The site proposed for development, currently zoned Resource, is located between the 1-70 corridor to the south, commercial and special use operations to the east and north, and the soon to be developed Two Rivers PUD to the south and west. A zone change for this site could appropriately be labeled as "in- fill", especially given the similar nature of the proposed uses with those that already exist in the area. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of Eagle County's Master Plan furthermore identifies this area as a "Rural Center". A low density, mixed use development of the type proposed would be compatible, and would very likely provide useful services to the future Rural Center of Dotsero. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from Sketch Plan to Preliminary Plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the Master Plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS THAT FOLLOWS CONSIDERS THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Eagle County Master Plan. 29 12-18-2000 Environmental Quality - Portions of the proposed development are within or located very close to the 100 year flood plain of the Colorado river. Concern has been raised regarding the location of improvements in the flood plain and the protection of surface and ground water related to the placement of sewage leach fields and to storm water discharge from the site. A Flood Plain Development Permit will be required. Open Space/Recreation - Proposed development is in an area suitable for development in terms of compatibility with surrounding uses and avoidance of sensitive lands. Development - Proposed development satisfies Guiding Polices in this regard. Affordable Housing - Housing units for employees are proposed but, according to response from' Eagle County Housing, are not sufficient in number. PUD guidelines related to the use and "control" of spaces allocated for employee housing are also insufficient. Transportation - Proposed development satisfies Guiding Polices in this regard. FLUM - The Future Land Use Map shows this area to be Rural Center. The proposed development is consistent with the parameters ofthat use. Eagle County Open Space Plan. Open Space Provision - Proposed development is sensitive to open space values. Visual Quality - No adverse impacts are anticipated. Development Patterns - This small increase in density is appropriate given its location near existing commercial sites and residential communities, including the proposed Two Rivers PUD. Hazards - The site is not delineated on a Hazards Map, and no areas with slopes in excess of 40% exist. Wildlife - Proposed development is not located in an area designated critical to wildlife. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing 30 12-18-2000 Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develOp housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents I YES I NO I N/A I x x x x x x x x ~ Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan. The proposed plan recognizes the need for on-site employee housing by providing two employee units above the proposed restaurant. However, as indicated in the referral response from Eagle County's Housing Department, additional study should be undertaken to determine whether two units is sufficient relative to the need for housing that will be generated by activities on the site. In addition, provisions are needed in the PUD Guide that restrict and/or regulate the future use of any space allocated for employee housing on this property. [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS NOT presently consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAYBE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 4. 5. 6. 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. 10. 11. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue 31 12-18-2000 STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing has been proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule has not been submitted and will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval. Initial site disturbance, vegetation protection, landscaping, drainage and erosion control and the installation of open space and recreation amenities should be addressed. (+) FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees for all public improvements, MAYBE submitted at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for aU landowners within the PUD. The required minimum of 10 acres of common recreation and useable open space lands for every 1,000 persons residing in the PUD, or a minimum of25% ofthe total land area, is easily met by this proposal, which sets aside 7 acres, or approximately 65% of the total area proposed for development. 32 12-18-2000 While phasing is indicated, no specific Site Development Schedule detailing treatments to proposed open space areas has been submitted. A discussion regarding restrictions and/or covenants protecting open space areas, and provisions for the long term use and maintenance of open space areas and related improvements will be required as a part of the Preliminary Plan to satisfy the requirements the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. The pathway system and picnic area should be completed as a part of Phase 1 construction. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES NOT fully comply with the common recreation and open space standards. The Applicant MAY BE able to comply with related standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The referral agencies that have responded regarding this application are indicated on page two and three of this report. It is expected that additional responses will continue to be received. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) The PUD DOES NOT fully demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. However, adequate consideration MAY BE demonstrated at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See earlier discussion, "Consistency with Master Plan." [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS NOT presently consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] Uses - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation would be required for proposed uses of multi-family dwellings, restaurant, office space, art gallery, specialized shop space and commercial services. [+] Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation would be required for proposed minimum lot size of 7500 square feet. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Please note earlier discussion. Off- street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Please note earlier discussion. Plans 33 12-18-2000 for landscaping and illumination have been submitted and are deemed adequate for sketch plan approval. