Loading...
Minutes 12/15/09 PUBLIC HEARING December 15, 2009 Present: Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Christina Hooper Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Pro- T em Commissioner County Manager Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Sara Fisher Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none Special Recognition - Fair & Rodeo Award Brad Higgins, Fair & Rodeo Manager Chairman Pro Tem Runyon read the award for the record. He congratulated Mr. Higgins and those involved with the Fair and Rodeo. Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of December 14, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for October 27 and November 3, 2009 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder c. Agreement between Eagle County and Clean Harbors Environmental Services to Extend Base Agreement to Transport and Dispose ofHousehold Hazardous Waste Ron Rasnic, Landfill D. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and JJP Companies for the El Jebel Roof Project Rick Ullom, Facilities Management E. Resolution 2009-123 Authorizing an Interfund Loan to the 800 MHz Fund from the Capital Improvements Fund and Providing for Repayment of the Loan Barry Smith, Emergency Management F. Amendment to Colorado Wireless Interoperability Network Grant Agreement to Allow Final Distribution ofPreviously Awarded Funds Barry Smith, Emergency Management 1 12/15/09 G. Colorado Department of Human Services Certification of Compliance for County Merit System 2010 Rita Woods, Health & Human Services Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Christina Hooper, Assistant County Attorney stated that item C would be pulled to continue working on the budgetary issues as it is a 2010 issue. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-G, excluding item C. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC d/b/a Ritz-Carlton Club, Bachelor Gulch #41-17214-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Avon (Bachelor Gulch). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. 4 Eagle Ranch, Inc. d/b/a 4 Eagle Ranch #12-15462-0000 This is a renewal of an Optional Premises License in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. C. Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Rocks Modern Grill #25-39682-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License located in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for December 15, 2009 consisting ofItems A-C. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. 2 12/15/09 Resolution 2009-124 Adopting a Seventh Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2009, and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Accounts Finance Department Representative Mr. Lewis presented the details. One of the largest items was the early retirement expense. In total they were asking for $3,958,306.00. In the general fund there were additional grants received. He spoke about the savings related to early retirement, which far exceeded the current expense. He explained a correction related to the sale of the Sheriff's plane. He spoke about the $300,000 contribution for the rights of way for the airport interchange. This was originally intended to be taken from the Capital Improvement Fund, but it was determined that it was more appropriate to take it out of the general fund. Chairman Pro Tern Runyon asked about the airport interchange. He wondered if CDOT had to buy rights of way from the airport. Mr. Lewis stated that the airport had received $700,000 from CDOT. Chairman Pro Tem Runyon wondered if the county as a whole would come out ahead. Mr. Lewis responded that this was indeed the case. Mr. Lewis stated that the unallocated fund impact would be $1,468,794.00. Chairman Pro Tem Runyon wondered about the Edward's Spur Road expenditures. He added that CDOT was installing four roundabouts and Eagle County would be contributing the engineering. Mr. Lewis stated that the ECO Bus department expenses included bus storage in Avon, early retirement, and severance pay. The Airport Fund included some revenues and expenses. The Housing Fund needed a supplemental input for severance pay. The Health Care fund was based on prior year's actual. The fund needed an additional $2.5 million to cover claims that had already occurred and that were expected to occur in the next few months. Chairman Pro Tem Runyon stated that over the past five years health care claims had been flat. The budget included an increase of 9% and he wondered why there needed to be an additional 2.5 million. Mr. Lewis stated statistical anomaly was part of it. As the policies have been changed some people are taking care of health issues now rather than waiting for next year. In addition, people who were retiring early were receiving coverage for several months. Chairman Pro Tern Runyon stated that he understood how this had come about. Chairman Pro Tern Runyon opened and closed public comment as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution adopting a seventh supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2009, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated monies between various spending accounts Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Citizen Input Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Authority. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. . Eagle County Air Terminal Authority Airport Representative 1. Approval of minutes of October 13, 2009 meeting; 3 12/15/09 Mr. Stavney moved to approve the minute of the October 13, 2009 meeting Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Third amendment to Agreement for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Hy-Mountain Transportation, mc.; Mr. Anderson explained the details of the agreement. He stated that his explanation would cover this and the next item. The agreement essentially extended the original agreement for an additional year. The two companies were operating the walk up counters in the terminal. Mr. Montag wondered if there were any changes to the contract. Mr. Anderson indicated that normally there would be some changes, but they had held the minimum annual guarantee and the monthly counter rents the same. Essentially this was an extension for one year. Mr. Runyon wondered how many times the contract could be extended. Mr. Anderson stated that this could occur as many times as the board so desired, or a new RFP could be completed. Mr. Runyon wondered about the history of these types of agreements. Mr. Anderson stated that they were all a bit different. The operators on the counter had the ability to handle on call and advance needs for customers. There were only two operators with this type of capability. The majority of the other operators were limousine type operators where passengers book in advance. Mr. Stavney asked if the two companies pay a privilege fee to have the counter. Mr. Anderson indicated this was the case. It was a per vehicle fee for every entry to the airport. If this exceeded the minimum, they would pay the difference for applicable months. Mr. Stavney moved to approve the third amendment to the agreement for operations of ground transportation services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Hy-Mountain Transportation, mc Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Third Amendment to Agreement for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Delivery Acquisition, mc.; Mr. Stavney moved to approve the third amendment to the agreement for operation of ground transportation services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Delivery Acquisition, mc. Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4. New Business; Mr. Anderson stated that the airport was ready for the Christmas holiday and believed they had adequate parking. Mr. Runyon wondered about the runway extension. Mr. Anderson stated that they had received positive comments about the women's restroom and the new extended runway would provide opportunities to land larger aircraft. The Eagle airlines were aggressively pursuing options for regional jets. Mr. Runyon wondered if the CRJ 700 jet would open new airports for the county. He wondered which airports could be added. Mr. Anderson indicated that they are looking at adding flights from the largest markets, but the flight situation would need to be profitable. These jets could travel a few thousand miles. Mr. Runyon wondered if they could handle a full load in the winter months. Mr. Anderson stated that he was not certain. He knew that full loads were possible on nicer winter days. Summer flights were more restrictive. He hoped full loads would be possible into Denver year round. Mr. Stavney asked about the airport master pIan. 4 12/15/09 Mr. Anderson stated that the FAA had informed them to get their funding applications turned in. They needed to present a negotiated sum with a selected firm for their approval. Mr. Stavney indicated that it would be a summer project. Mr. Montag asked about the control tower and air traffic controllers for the season. Mr. Anderson indicated that they were fully staffed in both areas. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Air Terminal Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Set Mill Levy-Resolution 2009-126 and Adopt 2010 Budget-Resolution 2009-125 John Lewis, Finance Mr. Lewis presented the final request summary. He indicated that the final copy covered everything presented in the previous meeting. He spoke about the early retirement program and the loss of some great and dedicated employees. As a quick highlight he spoke about the general fund non-personnel operating expenses decrease of3.9 million from 2009. This represented a 12% decrease from 2009. For all funds, there was another $500,000 of personnel costs decreases, so personal costs now totaled 2.5 million. Overall, there has been a decrease all funds by over $70 million dollars representing a decrease of approximately 42%. In the mill levy a total of 8.994 mills and they propose no change. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon spoke about the additional property tax revenues of $1.7 million. He wondered if this was within the revenue. Mr. Lewis stated that it was included in the revenue and divided among the funds that received the property tax mills. In addition, this increase was included as an expenditure in the general fund but was restricted this year and next to have it available as an offset in future years. Real expenditures in the general fund would be $36 million less the $1.7 million. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon stated that the board recognizes legitimate citizen concerns about the milllevy, but also understanding the needs in future years with expected decreases in revenue, they feel this is the only responsible approach. Commissioner Stavney spoke about future property value adjustments. He stated that they had required a 12% overall cut in the operating budget and they may have underestimated the hit that may come from reevaluations of property values. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board of County Commissioners Set the Mill Levy and Adopt the 2010 Budget. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Chairman Pro Tem Runyon and Mr. Montag thanked the finance department, the department heads and elected officials for their hard work and sacrifice. Abatement Hearings County Attorney's Office Representative Ruth Berglund presented staff's recommendations. 