Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/24/2001 PUBLIC HEARING JUL Y 24, 2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Arn Menconi Tom Moorhead 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 before the Board was an Executive Session. Tom Moorhead stated there are two items on the agenda under legal pending that qualify for Executive Session. One is the transfer ofreal estate, under Section 24-6-402(4)(a), Permissible Executive Session, there is purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any personal or other property interest. The remaining item is a matter of negotiation, under Section 24-6-402 (4)( e). Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the following: Receive legal advise and give direction to County Attorney concerning the transfer of real property and to receive legal advise and give direction to County Attorney in reference to negotiations of a lease. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Michael Cacioppo, County resident, was present for the hearing. He stated the reasons to not go into Executive Session are if you are selling a public property the public has the right to know what it is the County wants to sell and whether or not the public wants the County to sell it. He related according to the motion he just heard it appears to be a done deal and the Board will just be giving direction to County Attorney and the public has not had the opportunity to express it's opinion. The second issue is that it seems to be in the public's best interest for the public to know about the sale of public property so that more buyers could be aware of property coming on the market. Third, he thinks Executive Sessions have become a point of contention for other governments and he would like to see Eagle County adopt a more public perspective. Commissioner Gallagher reminded Mr. Cacioppo the public and the press that it is illegal for this Board to make decisions in Executive Session and those items will become public as they appear on the Board's agenda. There will be plenty of opportunity for public input. Mr. Cacioppo asked the Board to identify the property they will be discussing. Mr. Moorhead stated it is 110 acres that was acquired from CDOT and it is Gypsum 1-70 Interchange. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. The time was noted at 9:05 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. He stated they discussed the items mentioned above. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present for the vote. The time was noted at 9:4l a.m. 1 07-24-2001 Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of July 23, 2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for July 26,2001, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 26, 2001 D) Xerox Copier Agreement for the Facilities Management Department E) Resolution 2001-088, approving the Municipal Lease and Option Agreement F) Resolution 2001-089, approving final Release of Collateral and termination of the warranty period for Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing No.1 G) Approval of Agreement with B & B Excavating to construct the HoneywagonJEast Edwards Trail Project H) Agreement between Eagle County Colorado and Hal Burns concerning serving as stock contractor at the County Fair and Rodeo I) Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and Town of Vail concerning child care programs J) Eagle County Ambulance Permit for Eagle County Ambulance District K) Eagle County Ambulance Permit for Western Eagle County Ambulance District. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead stated there were no changes. Chairman Stone asked for comments from the Board. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to item E, the Resolution approving the municipal lease and option agreement and asked what equipment are they leasing. Mr. Moorhead stated that is the fire truck previously agreed to and being purchased by the Sheriff s Department. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for July 24, 2001, as presented. Commissioner Menconi 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: Resolution 2001-090 To Approve A Special Use Permit For State Bridge Landing (Eagle County File No. ZS-00076). The Board of County Commissioners considered this application at its regular hearing on June 26th, 2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-090 to approve a Special Use Permit for State Bridge Landing, file number ZS-00076. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement, Meldor Construction Tom Moorhead presented final settlement for Meldor Construction, for the State Highway 82 and Valley Road intersection improvements in El Jebel. He stated this matter was published and no claims have been received. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final settlement with Meldor Construction for the State Highway 82 and Valley Road intersection improvements in El Jebel. 2 07-24-2001 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Agreement, Mountain Valley Valet Inc. Rusty Williams, Animal Control Director, presented an agreement between Eagle County Colorado and Mountain Valley Valet, Inc., regarding parking for the Fair and Rodeo. He stated the parking they have experienced in the past has not met their desires. They sought a professional parking company to do this for them and Mountain Valley Valet has agreed to do so at their cost this year. The cost will be reimbursed through the paid parking reducing the costs for volunteers and paid staff. He stated the east lot will be paid parking as will a portion of the west lot. The western portion of the west lot will be free. Accommodations will be made for VIP and handicapped parking. He spoke to the shuttles that will transport people from the parking lots to the arena. The cost has been determined to be $5.00 per vehicle reducing the change that will be required. It will cover the cost of that companies contract. He stated they are prepared to adjust the amount for parking. Chairman Stone asked if they have charged for parking in the past. Mr. Williams stated no. Chairman Stone suggested this is quite a leap. He asked how much will be paid parking. Mr. Williams stated approximately 60%. Chairman Stone asked what they have paid the staff who have covered parking in the past. Mr. Williams stated less than half of the proposed intake. Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management Director, stated the total cost for paid volunteers was about $9,000. He suggested it would be a third of that. Chairman Stone asked if the reason for doing this is the parking has not been handled well in the past. He stated what he is trying to weigh are the complaints from the public about charging. He asked if there is a different way to solve it. Mr. Williams stated the complaints they have had in the past is the disarray and that the spaces were not used to the best potential. He stated it has been a disaster. This professional group can handle this for them. Commissioner Gallagher asked what this company would charge them if they were to have free parking. Mr. Williams stated their cost is $9,750.00. Chairman Stone asked what kind of revenue they will be seeing. Mr. Williams stated about $10,000. The thought here is to make enough to pay for the parking company. They would like to make it cost free to the County. Commissioner Menconi stated he heard that they have the money to pay for this. Mr. Williams stated yes through monies they have saved over last year. He stated he has cut back $26,000 on expenses. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Williams has an opinion on how this should go. Mr. Williams stated he would like to see better organization in the parking of cars. He stated like with the shelter, they received some complaints, but in the long run, it was the reasonable thing to do. He stated after the first year you wouldn't have a problem. Commissioner Menconi asked how much the ticket price is for the entrance. Mr. Williams stated for the rodeo it is $12.00. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like the parking price to be no more than $3.00. Michael Cacioppo asked what a paid volunteer is. Chairman Stone stated they have approximately 22 paid employees and then a number of volunteers. Mr. Cacioppo asked how many people it takes to park cars. Mr. Williams stated this is approximately six people and a supervisor parking cars each night. 3 07-24-2001 Chairman Stone asked if this is just for the rodeo. Mr. Cacioppo asked if the workers are paid for the day. Commissioner Gallagher stated there would be seven people during the day. Mr. Williams stated they will be parking people all day long but the charge is in the evening for the rodeo. Mr. Cacioppo stated the calculations are about $7,000 per day. He stated if you allocate $200.00 per day for seven or fourteen people you are looking at about $7,000. He stated if you are going to go with $5.00 to make $10,000 what are you going to dt. with the extra. He suggested if the difference would be to upgrade, the public can buy off on that. Chairman Stone stated Mr. Williams searched 1'0; a company that would do this cost effectively. Mr. Cacioppo asked ifthe excess money will be used to improve the parking. Chairman Stone questioned if the parking should bt..