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Please note earlier discussion. Sign standards are discussed in the PUD Guide, and can conform to applicable standards as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. [+]Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Reference the response from Colorado Geologic Survey, geologic and geotechnical constraints exist on the site, and require a site specific geotechnical investigation and analysis be performed. Grading and erosion and sediment control plans are also be required. A letter from Wright Water Engineers stating that the data in the Flood Plain Report submitted for Two Rivers PUD is valid for this area will be required, as noted by Eagle County Engineering. The Applicant should plan to incorporate all of the recommendations of HP Geotech and LPK Engineering Inc, specifically as they relate to septic systems, moisture sensitive soils, and flood channel bank protection in the application for Preliminary Plan approval. A Flood Plain Development Permit will be required as referenced on page two of the Applicant's Engineering Report. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has noted generally low wildfire hazards on this site. Proposed improvements will further reduce this hazard. CSFS recommends the use of fire resistant roof material. This recommendation should be incorporated . into the PUD at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [nJa] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - No wood burning devices are proposed at this time. [nJa] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not in an area designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - A preliminary Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was submitted with the application and was deemed to be sufficient for the Sketch Plan application. The Applicant is advised that if significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, a more extensive EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) - No noise or vibration in excess of that permitted is anticipated from this proposal. [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess ofthat permitted are not anticipated as a result of this development. [+] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Heat, glare, radiation and/or electrical interference are not expected to originate from this development. [-] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) No details have been submitted regarding the storage of hazardous materials, especially those potentially hazardous materials related to the use of the site by artisans. The applicant will be required to conform to local, state and federal regulations and laws regarding the storage and disposal of all hazardous materials, and to demonstrate that standards for on site hazardous materials storage have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. Given the uses proposed for the site, the Applicant should also consider including language specific to these issues in the PUD Guide. [+ ] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) No discharge of surface or ground water pollutants are anticipated from this project. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) At the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that all standards for the following have been met, and that all related permits are in place. [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Given the terrain and other characteristics of the site, it appears that the Applicant will be able to satisfy the appropriate requirements. The County Engineer has 34 12-18-2000 noted that all access and traffic related issues have been deferred to the review of the State Highway Access Permit Application. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Eagle County Trails Plan reflects a trail corridor in this area, and proposes a widened road shoulder to accommodate bike travel. The development as proposed should not interfere with this plan. The Applicant plans to construct internal pathways linking various buildings and open space areas within the site. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Irrigation for landscaped areas on the site is proposed, but no specific detail has been provided. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - As indicated by referral from NWCCOG and further specified by CountY Engineering, additional provisions for on-site storm water retention and related flood plain mitigation will be be required. [-] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - General information regarding grading is included in the Sketch Plan application. No specific information or plans related to erosion control on the site have been submitted to date. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - Standards for lighting are discussed in general in the PUD Guide. Detailed information regarding utility layout and installation will be required at Preliminary Plan. [- ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Please see earlier discussion under Adequate Facilities. Potable water is proposed to be provided by well, with a 10,000 gallon backup supply. Water for fire suppression will be provided through use of a jet hydrant drawing water from the Colorado River. Engineering has suggested the use of sprinkler systems in the buildings. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that a Water Augmentation Plan will be required prior to the issuance of water rights and/or well permits for this development. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - An Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) is probably workable on this site. The shallow water table on the site, however, and its proximity to the flood plain of the Colorado River will require engineering. This Section requires compliance with Eagle County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations and is subject to review. by the County Environmental Health Manager. [-] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) As detailed in letter from Karen Strakbein, cash-in-lieu of school land dedication is preferred. Road impact fees will be assessed at $1000.00 per dwelling unit. These matters will be required to be addressed fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Payment will be due as a part of Final Plan Approval. FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, the Applicant MAY BE able to meet the applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Earle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. 