5 12/15/09 Commissioner Stavney moved that the Petitions for Abatement/refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax years and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Petitioner Name Chase-Paige LLC McMurrain, Churchill Schedule No. R014285 R028388 Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Petitions for Abatement/refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved in part for the tax years and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Petitioner Name Bachelor Gulch Hansen Development LLC (DBA Piney River Ranch) McMurrain, Churchill Schedule No. R060016/R053784/R053785 R055782 R028384 Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS-2356 Wvlaco Supply Company Adam Palmer, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 11/03/09 & 11/17/09 ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a metal rebar fabrication and contractor supply yard on the 21-acre resource-zoned property. If approved, the special use permit would amend the existing special use on the property for timber milling, supply, and storage. 005490 Highway 6, Gypsum Area ZS-2356/ Special Use Permit Wylaco Rebar Fabrication and Supply Yard Richard Long Wylaco Supply Chris Williams, Johnson and Kunkel LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Proposed is a metal rebar fabrication and contractor supply yard on the 21.11-acre resource zoned property. The facility is a storage and processing area to support the primary Wylaco retail location in the Town of Gypsum. The applicants have moved the proposed operation onto the property prior to the issuance of the special use permit, and have constructed an open-air shed and concrete apron for the rebar processing. The site has been cleaned up significantly from the large amount of lumber debris that was previously on the site. Materials stored on the site include rebar, rigid insulation, steel hardware, concrete forms, steel I-beams, etc. If approved, the special use permit would amend the existing special use on the property for timber milling and storage. 6 12/15/09 B. SITE DATA: North: 1-70 Resource South: BLM Resource Preservation East: Residential Resource Resource Preservation Lumber mill structure, rebar processing structure, storage 21.11 919,556 none none Portable toilet C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . 1984: ZS-202-84 approved for lumber mill and storage of logs, timbers, wood and associated logging equipment. . 2009: 8.25.2009---Building Permit 3593 applied for, withdrawn due to building code requirements for permanent restroom, would not be issued prior to approval of special use permit. D. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (ECPC) HEARING: November 4, 2009 At their regularly scheduled hearing, the ECPC voted 7-0 in support of the proposal. The ECPC had significant discussion and deliberation on the file as it pertained to the use's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, as well as intensity of use, aesthetics, setbacks and impact to the Eagle River corridor, and review of the use which is already in place on the property and not in compliance with the land use regulations. Suggestions from the ECPC included the addition of conditions as well as additional comments addressed to the BOCC after the meeting. See attached letter from Planning Commissioners Pedro Campos and Bill Reicher (co-signed letter). The suggested additional conditions as approved at the ECPC are as follows: 4. The words "or trailer" added to condition 4 so that it reads: Only vehicles and equipment directly associated with the use on the property are allowed; no vehicle or trailer storage will be permitted. 7. Staff shall review the special use for compliance with the approved pIan, compatibility with the surrounding uses, Dotsero subarea plan, and Eagle County Comprehensive PIan every 5 years from the date of the approval. 8. No use or storage of hazardous materials on site. 7 12/15/09 9. The 75' setback from high water mark, or the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater, of the Eagle River shall be delineated on the plan and adhered to as a limit of disturbance. The applicant shall re-vegetate any previously disturbed areas within this setback area. 10. All new construction on the property shall be in compliance with The Eagle County Building Resolution and its currently adopted referenced building codes. In addition, the following items were discussed as part ofECPC discussion but not included in the approved motion. Staffhas attempted to articulate them as potential additional conditions and has included them as part of the suggested conditions at the end of this report: . Material storage shall not exceed 8' in height . The applicant may have up to one non-illuminated entrance sign no larger than 10 square feet, as well as one non-illuminated firewood sign no larger than 10 square feet and total height not to exceed 8' from the ground. Such signs shall require a sign permit, and be on the subject property. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: Section Purpose: Standards: 5-250 Special Use Permits Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular 10cation with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit. STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <<) o ~ <<) > o o "6 [ o u t o <<) '" ~.~ ~~ <1::"0 ..sa '" "0 ai ...:l <<) > :1a '" 5 CIl .' I 8 g.€' .- -a > is, &SO' o '" .