~ a revenue source for the fair or as a compliment. He spoke to the successes they have had recently in making this a breakeven project and pay for itself. That is why he asked what they normally spend. He understands the safety issues and could this help alleviate possible problems. Mr. Cacioppo suggested leaving a section for free parkbg and charging $3.00 would seem fair to him. Commissioner Gallagher again suggested $3.00. Chairman Stone stated if they charge $3.00 there will be i'l..let that they have to payout to the tune of about $4,000. Commissioner Gallagher stated they don't know how many vehicles they are going to have or turnovers on a given day. He thinks there is the possibility for a shor,tfall but it wouldn't surprise him if there wasn't any. Chairman Stone suggested if they are going to put some extra tQwards it, it may be worth the expenditure. Mr. Williams spoke to the extra revenue and he stated it has been,an historical fact the fair and rodeo has operated in the red. He stated the costs to put on the fair and ro~~o on have been 50% more than the revenues taken in. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are doing anything about ove~f1ow parking farther west. Mr. Williams stated they will open up additional parking all the way to the animal shelter if needed and have a bus running to pick them up and bus them back. Commissioner Menconi stated though they are better at raising revenues, the fair is still operating at a deficit. He asked how much of a shortfall they are experiencing. He stated they are offering this to the community as an amenity. The problem is people can't park right. They need, to correct the parking situation and then either look to subsidize or loose money on that. He thinks the tick.et price of$12.00 with parking of $5.00 is difficult to pay. He questioned raising the ticket price by adollar and not charging anything for parking. Mr. Williams stated the tickets have been printed. Commissioner Menconi asked if we want to continue enhancing this, do they waiJt to increase the expense and if so, do they want to offset that cost. Mr. Williams stated he would like to improve the professionalism of the fair and pass the costs on to those in attendance not increase the deficit. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated the plan has been to not increase support in. the budget but allow the fair manager to enhance the rodeo through fiscal management. Chairman Stone asked ifthey can hire this company for $9,750 and have them do the parking. Mr. Williams answered yes. Chairman Stone suggested they hire the company for that money, charge $3.00 for parking and any funds they receive above $9,750 will go back into the fair. Mr. Williams stated he doesn't know that they will come back. 4 07-24-2001 Chairman Stone stated the difference in this is to change the contract and pay them out the $9,750. Mr. Ingstad suggested they had discussed this. Mr. Williams questioned if they have a guarantee of$9,750.00. Chairman Stone stated yes. They will collect $3.00 per car, pay the company $9,750, and there will still be free parking. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they will work the free parking area too. Mr. Williams stated they will. Commissioner Menconi stated if they went with the contract and $5000 came in. The contract allows for 90% ofthe revenues after $9,750.00 with the County keeping 10% ofthat. Commissioner Menconi moved to amend the contract with Mountain Valley Valet, Inc. to guarantee the $9,750 to the company and charge $3.00 per car for parking between Eagle County and Mountain Valley Valet, Inc., regarding parking for the Fair and Rodeo. Mr. Moorhead asked if the contract would be amended to pay $9,750.00 to Mountain Valet and any balance shall be paid to Eagle County. Mountain Valley Valet shall be responsible for a full accounting. Chairman Stone stated they would take out the line on the second page that reads "all parking fees shall be retained by Mountain Valley Valet." Mr. Moorhead stated that was correct. Chairman Stone stated they will pay Mountain Valley Valet a total of$9,750.00. There will be a charge of $3.00 per car for parking which the County receives all of. Commissioner Menconi amended his motion to include the discussion items. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Grant Application, Department of Local Affairs Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Director, presented a Grant Application to the Department of Local Affairs under the Colorado Waste Tire Grant Program. Ms. Forinash refreshed the Board's memories about the replacement or resurfacing of playgrounds. She stated in May at CCI she learned of a grant program to pay some of the costs of refurbishing these play centers. She stated this program takes the Colorado tires, shreds and demagnitizes the rubber for use in playground surfaces. She explained the process and under the requirements of the grant, they submit the proposal on behalf of the other facilities. There are no County dollars to be spent and they will be matched by the various entities. Chairman Stone asked if she spoke to the Towns. Ms. Forinash stated no, but there will be other opportunities and she would certainly do so. Chairman Stone spoke to California and the problems they are experiencing. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Grant Application to the Department of Local Affairs under the Colorado Waste Tire Grant Program. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-091, Supplementary Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2001-09l, adopting a second supplementary budget and appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2001, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. He stated this is the second appropriation for this calendar year. He stated the amount is $2,351,390.00. He explained the amount differs by $20,000.00. What the Board is looking at has the amount included for the Edwards Access Control Plan as $70,000 and it should be $90,000. He spoke to the cost of the health 5 07-24-2001 insurance program and the need to cover the current claims and maintain a reasonable fund balance. He spoke to some of the other expenditures. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, pointed out they had neglected to add the Cemetery Bridge which is shown at $lO,OOO and should be $20,000. She stated there is actually $30,000 more in the budget that the Board does not see on their inserts. Mr. Roeper stated the revised total amount is $2,361,390. He stated the health insurance claims have been substantial. He stated he understands the amount approved last year was reduced by $500,000. Mr. Ingstad stated that was due to a miscalculation per employee that was brought to their attention. There was a difference in opinion with the then finance director. The claims are far above what was anticipated. He understands this will bring them back to a $300,000 fund balance at the end of the year. Chairman Stone spoke to the outstanding health insurance at a cost that is incredibly low should be recognized by employees. An increase in health insurance premiums is a fact and experienced by those not employed by a larger organization. He stated that should be taken into account as they discuss the employee benefit program. Mr. Ingstad stated the Human Resource budget has some problems. The advertising expenditures exceeded the amount budgeted. He believes they budgeted money for the pay plan redesign. He stated the advertising budget this year will double over what it has been in the past. Chairman Stone stated during the budget discussions he would like to see a recruitment dollar amount. There may be an incentive program they could introduce to improve the quality of employees. Mr. Ingstad spoke to Mr. Roeper's suggestion that each department pay for the second round of advertising. Chairman Stone asked about insurance, do they see any problems with moneys being spent that shouldn't be on anyone's health care. Mr. Roeper stated he has not seen a problem but an audit would be a suggestion. Mr. Ingstad stated their administrator, Mountain States, takes a very tough line and is more inclined to side with the County. Commissioner Gallagher asked what EV means. Mr. Roeper stated Eagle Valley Trails Funding. Commissioner Gallagher stated that is the wrong name. He also asked about some additional requests for this supplemental. Mr. Roeper stated he doesn't recall any others being submitted. Mr. Ingstad stated he thinks they were able to handle the rolling stock request. Mr. Roeper stated they did take care of that in the first supplemental. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2001-091, adopting a second supplementary budget and appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2001, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies as amended. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-092, designating July 28, 2001 as Colorado Cares Day Kathleen Forinash presented Resolution 2001-092, designating July 28, 2001 as Colorado Cares Day. She spoke to the recognition a few weeks ago of the individuals who give so much to the community. She introduced Melissa Mizerack, Coordinator of the volunteers. Ms. Mizerack stated to celebrate Colorado Cares day they will host a canned food drive with a box over in Health and Human Services as well as in the City Markets Countywide. She read the resolution as follows: "Whereas the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, 6 07-24-2001 (hereinafter the Board) wishes to celebrate Colorado Cares Day on July 28, 2001, and Whereas the Board acknowledges that this day celebrated the 125th anniversary of Colorado's admission into the Union, and Whereas this day will celebrate the spirit of giving and volunteerism in the State of Colorado, and Whereas the Board desires to encourage all citizens to give back to the state and their neighborhoods in celebration of our statehood; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the Country of Eagle, State of Colorado, That July 28, 2001 be designated as Colorado Cares Day in Eagle County and be celebrated by families and communities throughout Eagle County. That the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado." Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-092 designating July 28, 2001 as Colorado Cares Day. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Petition, Board of Equalization, Appeals of Valuation Bruce Stasinger, Attorneys Office, introduced Mark Young and Ken Call, Hearing Officers. He presented a petition to the Board of Equalization of recommendations from the hearing officer on appeals of valuation. He stated the Board must approve all of the findings of the hearing officers. Chairman Stone stated all that they have received prior to this moment is the Resolution adopting the petitions. He stated none of them have had the opportunity to review this and it is difficult for them to ask questions on something they have had little time to review. He asked if the Commissioners would like to take some time to review this. Tom Moorhead suggested Mr. Stasinger explain what is contained in the schedule that has been presented. Mr. Stasinger explained the documentation and what the different columns represent. He stated through the Notice of Termination or by recommendation of the hearing officers there has either been or not an adjusted amount. Commissioner Gallagher asked for an example of a stipulation. Mark Young, Hearing Officer, stated that usually a stipulation is when both parties agree on a particular value. He stated if you sign a stipulation, you can not go on to the next level for appeal. If a party does not sign the stipulation, they can further appeal the action of the Board. Commissioner Gallagher asked about Docket #7. Mr. Call stated that is what they call an administrative denial. This gives the Assessor an opportunity to examine the file. He stated he didn't feel he had enough information to make a decision either way. Commissioner Gallagher asked if generally there was a basis for appeal and if so was there generally a reason why. Mr. Young stated generally speaking he believes that the people that appeal do not understand the process. He stated that is the biggest problem. He stated when he adjusts a property it is usually based on the facts of the case. He spoke to Cordillera and the golf memberships which can range from $75,000 to $150,000. He spoke to the lack of documentation. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this follows the law of preponderance. Mr. Young answered yes. Chairman Stone asked about where it says there was an adjustment but no stipulation. Mr. Young stated the Assessor and the individual did not come up with a stipulated value. If 7 07-24-2001 they do not sign a stipulation, the individual can take it to the next step. The value adjustment became the call of the Hearing Officer. Chairman Stone questioned out of the 243 only 6 agreed to stipulate. 237 people can take the next step whether their value was adjusted or not. He asked Mrs. Caruthers what has been the experience in the past. Jody Caruthers, Eagle County Assessor, stated there are always some that go on. Some, once they understand the process, may not take it forward. They may not be happy with the number, but they live with it. Commercial properties frequently go on. She doesn't anticipate a high percentage of people going on. She stated they will see withdrawals before they get to the BAA. It is rare that on residential property they go on with an appeal. Chairman Stone stated even though they didn't stipulate those that went down they will unlikely go on. He questioned the one file going up in value. Ms. Caruthers referred to page 10. This was Park Plaza and they recalculated the square footage and one unit went up in value while the others went down. Chairman Stone asked if the Assessor can petition to appeal the figures. Ms. Caruthers explained if they appeal and it is found there was an error it can be changed. If they do not appeal and an error in an area that they believe should be equalized they then ask the Board of Equalization to authorize the adjustment. Chairman Stone asked the steps. He suggested the protest starts with the valuations received a few months ago. If an adjustment is made, then the value continues. Does the taxpayer have any further say? Ms. Caruthers stated unless they find an area in a neighborhood where they adjust the whole neighborhood. Chairman Stone asked if they send all of the property owners in that neighborhood a notice of adjustment. Ms. Caruthers stated if they haven't appealed they normally don't. Chairman Stone asked about adjusting upward. Ms. Caruthers stated if it was an entire neighborhood, they might request an order to adjust. Chairman Stone continued if they don't like the answer to their appeal they then go to the Board of Equalization. He asked about the next step. Ms. Caruthers stated they then go to the State Board of Assessment Appeals, District Court or Binding Arbitration. Tom Moorhead reminded the Board they are the Board of Equalization and they are reviewing the decisions made by the referees. Chairman Stone stated he understands. Commissioner Menconi asked if by approving the petition, what type of responsibility does the Board of Equalization make. Mr. Stasinger stated if they disapprove the petition as a whole, they would then hold hearings as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Menconi stated one of the options is to approve except for a few they may have questions on. Mr. Call stated the handout the petitioner signs before the hearing does state that their decision will be reviewed by the Board. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it would be advantageous at some stag of the process to have a class to explain the process to the public. He asked if it would reduce the work load. Mr. Stasinger stated that is a great idea if you could get a large enough turnout. He suggested the process might also be posted on the web site. Ms. Caruthers stated they have a large number of brochures that explain the processes. She stated they make those available and give as much information as they can. 8 07-24-2001 Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is in their preview to make a meeting mandatory. Mr. Moorhead stated he doesn't believe so. Once they appeal they can choose how they will appear at the hearing or if they do not appear. Ms. Caruthers stated a lot of appeals are handled by consultants who may have their own best interest at heart. He stated they have one person in particular soliciting business through this process. She stated that is true in timeshares and condominiums. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they will be doing this once a week until they are finished. Mr. Moorhead stated yes and they will be coming to the Board to extend the period of time needed for the hearings. He stated they have considered having a third referee. The Assessor must make her report by August 25. He stated one difficulty they are confronted with is the number of hearings they must schedule. He stated Mr. Stasinger has done a good job of explaining the hearing date issue. The one difficulty they have is that the mail is tremendously slow and notices are not reaching the individuals in a timely manner. That is why they plan to extend the period oftime. Commissioner Gallagher stated he recommends a third referee over extending the time period. Chairman Stone stated he certainly hopes they are giving persons the understanding needed. Mr. Stasinger stated he tries to work with the caller as much as possible. He stated some people's schedules are quite limited and they are trying to work with people within reason. Chairman Stone stated he hopes they are taking a reasonable approach to this recognizing that some people don't want to be accommodated. He suggested that hiring a third officer would be wise. Mr. Stasinger stated they do have someone who can work only mornings and they are suggesting they reduce the hearing time to 15 minutes. Ms. Caruthers stated they can also do the hearings by phone conference. She spoke to the statutory deadline of August 25. Mr. Call stated they had 155 residential protests and 59 for vacant land. He stated sometimes Commissioners can be part of the process and with their support and that of the Association there can be some influence in the decisions on which they base their valuations. He spoke to the desire to have agricultural land over vacant land. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Petition to the Board of Equalization of recommendations from the hearing officer on appeals of valuation. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZC-00044, Bishop Construction Bob Narracci, Planner, presented file number ZC-00044, Bishop Construction. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled indefinitely. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number ZC-00044, Bishop Construction indefinitely, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PR-00017, Lehmann Gravel Pit Permit Renewal Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number PR-00017, Lehmann Gravel Pit Permit Renewal. Topics deliberated by the Eagle County Planning Commission at their regular meeting of June 20, 2001 included the following: Reclamation ofthe site as it relates to the underlying zoning and the anticipated post-mining use (see modification to condition # 2). Reclamation of the site as it relates to responsibilities for areas disturbed by previous operators (prior to the current Special Use Permit) (see modification to condition # 8). 9 07-24-2001 The sufficiency of the State Reclamation Bond (see modification to condition # 2). The possible relocation of the natural gas line that exists at the western end of the permit boundary . Compliance of future operations given the possibility of exposing ground water during excavation. Post mining topography and the availability of overburden and/or fill material that will be needed to replace mined resource. The routing of flood water in Spring Creek through the site and the protection of the Spring Creek drainage from environmental damage (see modification to condition # 3) As indicated, the Planning Commission modified three of Staff s conditions for recommendation to the Board. Those modifications are indicated in bold in the conditions listed under Section C, Recommended Motion, at the conclusion of this report. Since the Planning Commission's meeting of June 20th, Staffhas worked to determine the following: A remedy to the question regarding the zone designation of the land within the permit boundary of the gravel pit has been determined and will be implemented by Staff with the cooperation of the owner as a separate issue. In any event, the criteria used to evaluate a request for a Special Use Permit for gravel extraction in Eagle County, regardless of zoning, is the same and has been applied. The Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) establishes a bond for reclamation through its permit process. The amount of the bond is based either on a demonstrated post mining land use, or on an assumption that the land will be returned to pasture and/or rangeland conditions. While an underlying zone designation of Industrial may one day allow the owner of the Lehmann site to demonstrate that an alternative to re-seeding is justified, "demonstration"(i.e. an approved master plan, site plan, or approved building or grading permits) will need to be provided to the State, an alternative to re-seeding will need to be proposed, and the MLRB Permit will need to be amended. No evidence has been submitted by the Applicant to indicate that this has been accomplished. In any event, the Board of County Commissioners is not held to provisions of the MLRB Permit, and may require whatever reclamation for the site it deems appropriate. According to the State, unless the portions of a gravel pit that were disturbed by a previous operator are isolated from present day operations in such a manner that they are completely unused, a new operator assumes full responsibility for the entire permit boundary. It is not clear that those areas on the site plan labeled as "Mined and Graded" fit this description, which has potential bearing on the modification made by the Planning Commission to condition # 8. While the Town of Gypsum Master Plan (10/05/99) indicates a current zone designation of "Light Industrial" and "Commercial 2" for the Lehmann parcels to the north of the gravel pit, the Future Land Use Guide indicates a use of "Urban Center Residential" and "Mixed Use Project" for these parcels, and "Park" for the area within the current gravel mine permit boundary. Elam Construction, operator of the Lehmann Gravel Pit, has submitted a request for an extension oftime for their existing Special Use Permit, ZS-48-95-A, which would allow for the extraction and processing of gravel resource from the last portion of their approved permit site - a 6.2 acre parcel that lies west of the existing pit. The permit area consists of a 36.4 acre parcel that lies north of the new Eagle County Airport runways, west of the west end of the original (old) airport runway, and east of Jules Drive. To the north is the Lehmann Industrial Park (ZC-142-81), which fronts US Highway 6. The site is zoned Resource. Historic uses of the land are agricultural, although gravel mining in one form or another has taken place on the parcel since before 1970. Approximately 23 acres have been disturbed by mining to date. The excavation of the Lehmann Gravel Pit is occurring in such a manner as to leave a significant head wall, 30 to 60 feet tall, on the south (airport) side of the pit. The excavation generally daylights to 10 07-24-2001 pasture land and US Highway 6 to the north. Operations to date have been somewhat screened from the I -70 corridor by large cottonwood trees that grow along the Stremme Gates Ditch, which travels the northern edge of the property. Activities on the remaining 6.2 acres to be mined will not be similarly screened, and will occur in closer proximity to new residential developments along Jules Drive. As work continues, the asphalt batch plant, vehicle parking, equipment storage and maintenance, scales and operations offices will remain in their present location at the eastern end ofthe project site. The crusher will be located near the west end of the existing pit, but will not be moved to the area west of Spring Creek. Resource from the remaining 6.2 acre parcel will be trucked to the crusher site, which will remain largely hidden from view. Overburden from the new area is proposed to be removed, placed and stabilized in such manner as to maximize visual screening. Topsoil will be removed first and stored separately. Stockpiled overburden and topsoil will be used as needed to accommodate reclamation activities, which are proposed to be concurrent with development. Per condition # 5 of resolution 95-28, the operator is required maintain a maximum disturbed area of 15 acres on the site. Vehicle trips to and from the project average 1 80 trips per day, with a short term max projected to be 370. Acceleration and deceleration lanes have been installed and approved. The chronology of the application is as follows: Sometime prior to 1970, gravel extraction begins on the site. 1979 ZS-48-78 The Delatte Gravel Pit Special Use Permit is approved for gravel pit operations on 22 acres. 1995 ZS-48-94-A The Lehmann Gravel Pit Special Use Permit is approved by the BoCC. 14.4 acres is added to the permit area. February 26, 2001 Application is submitted to the County by Elam Construction for the renewal of the Special Use Permit. A completeness letter requesting additional information is sent on March 10th. May 2, 2001 A revised application is submitted to the County and the referral process is initiated. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Returned memo stating "no comment". Eagle County Environmental Health Site well organized, well maintained Most fluids are properly stored on site. However, improvements must be made to the containment basin for the 12,000 gallon diesel fuel tank located near the batch plant, as it is inadequate to contain the volume of the tank in the event of a spill (see condition # 2). Dust is a concern. Four complaints have been registered by code enforcement, all related to dust. The paving of the access road has helped improve the situation, as have berms that operate as wind breaks. A water truck is on site. Applicant must 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. Eagle County Airport No concerns noted at tills time. Town of Gypsum Parcel is designated asPARK in the Town of Gypsum Master Plan Reclamation is very inportant to the Town Adjacent uses have clanged, most significantly the approval of multi-family developments adjacent to Jules Lane. Impact to residential areas along Jules Lane would be lessened over time if the mining of the new 11 07-24-2001 tract were to begin at the west end and progress to the east (see condition # 4). Impacts would be lessened if hours of operation were limited to 7:00am to 6:00pm weekdays (see condition # 7). Other Referral Agencies, not responding: Eagle County Sheriff, the Town of Eagle, CDOT, and the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Board. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: While Resolution 95-28 which approved the Lehmann Gravel Pit operation clearly states that the Applicant shall not be required to complete a full Special Use application, re-submittal and rehearing to obtain an extension of the Special Use, the 1995 Resolution does provide some general guidelines as to how a request for renewal should be evaluated: "At the six year anniversary date/renewal hearing, (March 2001) the applicant should show just cause for the continuation of the permit based on circumstances at that time. The BOCC may consider changes in adjacent land use, updated master plans, conformance with the permit application and conditions, availability of gravel resource or other criteria." Pursuant to the above stated provisions of Resolution 95-28, Staff has formulated three (3) standards for evaluation of this file, as follows: 1) STANDARD: Justification for Continued Use. Local demandfor product and availability of the resource within the permit boundary supports the extension of the existing Special Use Permit. The Applicant has provided adequate evidence indicating product demand, and has indicated that geologic conditions similar to those on property already mined exist on the new area proposed for mmmg. [+] FINDING # 1: Justificationfor Continued Use. The proposed extension of Special Use IS justified given local demand for the product, and availability of additional resource within the permit boundary . 2) STANDARD: Conformance with Provisions of the Application for Special Use Permit. The proposed continuation of Special Use shall conform to provisions of the original Special Use Permit, as provided by Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Staff utilized applicable Sections of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations in its analysis of whether or not operations are in conformance with the original Special Use Permit application, as follows: 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 ~Ian. 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 FLUM of the Master Plan, includil1g standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. The Eagle County Master Plan was updated in 1996. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this area as "Countryside" and anticipates its annexation inte the Town of Gypsum. The master plan for the Town of Gypsum has designated this site as "Park" Imd anticipates its use as open space adjacent to the Lehmann Industrial Site (letter from Ken Long, OSi'29/0l). Present operations are in conformance with most provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan, \!Ut issues regarding insufficient reclamation, insufficient containment around a fuel tank, and exposed gnmnd water on site render present operations in non-conformance with the provisions of this master plan related to the protection of ground water and the control of dust through prompt revegetation. The Eagle County Open Space Plan has not been revised since ils creation in 1979. Present operations are in conformance, and the proposed extension of use on this si.te should continue to conform to the Plan. The Eagle River Watershed Plan was updated in 1996. Issues regarding insufficient 12 07-24-2001 containment around a fuel tank and exposed ground water on site render present operations in non- conformance with the provisions of this master plan related to Water Quality (please see additional discussion under "Zone District Standards" below). [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit IS appropriate for its proposed location, but it IS NOT at present consistent with all of 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. ST ANDARD: 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. Impacts from operations on the site were found to be compatible with surrounding land uses in 1995. The level and type of activity on the site as a result of the proposed extension oftime for the Special Use will remain virtually the same. Land use surrounding this site remains essentially unchanged as well, with the exception that there is increased residential development at the western end of the area 6.2 acre site that will be mined should the extension of Special Use be approved. The applicant has agreed to several conditions to lessen the impacts to these residences: l) Extraction of resource materials will begin at the west end of the project and move east so that as more people move into the area along Jules drive over time, operations will be moving away from that location (condition # 4); 2) Hours of operation will be restricted west of the Spring Creek drainage (condition # 7); and 3) The crusher plant and related processing activities will remain in the existing pit (condition # 5). [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and, as conditioned, IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The mine is 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. Issues regarding insufficient reclamation, insufficient containment around a fuel tank, and exposed ground water on site render present operations in non-conformance with the provisions of the Applicant's Environmental Impact Report related to water use and dust control. [-] (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. Regarding water use on the site; as evidenced by information contained in the application, the Applicant's present Substitute Water Supply Plan is valid only so long as ground water is not exposed 13 07-24-2001 within the pit. Per the Substitute Water Supply Plan, should ground water be exposed, the Applicant is required to obtain a change in water rights through the water court, as well as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A recent site visit found ground water exposed on the project, and aerial photos would indicate that a significant area of ground water was also open to the air in the same location in the fall of 1998. As such, the Applicant would appear to be in non-conformance with provisions of their water supply plan. Staff would recommend that any extension of Special Use be conditioned on the immediate burial of exposed ground water to a depth of not less than 12 inches above the seasonal high water mark, and that no ground water be exposed by continued operations on the site until such time that the Applicant show evidence that a change in water right has been executed, and a NPDES permit has been obtained (conditions # 2 and # 6). [+] (3) Site Plan. ...a detailed site plan shall be submitted, including landscaping sufficient to meet the standards found is Section 4-230 Landscaving Design Standards and Materials. Security may be required to guarantee landscaping, drainage and erosion control.... This standard has been sufficiently addressed. [+] (4) Fabrication, Service and Repair Allfabrication, 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. Current operations are in conformance, and no significant change is proposed. [+] (5) Storage. All storage of materials associated with the operation shall occur within a building, or shall be obscured by an opaque .fence. Current operations are in conformance, and no significant change is proposed. [+/-] 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 Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. d. 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. Current operations are in conformance, and no significant change is proposed. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES adequately minimize' adverse i~npacts, including visual impact ofthe proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, noise and traffic, and WILL NOT create a nuisance. e. 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. The area containing the Spring Creek drainage will be left undisturbed, with the exception of one haul road that will be constructed to accommodate trucking of resource from the new site to the crusher machinery, which will remain in the existing pit. In its present condition, excavation within the gravel pit to levels below the water table may cause damage to water quantity and quality in the area (see discussion above under Zone District Standards). In its present condition, disturbed areas on the site exceed the 15 acre maximum allowed as a 14 07-24-2001 condition of the Special Use Permit. This non-conformance may exacerbate fugitive dust problems (please see discussion under STANDARD # 3, Conformance with conditions of original Special use Permit, below). H FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use DOES NOT at present fully minimize environmental impacts, and MAY cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. f. 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. Current operations are in conformance, and no significant change is proposed. [+] 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. g. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [nla] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). . [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+/-] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) [+] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) [-] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) As provided in the memo from Rudi Zitti (05/29/0l) the containment basin provided for the 12,000 gallon diesel storage tank is not presently large enough to contain a possible spill. [-] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) The applicant is currently in non-compliance with provisions of their Substitute Water Supply Plan. [+/ -] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [nla] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [nla] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [nla] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [-] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) The Applicant's Substitute Water Supply Plan is rendered invalid given the presence of exposed ground water on the site. As such, the applicant is with out a legal water source. (Please see earlier discussion under Section 3-31 0.P.2) [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [nla] 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, at present, fully comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. h. 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. 15 07-24-2001 No other applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations were found relevant to this proposal for an Extension of Special Use. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions: The proposed extension of Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions ofthese Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics [-J FINDING # 2: Conformance with Provisions of the Application for Special Use Permit. The proposed continuation of Special Use DOES NOT at present fully conform to provisions of the original Special Use Permit. 3) STANDARD: Conformance with Conditions of the original Special Use Permit. The proposed continuation of Special Use shall conform to conditions established by its approval. The following conditions were established by the Board of County Commissioners through Resolution 95-28, Approval of Special Use for the Lehmann Gravel Pit. Staff s analysis regarding the applicant's conformance with each condition is provided. 1) Applicant must submit a copy of their approved State Mine Land Reclamation Permit and reclamation bond prior to extending mining operations into the new area. Evidence of these documents has been submitted, and the Applicant is in conformance with this condition. This condition will remain in effect should the Special Use Extension be approved. 2) This permit shall expire upon depletion of the on-site gravel resource or shall be subject to renewal 6 years from the date of approval by the BoCC, unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission. Special Use Permit ZS-48-94 expired on March 14th of this year. The applicant submitted a request for an extension of Special Use on February 26t\ and has worked to satisfy requests made for documents and plans required to properly process their application. The Applicant is in conformance with this condition. This condition will carry forward should the Special Use Extension be approved. 3) The hours of operation, unless otherwise specified by the Board of County Commissioners shall be as follows: Crushing operations: 7:00am to 7:00pm Asphalt and concrete plant: no time restrictions, however, operation is subject to County review and standards. Information provided by the Applicant would indicate that present operating hours are generally from 6:00am to 7:00pm Monday through Saturday. The Applicant has also indicated that some night time activities in and around the batch plant may be necessary from this time forward. The town of Gypsum has suggested that hours be limited to 7:00am to 6:00pm on weekdays only for those areas west of the Spring Creek drainage. As discussed an agreed to by the Applicant, Staff is recommending that mining activities in the area west of the Spring Creek drainage be restricted to 7am to 5pm Monday through Friday, with no work in this area allowed on weekends or select holidays (condition # 7). As provided by the original permit, no time limits shall be placed on the operation of the crusher or the asphalt plant. No concrete plant is proposed for the site. The Applicant is presently operating in conformance with provisions for hours of operation and, as conditioned, this proposed extension of the Special Use should remain in conformance as well. This condition, as amended, will carry forward if the Special Use Extension is approved. 4) The height of any temporary light poles shall be no higher than 25 feet; in addition, the light must be shielded and directed downward. The Applicant is presently in conformance with this condition. No new lighting is anticipated, and the proposed extension of Special Use should remain in conformance. This condition will carry forward if the Special Use Extension be approved. 5) The total area of disturbance is limited to 15 acres at one time: *Ten (10) acres of Major Disturbance (extraction and stockpiling) 16 07-24-2001 *Five (5) acres of Moderate Disturbance (equipment storage, facilities, and areas being sloped and graded) Disturbance beyond this point is limited to 30 days for operational changes. Staff has several concerns regarding reclamation efforts on the site: The intent of condition # 5 appears to be in question. The Applicant asserts that dust control is the single issue, and that areas that have been mined and graded but not yet reclaimed (i.e. not yet top soiled and revegetated) should not be counted as "disturbed areas", since they are not usually prone to dust emissions. As such, the Applicant believes that they are currently in conformance. This interpretation of "disturbed area", however, is not consistent with Eagle County's historic application of the term as it relates to other similar mining operations. "Disturbed area" is better defined as any ground where the original vegetative cover has been disturbed or removed, and upon which no reclamation or revegetation has occurred. The intent of original condition was both to limit the area exposed to potential erosion, and to require reasonable, concurrent action relative to the reclamation of the site. Approximately twenty three (23) acres of land have been disturbed on this site. Per condition # 5 of the existing Special Use permit, a minimum of approximately eight (8) acres should be reclaimed. Only two and five tenths (2.5) acres have been topsoiled, seeded and revegetated to date. It is not clear how the applicant intends to continue mining and remain in compliance with the requirement to minimize the area of disturbance. Measures and/or discussion regarding how the 15 acre disturbed area maximum will be maintained as mining continues were requested, but have not been provided. The mining operation is not presently in conformance with condition #5 of the existing Special Use Permit. This condition will carry forward if the Special Use Extension is approved. The miningface shall be reclaimed to a 3:1 slope and native shrub species shall be added to the reclamation seed. It is not readily apparent where the material necessary to reclaim the head wall of the present mining area to the required 3: 1 slope will come from. While reclamation to date has met the requirement for a 3: 1 maximum grade, it is additionally noted that no shrubs were found to be growing on the reclaimed areas. This condition will carry forward if the Special Use Extension is approved. [+/-] FINDING # 3: Conformance with Conditions of the Original Special Use Permit. The proposed continuation of Special Use DOES NOT presently conform to all conditions established by approval of the original Special Use Permit. While Staff supports, in concept, the extension of the Special Use Permit for the Lehmann Gravel Pit, Staff has noted several areas of non-compliance related to standards in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and to conditions imposed by the existing Special Use Permit. As a result, Staff would find it difficult to advocate approval of a six year renewal/extension of ZS-48-94-A until the areas of non-compliance outlined in this report have been remedied. The situation is somewhat tenuous, as the Special Use Permit for the Lehmann Gravel Pit has expired. Staff was unable to make positive findings. Mr. Simonton stated a couple of issues regarding the reclamation include the amount of land that has been reclaimed. He suggested they have stated that a gravel surface might be more appropriate than top soil and seed. He stated to do such, an amendment to the State permit is required. They have not been provided that any release has taken place and that the area that is labeled, mined and grated, should be included in the figure. He spoke to condition #8 which was modified by the Planning Commission. The other issue regarding reclamation is the type. The State does allow for something other than top soil and grass. He stated they require that they show proofthat the post-mining use is something other than open space. Because there is no demonstration that this site will be other than commercial, the applicant is proposing to cover it with gravel and leaving it for future commercial use. 17 07-24-2001 Tom Logue, Elam Construction, was present for the hearing. He introduced Rick Smith, the area manager. He stated they received the staff report and basically take no exception to any of the conditions. He stated they would like to address reclamation. They have been operating there since 1994 and believed they were operating within the conditions of the permit limiting their area of disturbance to 15 acres. The area under consideration is about 5.4 acres where there is basically no activity. They feel it has been reclaimed, that it has been graded and left in a post-mining condition with gravel. They were of the opinion in 1994 that the property was zoned industrial for several reasons. He spoke to the Master Plan and correspondence from 1990 when Don Welch and the Board approved a zone change from resource to industrial. They have had one routine site visit by the Division and anticipate one next season. One of the things they do is recalculate the reclamation bond. He showed another map of the same scale representing the disturbed areas on May 12, 1993 before they moved in. The amendment in the current permit is a result of a land swap between the airport and to better define the boundaries of the airport. They have been reclaiming on about a l2 month basis. It was largely aimed at ensuring some reclamation is taking place on an ongoing basis. He stated they are hoping to leave today with an indication from the Board as to their desires so that they can comply with those in the next 12 months. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Stone stated it seems like a majority of the comments are around reclamation and they take reclamation very seriously. He spoke to the denial they made on the pit to the east of Eagle. The Board at that time was not pleased with the applicant requesting an extension to then clean it up. This is not as dramatic of an example, but as they look at the different findings, they identify those that are not in conformance. He spoke to the compliance with the reclamation. Commissioner Gallagher asked to review the aerial photograph. Commissioner Menconi asked if some of the recommended findings came from Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer. Mr. Simonton stated no. The wording came from the original resolution and to show specifically that the intended use was needed and that they stayed in compliance with the special use. Mr. Merry's response was to look at violations on the site, but other than that there was no in depth environmental analysis done at this time. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the water and dust issues. Mr. Simonton stated that is something that Environmental Health deals with on an ongoing basis. He stated the water issue is quantity rather than quality. He spoke to the water loses from exposed water. They anticipate being into ground water from this point forward. The applicant is in the process of applying with the State to change water rights. He stated the dust record is reasonably good out there and there are no discharge issues at this time. They will be dealing with the tank as soon as they can. Commissioner Menconi asked about spring water. Mr. Simonton stated it is quite distant from the Eagle River and he doesn't know of any ground water springs to be effected. Commissioner Gallagher asked for the location of the road to the National Guard. Mr. Simonton showed that on the slide. He suggested it was just off the photograph to the right. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this has been reviewed in light of the draft Airport Master Plan? Mr. Simonton asked if there is a revision to the Airport Master Plan? He stated it was referred to Mr. Elwood who responded with no comment. Commissioner Gallagher questioned them reclaiming with gravel instead of grass. Mr. Logue stated they need the twelve months to work with the State. They think they are in compliance with the 15 acre disturbed area. The real question is ifthey see the 5.4 acres as needing to be reclaimed. Mr. Simonton stated he was told by the State that until they receive verification of what the site 18 07-24-2001 will be, they will be required to reclaim with soil and grass. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the 5.4 acres being existent before these people took this over. Mr. Simonton explained if an area was not reclaimed and is still un-reclaimed, the mining operation can receive a waiver. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant has made an application. Mr. Logue stated they intend to request the release next spring. Part of that request requires support from the Board of County Commissioners and the local Soil Conservation District. Commissioner Gallagher suggested that absent any new evidence presented he is inclined to go with Staff and their recommendation for soil and grass. Commissioner Menconi stated there are a lot of concerns that have come with this file. There is a history of noncompliance and there is quite a list of Staff recommendations. His inclination would be to bring his department in here and take a further look before moving further on this file and the environmental impacts. He asked if since 1994 there have been infractions of the expectations of the study. Mr. Simonton stated the only infractions involved dust, which is very common. He referred to Mr. Ziti's memo indicating there were four reported complaints with no pending violations. There has not been a complaint since October 2000. Commissioner Menconi asked Ray Merry for the history and his take on this. He questioned the approval in 1994 and the lesser number of houses. Is there a concern with the quality of life and environment for the neighborhood. Mr. Merry stated the way they set up in 1994, they have since learned some things. They reiterate time and again, if you are going to do industrial work in a resort community you may have to go above the requirements. He suggested by allowing a year's period of time to work out some of the issues, they may be able to better address the issues. He spoke to pollution and believes it is appropriate for the applicant to consider the better use of the land. He spoke to counter measures for the tank in the event of an explosion. He spoke to the dust standards. He stated they may want to take a different look at controlling the land use environment. He suggested a year's time would be appropriate. Commissioner Menconi suggested they should be taking into consideration the list of items that they are now more aware of than in 1994 and assume the Board will be looking at those items. Mr. Merry stated they have done their best to identify the issues in which they have been noncompliant since the original permit. Commissioner Menconi stated he was looking at extending it a year based on what has happened in the past is not something he can go along with. In a year they can look at those concerns and the others, he would feel more comfortable in moving forward. Commissioner Gallagher asked if Mr. Merry agrees with the conditions as presented? Mr. Merry stated with the expectation that they would resubmit a permit in a year, he is comfortable with those conditions. Commissioner Menconi spoke to page 6 and the statement it is not consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Simonton stated you have to look at both the Eagle County Master Plan and the Gypsum Master Plan. The Town of Gypsum has designated the area here as a park. He stated the Eagle River Watershed Plan identifies the area around the tank and the ground water requirements. Commissioner Menconi asked if staff recommendations include the open space. Mr. Simonton stated the Gypsum Master Plan will come into effect based on when mining ceases. He stated the land has not been annexed yet. They are not in a position to evaluate this because the Gypsum Master Plan is very speculative. Chairman Stone asked how much longer they plan to mine gravel there. Mr. Logue stated they are looking at a six to ten year time frame. One thing that limits them is 19 07-24-2001 the 15 acre constraint. Assuming there isn't a dramatic downturn in Eagle Counties economy, they are looking at six to ten years. Chairman Stone stated he agrees with Commissioner Gallagher and would like to see the 5.4 acres reclaimed to soil and seed. He spoke to the reclamation of shrubs on the reclaimed areas and thinks they need to be there. He spoke to the containment issue of the diesel tank. He stated he would like the motion to be in such a way that they absolutely need to have these things done in the next twelve months. Mr. Merry stated the applicant should realize the importance of repairing the area around the containment system. Chairman Stone suggested a year is an excessive period of time to fix the containment area and they want it done sooner than that. He stated it is a recognition that gravel pits are an unusual thing. They are not the best looking things in the world. The community needs gravel as a resource but the challenge is to do it in as neighborly a way as possible. He suggested that 1/5 of the calls he receives are about the gravel pits. The way around it is to reclaim and mitigate the objectionable features. He suggested a year from now he is hoping there will be an administrative slam dunk if the concerns have been mitigated. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to item #7 and the hours. He questioned limiting activity on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Mr. Simonton stated that is because crushing usually doesn't happen during that period oftime. Mr. Smith stated they don't make much asphalt after Thanksgiving, but they do have crushing operations in the winter to stockpile for the next spring. They don't crush on Christmas Day. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they will mine during the winter months. Mr. Smith stated they will mine and crush in winter months but not on holidays or weekends for that matter. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the time restrictions. He questioned if the asphalt plant operates on Sunday. Mr. Smith stated they do not do much work on Sundays but occasionally on Saturdays. The reason they want to be unrestricted at night is because some work will be happening at night. Chairman Stone drew their attention to the letter from the Town of Gypsum dated May 29 where they requested 1) hours of operation be limited from 7 to 6 on weekdays and not on weekends at all and 2) that the mining start at the west end and progress from west to east. Mr. Logue stated they have no issue on that. He stated the gas line on the other end will create a barrier and there is a 50 right-of-way for that line and will create a berm for the mining operation. He stated they can certainly do the mining from west to east. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the containment of the fuel tank. He stated he keeps hearing it won't hold it, but he is hoping they are looking at it holding one and one half times its current capacity. Mr. Logue stated there is some containment there. What they do is design the containment at ll0% of capacity. It is a priority for them. They are tight in space. He stated they will put in some sort of block type containment and will provide staff with the details in the next six weeks or so. He stated there is a concern with discharge. Commissioner Menconi returned to the hours. He stated the letter from the Town of Gypsum points out the residential units to the west and those units being occupied. They suggested the hours of operation be limited from 7 to 6 on weekdays and not on weekends. He asked that they enforce the request by the Town of Gypsum. He asked if there has to be approval to operate the asphalt plant at night and if there was concern by the residents if the County Commissioners can move in and stop activity. Mr. Simonton stated the asphalt is at the far eastern end of the site and he was not aware of a problem. He stated he would defer any decision to the Board. He stated the Town of Gypsum is requesting a 7 to 6 p.m. operation, but he has reduced that to 7 to 5. 20 07-24-2001 Commissioner Menconi asked what the difference is with crushing operations and if they are far enough away from the residents. He asked if there will be trucks coming in or out on Saturdays. Mr. Logue stated asphalt is on the eastern end. He stated the crushing operations are shielded by a high wall on the west end. Commissioner Menconi recommended they include a time frame for the diesel tank being handled and also look to Mr. Merry on item #11 as to the points they discussed earlier on the environmental issues. Mr. Merry questioned why they need 12,000 gallons of fuel on site. He stated they want to be fair. Mr. Logue stated the tank does hold 12,000 gallons if full. It has the capacity to hold a semi load of fuel which is 7,000. It is the size ofthe tank that came with the plant. They never do fill it to the brim. He stated the containment around it now would hold 7,000 gallons. They are addressing that and will probably contain the tank in concrete in late fall, early winter, similar to what is at the Collett batch plant. It is not in an unsafe condition right now. He stated regarding the 5.4 acres on the reclamation that when they moved into that gravel pit in 1994, it had been a pit since 1970. He stated that has always been a gravel floor. They have used it as a stockpile area. When they moved into the pit, at that time the Commissioners were aware of how that pit was. They have improved it, grated it better, put better stone and water continuously. Since 1994 they have reclaimed anything they have disturbed. Sometimes the State Department of Minerals and Geology will accept a reclaimed area based on zoning. If the zoning is industrial commercial and the area has always been historically a graveled area the Division will allow that as a reclaimed area. They have soiled and seeded in the areas they have disturbed. Commissioner Gallagher asked for a date certain by which the tank will be reclaimed. Mr. Logue stated they can strive for the pt of December, but certainly by the pt of January. Commissioner Gallagher suggested they should reclaim the area before they come before the Board in a year. The Board would certainly look at that. Chairman Stone asked if it is a matter of cost. Mr. Logue stated it is not the cost. It has to do with the land owner. He understands it is zoned industrial and the land owner wants it left graveled for industrial development. Chairman Stone asked about the benefit. Mr. Logue stated it then becomes a cost issue to take it all back off. Chairman Stone suggested it's going to stay like it is for six to ten years and it could last longer than that. He wants it reclaimed in a way that people will not object. Mr. Logue stated they will be moving the batch plant further to the west and would consider moving the batch plant to that site. Chairman Stone stated he doesn't care where the 15 acres is, but let's get it down to 15 acres. Mr. Merry stated in the original resolution there is the latitude for the Board to review. He spoke to erosion control, erosion management, etc. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they make the hours 7 to 5 Monday through Friday and no activity on holidays. He asked if the applicant can define the holidays. Mr. Logue stated they will and get the list to Mr. Simonton. Chairman Stone asked what is the impact of the asphalt plant. Mr. Simonton stated some noise, traffic and odor downstream. Chairman Stone suggested the real impact comes from the crushing. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file number PR-00017, Lehmann Gravel Pit Permit Renewal and Extension of Special Use Permit file number ZS-48-95-A, Lehmann Gravel Pit, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions: 1. That this Special Use Permit shall expire or be subject to renewal one (1) year from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners and that all conditions will be met before an other extension will be considered. 21 07-24-2001 2. That any subsequent approvals for an Extension of Special Use on this site shall be withheld pending evidence that the following has been implemented: a. All ground water exposed on the site has been buried with soil material to a depth of not less than twelve (12) inches above the seasonal high water mark, or a change in water rights has been executed with the water court, and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit obtained. b. Reclamation has occurred to the extent that the area of disturbance within the permit boundary is no more than fifteen (15) acres and a plan is in place to maintain the fifteen acre maximum for disturbed area as mining continues. c. The containment system surrounding the 7,500 gallon diesel fuel tank located next to the batch plant has been improved to meet applicable State regulations, as provided in Colorado State Above Ground Storage Tank guidelines for above ground storage tanks to be accomplished by December 1, 2001. d. Evidence of bonding by the State be adequate for reclamation. e) Clarification of zoning be provided. 3. That the 0.7 acre area identified on the site plan as the "No Mining Area" in the Spring Creek drainage shall remain undisturbed with the exception of one haul road which shall utilize the shortest path possible to cross the site from the east to the west, and that appropriate environmental protections for the Spring Creek drainage shall be provided. 4. That mining activities on that portion of the permit area located West of Spring Creek shall progress from the furthest west end of the permit boundary to the east. 5. That no crushing or processing of resource shall be allowed to occur west of the Spring Creek drainage. 6. That per the Substitute Water Supply Plan, no ground water shall be exposed within the permit area by any mining activities until such time that the Applicant has provided evidence that they have obtained a change in water rights with the water court and that they have received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the operation. 7. That the hours of operation, unless otherwise specified by the Board of County Commissioners, shall be as follows: Crushing operations: 7:00am to 7:00pm, Monday through Saturday Asphalt plant: No time restrictions, however, operation is subject to County review and standards. Activities West of Spring Creek: 7:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday, with no activity allowed on holidays 8) That an "area of disturbance" be defined as any ground disturbed from its natural vegetative state, and that the total area of disturbance be limited to 15 acres at one time, as follows: *Ten (10) acres of Major Disturbance (extraction and stockpiling) *Five (5) acres of Moderate Disturbance (equipment storage, facilities, and areas being sloped and graded) Disturbance beyond this point is limited to 30 days for operational changes. 9) That the mining face shall be reclaimed to a 3: 1 slope and native shrub species shall be added to the reclamation seed. 10) That the height of any temporary light poles shall be no higher than 25 feet; in addition, the light must be shielded and directed downward. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Chairman Stone asked if Commissioner Gallagher and the applicant would consider amending the motion to say that until the containment system is expanded that no more than 7,100 gallons of diesel fuel would be permitted at one time. Mr. Logue stated he believes 7,500 gallons would be sufficient. 22 07-24-2001 Commissioner Gallagher amended his motion that until the containment system is expanded, no more than 7,500 gallons of diesel fuel would be permitted at one time. Commissioner Menconi amended his second. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until July 31, 2001. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~ 23 07-24-2001