35 12-18-2000 (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Given the proximity of the proposed PUD to US Highway 6, the use ofa well for water, the installation of an ISDS for sewage disposal, and the land use that currently exists on adjacent parcels, the spatial patterns proposed by this development are not anticipated to cause the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Concern for the proximity of proposed utility improvements to the floodplain is appropriate and should be noted by the Applicant. Incorporation of all geotechnical recommendations into plans submitted for Preliminary Plan approval will be required. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding llses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note earlier discussion. The mixed use propos~d is similar to and compatible with the existing land use in the surrounding area. It appears unlikely that the future development of the surrounding area would be adversely affected by the developm,~nt of this PUD. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. (Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surroanding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards ofthe Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: Permit integration of uses; Establish more efficient land use patterns; Preserve lands; Maintain water quality and quantity; Contribute to trails system; Establish incentives for affordable housing; and Be consistent with the Master Plan. 36 12-18-2000 The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. Staffhas looked for indications that one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies use ofPUD zoning. It is the opinion of the staff, after thorough review, that the proposed development does create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, and that the proposed land use restrictions in the draft PUD Guide can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. [+] FINDING: pun Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that nOES demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. Requirements for a Zone Chan~e It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are not granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the locational appropriateness of the proposed land use. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for amendment to the Official Zone District Map, Staff has engaged a preliminary analysis regarding the compliance of this application to the listed standards. (1) Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD MAY be consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment MAY be compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it MAY be an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) Changed conditions. There MAY be changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity; (4) Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment MAY NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) Community need It MAY demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) Development patterns. The proposed amendment MAY result in a logical and orderly development pattern, MAY NOT constitute spot zoning, MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and .. (7) Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply MAY HAVE changed or MAY BE changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. The Plan as submitted by the Applicant and conditioned by this report MAY be found to fully comply with the standards for Zone Change at application for Preliminary Plan. Chairman Stone spoke to staffs suggestion that all findings are positive. Mr. Simonton stated at this point in the application, sketch plan, there are some issues that may become a concern at preliminary plan. Chairman Stone stated just to make a comment, they have additional opportunities at preliminary plan to make comments. Sid Fox, Fox and Company, stated the land owner is Rudy Newmeyer and Tom Fry, the project architect. He stated one of the adjacent land uses is Aren Desgin which is a design building construction company. He stated Rocky Mountain Concrete Pumping and Aren Design is an appropriate mixed use design. He stated the site is located in the Dotsero Rural Center and the Master Plan does anticipate someadevelopment within this area. He showed a table summarizing the land uses and the maximum floor 37 12-18-2000 areas. He stated the restaurant would include some associated retail sales. In addition they propose two additional employee housing units as well as art/crafts studio commercial service areas. He stated they also have proposed a small green house to provide a farmer's market type atmosphere for a total of 16,750 square feet floor area. He showed a conceptual site plan. He stated approximately 60% of the site is in the 100 year flood plain with about a 4 acre development pod. Mr. Fox stated the green house would be developed above the flood plain. Commissioner Phillips asked if this is where the lava beds are. Mr. Fox stated it is on the other side. He showed the bridge crossing the Colorado River on the 1- 70 access road. They are proposing some minor encroachments being the access point and the greenhouse. He stated they have studied and identified the access to be right across from the river access controlled by CDOT. He stated they have applied for and received the access permit. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the building is by the river. Mr. Fox stated that is an existing well facility that provides water to the vacant home and the mobile home. That will be vacated and a new well will be provided. He stated they will drill a new well and will provide an augmentation plan. He stated the legal water will be through contract. He stated that process is started. He spoke of Tom Zancanella who will provide a pump test later this week. Chairman Stone asked about sewage and wastewater disposal. Mr. Fox explained that on site sewage disposal is practical. Chairman Stone stated he will be interested in hearing more about the relationship that mayor may not be with the Two Rivers sewage treatment facility. Mr. Fox stated he appreciates that input. He stated the evolution of the thought process started with a large proposal. He stated once they understood the implications of a larger development they came to understand that minimizing the cost and permit process is the desire to achieve the applicant's goals. He stated the site is located within the Gypsum Fire Protection District. He stated they did receive unanimous approval from the Planning Commission and staff has been generally supportive. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher asked about getting people off the highway and if they have considered a fueling location. Mr. Newmeyere stated no. Commissioner Gallagher asked how many studios. Mr. Newmeyer responded about 8,000 square feet. Mr. Fox stated they will be refining the building locations, concepts and size as they move to preliminary plan. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they can accommodate dwelling units above the studios. Mr. Fox stated they had more dwelling units in the plan but the problem is the water supply. They would be increasing the water demand. He stated that triggers many more requirements. He stated as Dotsero develops, and this being a PUD, it could be amended through the County review process. Commissioner Gallagher suggested that typically the County has suggested that 20% of the jobs created should provide housing. Commissioner Phillips asked if they have done any tests or looked at the water quality. Mr. Newmeyer stated the water testing is in process and they should have the results in a few weeks. Chairman Stone stated he shares Commissioner Gallagher's concerns with housing as well as Commissioner Phillips concerns with the water. He would like the solutions to be long term. Commissioner Phillips asked if on the eight conditions stated if the applicant has any problems with those. Mr. Fox stated they find them to be acceptable. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve PDS-00025 incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions: 38 12-18-2000 1) That prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant show evidence that water in sufficient quality and quantity will be available for the project. 2) That the proposed PUD Guide be modified to provide provisions for the ownership, care and maintenance of open space and common recreation areas. 3) That the proposed PUD Guide be modified to provide provisions related to long term control and management of dwelling units allocated for employee housing. 4) That prior to Preliminary Plan approval issues identified in the referral response from Eagle County's Housing Department be addressed. 5) That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant sufficiently demonstrate that Industrial and Commercial performance standards will be applied relative to the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous material used on the site, and that measures will be in place to protect the proposed septic system and leach field from the improper disposal of hazardous material. 6) That the application for Preliminary Plan approval incorporate and/or resolve the recommendations of Eagle County Engineering, HP Geotech, David L. Despeaux the Northwest Colorado Council of Govemments, Colorado State Forest Service and the Colorado Geological Survey as they relate to development on this site. 7) That a detailed Site Development Schedule be submitted as a part of the application for Preliminary Plan approval identifying specific improvement items and related time lines for the proposed phasing of the project. 8) That all material representations made by the applicant in submitted materials and in public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SDS-00008 and ZC-00043 Vagneur Subdivision Matt Gennet presented file number SUS-00008 and ZC-00043, Vagneur Subdivision. He stated this is a combined zone change and subdivision sketch plan. He stated the applicant is proposing to change the existing zoning. He showed the existing home and area around the location as it exists today. He stated the RSM zoning would be consistent with the density of the area and the context of the surrounding land uses. He stated all findings are found to be positive and staff is recommending approval with conditions. At its hearing of November 16th, 2000, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission responded positively to the applicant's proposal and considered the following in its recommendations of approval for File No. ZC-00043, and approval with conditions for File No. SUS-00008: The proposed zone change seems to be consistent with the density of the area and the context of surrounding land uses. The configuration of the lot lines on the existing site plan drew concerns from the commissioners- and it was suggested they be reconfigured to make Lot A more practical. Engineering answered questions from the Commission regarding access: the revisions to the site plan make it viable as a sketch plan from an engineering standpoint. The Applicant acknowledges there are access Issues. There were concerns raised regarding the proposed density. The site plan, as originally submitted, was revised to depict improved access. No further responses have been received. to serve the proposed subdivision. The following section addresses the requirements for a Zone Change first, and those for a Subdivision Sketch Plan second. Requirements for a Zone Chanee - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., 39 12-18-2000 Standards for Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: {The criteria are analyzed based upon the maximum density allowed under RSM zoning, which would be a total of5.4lots for a 1 acre parcel.} (1) Consistency With Master Plan. The purpose of the Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) zone district is to provide for relatively low density residential neighborhoods within and at the periphery of the County's community centers and rural centers. The Master Plan's approach to the area around the proposed subdivision is compatible with the intent of RSM zoning. FINDING: [+] The density allowed by an RSM zoning designation is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. The proposed zone change is also consistent with the Mid Valley Master Plan. (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. The existing and planned uses that surround the Vagneur's property are such that the proposed zone change would be a logical modification to achieve an increased level of compatibility. FINDING: [+] The density allowed under RSM zoning is compatible with the uses that surround the applicant's property as there are higher-density residential developments already in existence on two sides of the parcel. (3) Changed conditions. Since the implementation of zoning in Eagle County, the conditions in the area have changed to an extent that render the proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map necessary to allow for a needed, higher density. FINDING: [+] There are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity. (4) Effect on natural environment. The zone change from R to RSM will not have an adverse impact on the natural environment. FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment will not result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. (5) Community need. The immediate community does have a need to concentrate development in this area and the RSM zoning would help to achieve that goal. FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment addresses a community need. (6) Development patterns. The current development pattern in the area is consistent with what will occur under RSM zoning. The resultant pattern of an RSM zone district will be efficient and logical here. FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. (7) Public interest. Given the development trends in the immediate vicinity of the Applicant's parcel, it is in the public's interest to amend the zoning of this parcel. FINDING: [+] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply has changed and continues to change is such that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. Requirements for a Subdivision Sketch Plan - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 280.B.3.e., Standards for a Subdivision: 1. Consistent with Master Plan. The five-parcel Subdivision Sketch Plan, as submitted, is a logical development pattern as defined by the Master Plans that are concerned with this area. FINDING: [+] The Subdivision Sketch Plan is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. The Sketch Plan is also consistent with the Mid Valley Master. 40 12-18-2000 Plan.(See the matrices presented within the Discussion and Findings of the Proposed Zone Change.) 2. Consistent with the Land Use Regulations. Article 3, Zone Districts: At present, the parcel and the single family dwelling unit upon it are not in conformance with the standards of the existing zoning designation, which is Resource (R). The proposed zone change will bring the existing structure, and the newly created lots, into conformance with the Land Use Regulations and the Zone Districts set forth therein. FINDING: [+] The Subdivision Sketch Plan complies with the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. Article 4, Site Development Standards FINDINGS: [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [n/a] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Condition: At Preliminary Plan, the applicant shall address the road and traffic concerns of the Eagle County Engineering Department. [n/a] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Secti~n 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Condition: The letter referred to within the County Engineer's comments shall be made available at Preliminary Plan. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. Utility and Road Extensions. FINDING: [+] The existing unit is presently served by public services and the proposed development will not result in a leapfrog development pattern. Serve Ultimate Population. FINDING: [+] The utility lines will serve the planned ultimate population of the area and will be sized accordingly to avoid future land disruption. Coordinate Utility Extensions. FINDING: [n/a] There are no planned utility extensions. 4. Suitability for Development. The property is suitable for development and is presently developed with one single family dwelling unit. FINDING: [+] The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development. 41 12-18-2000 Compatible With Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The area around the Applicant's land is subdivided and in a manner similar to the Sketch Plan. FINDING: [+] The proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding uses. Ted Guy, representing Anthony Vagneur, stated they have no problem with the conditions of approval. They have reconfigured the lots following the planning and zoning meeting. He explained the reconfiguration and the easement for the driveway. The second issue was the right of way. Right now there is a 30 foot easement. They are willing to give ten feet. The Willits are willing to work with them~ Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher asked staff if after the conditions then there was the proposed motion. Mr. Gennett stated the Addendum was created after the Planning Commission meeting and are found on page 6 of 6, conditions one through five. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve ZC-00043, Vagneur Subdivision, incorporating staff findings and asking the clerk to incorporate them in the minutes. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve SUS-00008, Vagneur Subdivision, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions : I) Preliminary Plan Approval for the proposed number of lots shall be contingent upon the subdivision's overall conformance with the standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. A surveyed site plan demonstrating the spatial feasibility of a five (5) lot subdivision of the one acre parcel, with necessary access and utilities depicted, shall be submitted at Preliminary Plan. 2) At the Preliminary Plan stage, the Applicant shall address the Road Standard concerns involving access as outlined in the comments of the Eagle County Engineer. Additionally, the Applicant shall address the vehicle circulation and traffic generation concerns of the Eagle County Engineer, and submit the access easement agreement held with the other property owner. 3) Likewise, by Preliminary Plan, the "panhandle" on Lot C be reconfigured to eliminate such, and include a Pedestrian Easement of four feet on Willits Lane. 4) Pursuant to further comments, by Preliminary Plan, a report shall be filed with the State Engineer and Eagle County that provides water use estimates. The report will be prepared by, or on behalf of, the Mid Valley Metro District. 5) Except as otherwise modified by this application, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00056 Cordillera Subdivision Filing No 38 Matt Gennett presented file number PDF-00056, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 38, a resubdivision of Tract F, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No 34. He showed the location of the proposal. He stated this is a final plat to create one single family residential lot with a caretaker unit from Tract F, Filing No. 34 under the name and style of Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 38. Kathy Eastley, representing Cordillera Subdivision, stated this is immediately adjacent to Bearden Meadows and is at the far eastern tract. She stated it was considered before as a 35 acre tract. At that time there were additional studies to be done for the building envelop and the access to the site. They did additional planning to get it to this site. The parcel is 35 acres. Mr. Gennett stated all findings are positive and this application is consistent with the findings and the Land Use Regulations. Chairman Stone asked for questions form the Board. There were none. 42 12-18-2000 Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve PDF-00056, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 38, a resubdivision of Tract F, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 34, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the 'Board the meeting was adjourned until January 2, 2001. ". r. . .'1 , ~: ! ~~ Chai ;,. - 43 12-18-2000