- <<) 8 ~ c ;:l o Gl o <<) ~o:: ~ ~ b ;:l <<iGl ~~ '" ~~ :.::=' "00 :=.tL.l ~~ .Sf '" ;:l o ::I: 8 12/15/09 x x x x x x x Community Buffer x x The proposed use for a metal rebar processing and materials supply storage yard is light industrial and commercial in nature. Such uses are recommended to be included in existing towns, community centers, and in industrial zoned areas of unincorporated Eagle County. The special use permit allows for such uses which can be accommodated in areas outside of this when it is determined they are compatible with surrounding uses and character of the area, do not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties, and meet the standards outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The application is somewhat unique in that the new use proposed, while different than the existing special use permit for a lumber mill and storage, is similar in nature as an industrial use. The character of this use changes somewhat aesthetically, however the intensity of the use is similar in scope. Typically residential and customary agricultural uses are primary uses in the resource zone district. While generally staff recommends mixed uses as appropriate, an onsite caretaker unit may not be suitable given the fact that adequate water nor sewer are available or proposed on the property. Since the proposal does not include residential uses, such use would not be allowed unless the existing or proposed special use permit was amended. The property is identified as a community buffer between Gypsum and Dotsero on the Future Land Use Map. While this designation does not prohibit development, it intends to "provide undeveloped visual breaks along the County's main development corridors" pursuant to the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies industrial uses such as gravel pits and mining as allowable uses in community buffers, but discourages commercial or retail uses. According to the Comprehensive PIan, the proposed use would be preferred elsewhere, although may be allowed if it retains a rural character that meets the intent of the community buffer designation. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x The proposed plan is not expected to adversely affect open space or view corridors in the surrounding area as a comparison to the previous uses on the property and adjacent properties. However, it does not meet the recommendations for creating buffer zones and does not necessarily provide for improvements to wildlife habitat/migration or recreation opportunities. While there are mixed findings with respect to open space, it is determined that the proposal generally will not create an adverse impact to open space and does not possess the qualities identified in the open space pIan, other than potential river access. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 9 12/15/09 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning I~sI1es Ye~ iN() North: 1-70 Resource - - X South: BLM Resource X Preservation - - East: Residential Resource - - X West: BLM Resource X Preservation - - The scope and intensity of the proposed use is generally compatible with surrounding uses. While a processing facility may not potentially be compatible with adjacent residential uses, the current proposal is expected to be within the noise and vibration standards, and the rural nature of the area does provide for adequate space between uses. Also, the proposed use which is already been in place on the property has not generated any complaints from adjacent property owners. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3} The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Awicultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330. Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. As proposed, the project would meet the dimensional requirements for height, setbacks, square footage, noise and vibration, and parking. Proof of permanent water and septic would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. A building has been constructed on the property without a building permit and would need to be removed or brought into compliance. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4} The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. t' ] c..l :3 0000 S::.S ~ ! ~ -- ;> .- 'i ~ i:::.= ~o .g .0 4) 4) r-< >f)Q Q.....:l 0 Z Exceeds ECLUR Requirements 10 12/15/09 x x x x x x x No Requirements Not Applicable x The proposal generally meets the performance standards as outlined in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. However, at the date of this report an access permit had yet to be issued for access to US Hwy 6. Staff is comfortable making this requirement a condition of approval. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5} The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. II.) .:!3 ~ ~. <Jl'o 1U8 1 ~] :> x x x ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6} 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. 11 12/15/09 As conditioned, the proposed use will meet the standards and not have a significant impact on public facilities. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. It is expected that the proposed ADU will comply with all applicable site development standards as articulated in Article 4 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Currently compliance with all such standards has been met. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8} The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: See attached memos and responses from the applicant. Town of Gypsum: See attached September 25, 2009 letter. Gypsum Fire Protection District: See attached June 24, 2009 letter. Letter from Pedro Campos, November 9, 2009. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Environmental Health . BLM; adjacent property owners C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages. The intent of the land use regulations to review specific uses outside of those allowed by right is to make sure that off-site impacts are minimized and the use is compatible with adjacent character, forms, and uses on a case-by-case basis. In this case, there is mixed conformance with the review standards. On one hand, the use is in a rural community buffer zone area and would be more appropriate in an existing community center or industrial area. On the other hand, the use is similar in scope and intensity as the previous lumber mill in operation since 1984 on the property. There have been no complaints or zoning violations on the property since the original special use permit was approved, nor since the current use has moved to the subject property. The use is generally compatible with surrounding uses. 12 12/15/09 Approval of the use also could lock in a use on the property adverse to something identified by the Dotsero Subarea Plan currently in process. While it may be unfair to ask the applicant to wait until the outcome of the Dotsero plan to fully address the application's compliance with it, it is difficult to anticipate what the plan may say about this parcel and river corridor at this time. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request with or without conditions. 2. Deny the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request. 3. Table the SPECIAL USE PERMIT request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. An access permit on to US Highway 6 is required in accordance with the CDOT requirements prior to the issuance of this special use permit. 3. All items identified from Eagle County Engineering pursuant to the letter dated October 28, 2009 shall be adhered to as conditions of approval. 4. Only vehicles and equipment directly associated with the use on the property are allowed; no vehicle or trailer storage will be permitted. 5. An all-weather compacted road base surface will be placed on the aisles. 6. No parking or material staging on CDOT right-of-way is permitted. 7. Staff shall review the special use for compliance with the approved plan, compatibility with the surrounding uses, Dotsero subarea pIan, and Eagle County Comprehensive PIan every 5 years from the date of the approval. 8. No use or storage of hazardous materials on site. 9. The 75' setback from high water mark, or the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater, of the Eagle River shall be delineated on the plan and adhered to as a limit of disturbance. The applicant shall re-vegetate any previously disturbed areas within this setback area and remove any debris. 10. All new construction on the property shall be in compliance with The Eagle County Building Resolution and its currently adopted referenced building codes. 11. Material storage shall not exceed 8' in height. 12. The applicant may have up to one non-illuminated entrance sign no larger than 10 square feet, as well as one non-illuminated firewood sign no larger than 10 square feet and total height not to exceed 8' from the ground. Such signs shall require a sign permit, and be on the subject property. DISCUSSION: 13 12/15/09 Mr. Palmer presented a summary of the proposal. The special use permit would apply to the entire property and all uses must be included. The proposed site plan had a primary point of access with improved gravel road base with concrete apron. The 75" setback incorporated a lot of land that was included in the original special use permit on the property approved in 1984. Surrounding land uses included 1-70, BLM preservation, and zoned resource. Ifapproved, the special use permit would amend the existing special use on the property for timber milling and storage. He reviewed the referral responses and although most were positive he did receive a call from James Drinkard, property owner to the east, expressing concerns with water/sewer design, dust and noise, traffic, and impact to the residential character of the area. He reviewed the 12 suggested conditions. Commissioner Stavney believed that having a 5-year review was attractive. However, he believed that in 5 years it would be difficult to eliminate the use after the applicant had invested more money in the property. He did not believe the proposed use was an appropriate use of the property. He was on the fence with whether to table or deny the file. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon stated that the future land use defined the area as a community buffer zone. He encouraged residential growth. He was disturbed with the back door approach. He was leaning towards a denial. He encouraged the applicant to withdraw the application or request a tabling and allow Commissioner Fisher to way in. There were too many inconsistencies. The applicant was currently in violation and the board could take action. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had respect for Wylaco supplying the community with much needed building material but believed there were other alternatives locations. He understood this location was cost effective but believed that there were places where this use was designed to be. Neil Nelson, Wylaco manager stated that he was currently looking for alternative locations so the store and the yard would be in the same location. Commissioner Stavney expressed support for a temporary use permit if this was the case. Chairman Pro- T em Runyon supported the idea of a 9-12 month use. Mr. Stanek stated that he'd been working with the applicant and a lot had been accomplished. The stop work order was just for the building and not for the other uses on the property. Taylor Ryan with the county engineering department stated that he needed to explore the temporary use option. Mr. Palmer stated that a temporary use permit was allowed through the special use permit process. A temporary use would be defined as 6 months or less. Commissioner Stavney supported tabling the file for 2 months. He believed it would work to the applicant's advantage. Mr. Nelson stated that he hoped to be off the property in 6-8 months. Commissioner Runyon believed a tabling of the file and 6-month permit was reasonable. Mr. Palmer stated that there was a fire wood cutting operation on site, which had nothing to do with Wylaco. He wondered ifthe board wanted to terminate this use as well. Commissioner Stavney believed the wood cutting operation was not an issue as there were no buildings, etc. Commissioner Runyon asked if the wood cutting operation was included in the existing special use permit. Mr. Palmer stated that the wood cutting operation was included in the original special use permit plan. Chairman Pro Tem Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to table file number ZS-2356 Wylaco Supply Company, at the applicants request, until February 9,2009 and at that time the applicant would agree to demobilize from the site, the site would be re-vegetated, and the existing special use permit from 1984 would be addressed at that time. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 14 12/15/09 AFP-2479 and G-2478 Lake Creek Farm. Lot 3 Sean Hanagan, Planning Department and Ben Gerdes, Engineering Department ACTION: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat and Vacation is to rearrange utility easements located on the parcel. LOCATION: 1001 Lake Creek, Edwards Area TITLE: FILE NO.: OWNER: APPLICANT: STAFF CONTACT: Lake Creek Farm, Lot 3 Utility Easement Vacation AFP-2479, G-2478; Utility Easement Vacation L.D. Chipman & Susan J. Miller L.D. Chipman & Susan J. Miller Sean Hanagan, Planning Department and Ben Gerdes, Engineering Department 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 5-2200 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulation and in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes 43-2-301, the applicant is petitioning to vacate utility easements dedicated to the public by the Final Plat for the Lake Creek Farm subdivision at reception number 745839. Utilities serving this property were constructed outside of this dedicated easement. The applicant is requesting that the platted easement be vacated and new easements will be established in the actual location of the constructed utilities through file AFP-2479. B. RR AL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A c. CHRONOLOGY: 2000 - Final Plat for Lake Creek Farm approved dedicating Utility Easement to the public. 2007 - Amended Final Plat for Lots 1 & 2 of Lake Creek Farm to amend the building envelope of Lot 2 and create an access, utility and drainage easement over Lot 1. 15 12/15/09 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations Section Purpose: Public way and easement vacations accomplished pursuant to this Section shall be in compliance with and subject to C.R.S. 43-2-301, et. seq. Standards: Section 5-2200.F. The approval ofa Vacation shall be dependent upon findings that the proposed vacation has been demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation oflaw, and to be in compliance with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Standard: The vacation shall be demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation of law, and to be in compliance with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and shall comply with the following: 1. Access to a Public Road. No roadway shall be vacated so as to leave any adjoining land without a means of access to another public road. 2. Easements. In granting a vacation, the County may reserve easements for the installation or maintenance of utilities, ditches and similar improvements The following findings are made: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a vacation of the easements in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-2200; 2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5-2200 CA.a. and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Planning Commission; 3. The Vacation will not impact Utility Companies or the Public. The applicant has also submitted an Amended Final Plat to create a new public utility easement over areas of the property that utilities are actually 10cated. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: One response was received from CenturyTel confirming that they accept the relocation of the utility easement C. Ea21e County Plannin2 Commission Voted unanimously to approve this file during its regular seSSlOn held Wednesday December 2nd. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: This application is requesting vacation of a utility easement dedicated to the public by the Final Plat of the Lake Creek Farm Subdivision. Utilities that serve the property were located outside of this easement and the applicant is requesting-that this platted easement be vacated. New utility easements will be created over 16 12/15/09 the area of the installed utlities by an amendment of the Lake Creek Farm Lot 3 Final Plat by file AFP- 2479. E. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VACATION and AFP] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [VACATION and AFP] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [VACATION and AFP] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [VACATION and AFP] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The vacation will not be in effect until the Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approving the vacation is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the request. The applicant requested that the platted easement be vacated and new easements be established. There were two standard conditions included. Commissioner Runyon asked if there were any downsides. Mr. Hanagan stated that there were no downsides. Originally, when the applicant had platted the property some assumptions were made regarding the utilities and those were changed. Ben Gerdes, Engineering Department stated that there were no downsides. Mr. Chipman, the applicant, stated that he was impressed with the technical demands of filing the application. Commissioner Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file number AFP-2479 and G-2478 Lake Creek Farm, Lot 3. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: