HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/31/13 PUBLIC HEARING
December 31, 2013
Present: Sara Fisher Chairman
Jill Ryan Commissioner
Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner
Keith Montag County Manager
Bryan Treu County Attorney
Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of December 30,2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director)
John Lewis,Finance
2. Approval of Payroll for January 9, 2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director)
John Lewis,Finance
3. Resolution 2013-120 Concerning the Appointment of Patricia Hammon as Eagle County's Veterans
Service Officer
Megan Burch,Health&Human Services
4. Resolution 2013-121 Establishing the Fee for Processing Special District Service Plans
Beth Ayres Oliver,Attorney's Office
5. Memorandum of Agreement between Eagle County and Central Federal Lands Highway Division for
Preliminary Engineering, Construction and Construction Engineering for Eagle County Bridge EAG-301-
15.6 Replacement
Ben Gerdes, Engineering
6. Statement of Work Reimbursable Agreement between Eagle County and Central Federal Lands Highway
Division for Preliminary Engineering, Construction and Construction Engineering for Eagle County Bridge
EAG-301-15.6 Replacement
Ben Gerdes,Engineering
7. Resolution 2013-122 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees
Sharee Wettstein,Administration
8. Resolution Approving Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendment Pertaining to Retail Marijuana
Business Regulations(Eagle County File No. LUR-4476)
Scot Hunn,Planning
9. Amended Final Plat to Vacate the Common Lot Line between Lots 1 and 2, Cordillera Subdivision Filing
No. 6,to Create a New "Lot 1",and to Vacate the Previously Platted Building Envelope on Lot 2(Eagle
County File No. AFP-4594)
Scot Hunn,Planning
1
12/31/2013
Chairman Fisher asked Pat Hammon to share some of the historic highlights, goals, and desires.
Ms.Hammon believed it had been an interesting year and a half. Due to a back log on a federal level
everything was taking much longer than they thought it would. She was honored and it had been extremely
rewarding to work with the veterans of Eagle County. She would like to see the program continue. She was
currently serving 300 families.
Commissioner Ryan thanked Ms. Hammon also.
Mr. Montag believed there might be something in an upcoming supplemental budget relative to the
program.
Chairman Fisher thanked Ms. Hammon and Health and Human Services for the support they provide. She
thought the program was important and believed it took a veteran to help a veteran. She encouraged the community
to reach out and be helpful to those in need.
Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney suggested pulling item 8 from the consent agenda and discuss it with item 11.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for December 31, 2013, excluding
item 8, as presented.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Chairman Fisher opened public input.
Barbra Allen spoke about the cleverness of two of the commissioners to railroad their misinterpretation of
the vote through. It was very clever to cause most of the voters to not provide nput by declaring the issue to be
political. The voters did not vote to have THC sold in a small area of 11 schools including Colorado Mountain
College with 45,000 students in and out yearly. CDOT reported traffic on Hwy 6 between the Catholic School and
Arrowhead to be over 20 million trips yearly. She spoke about fatally injured drivers and motor crash victims by
impaired drivers. If one child or adult were injured or killed due to marijuana being sold in Edwards it was the fault
of Commissioner Chandler-Henry and Commissioner Ryan. The voters did not vote to make pot available to
300,000 visitors in the county. The commissioners were about to cause a demise of Eagle Valley Land Trust if
they vote to allow marijuana to be grown on agricultural land. Local law enforcement would not be able handle
the 300,000 guests that the drug cartel wished to supply with marijuana sold in Eagle County. She believed that pot
would discourage family home buyers.
10. Cable Television Agreement between Eagle County and CenturyTel
Broadband Services, Inc., DBA CenturyLink
Kris Friel, Communications
Diane Mauriello stated that the agreement would take the place of the current agreement. She highlighted
the terms and conditions of the agreement. The term of the agreement was for 10 years. There was a provision for
video on demand and high definition and cable to the county building free of charge. There was also a scrambling
option between buildings in the event of an emergency.
Ms.Friel was pleased that the ECO-TV station would continue.
Jim Campbell from CenturyLink stated that this involved an upgrade in investment of the CentrulyLink
network. It was state of the art, fiber based video product. He commended the county staff for their time and work.
Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment as there was none.
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the cable television agreement between Eagle county and Century
Tel Broadband services, Inc.,DBA CenturyLink.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2013-123 Approving Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendment
Pertaining to Retail Marijuana Business Regulations (Eagle County File No. LUR-
4476)
2
12/31/2013
Scot Hunn,Planning
Mr.Treu stated that the Land Use Regulations being signed were different than what was provided earlier.
They added a provision dealing with the percentage of registered voters in Eagle County that voted in favor of
Amendment 64. The retail marijuana establishments would be treated the same as the medical marijuana
establishments with some variations. They would be allowed in the same commercial zone districts with the same
200 ft.buffers from certain protected uses. A 500 ft.buffer was added to retail marijuana from public or private
high schools,this would eliminate the Wendys commercial location in Edwards.The development standards were
maintained for odor mitigation, hours of operation, and those types of things, similar to medical marijuana..
Cultivation,manufacturing, and testing,would be permitted in Resource and Agricultural Zone Districts as part of a
Special Use review. It would come to the board of county commissioners on a case by case basis. There would be
an 18 plant limit for any residence. Staff recommended defining social clubs or lounges and banning them in all
zone districts at this time. Licensing would combine medical and retail into one licensing program. The local
licensing authority was the Board of County Commissioners but the authority was being delegated to the Planning
Department. Staff would only review a completed application. The fees were the same as medical; $2,000 for a
new application and$1,500 for a renewal. Establishments that wished to co-locate would still be required to pay
the new license fee but the renewal fees would be combined to $2,500 versus the$3,000. There were many
requirements including a marijuana management plan similar to a liquor management plan, detailing training, and
participation in community outreach regarding the topic of underage marijuana use. The transfer of a license would
not be permitted,however the county would allow someone in good standing to transfer the license to a new
location. Licenses would be good for 1 year. Staff would have the ability to issue fines for violating the licensing
terms. There would be a cap of 8 retail store license in Eagle County, of that number 2 would be reserved for the
portion of the county in the Roaring Fork Valley. The other 6 would be reserved for the current medical
establishments.
Mr.Hunn stated that currently there were 3 establishments in good standing, 1 that was not and 2 that were
applying.
Mr.Treu stated that they would not be capping the waiting list. It would be first come first serve. The
hours of operation would be the same as medical, 8 am to 7 pm.
Chairman Fisher stated that she voted against retail marijuana and did not want to go against her previous
vote.
Mr. Treu believed that Chairman Fisher could approve the licensing resolution and still remain consistent
with her earlier statements
Chairman Fisher opened public comment.
David Manzanares asked the board consider the social clubs and givingpeople a place to smoke marijuana.
Commissioner Ryan believed the 1 year moratorium on social clubs made sense just because there weren't
any regulations yet and this was still new. It was important to wait and see what came out of the legislation.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry was happy with precluding the social clubs and believed the slower
approach made more sense. She believed education was a big component.
Commissioner Ryan commented on Barbara Allen's earlier comments. She believed that everyone wanted
the same thing;a safe community. Literature was starting to show that teen usage in states with medical marijuana
sales either stayed the same or decreased. People were doing it anyway and regulating it made it safer.
Chairman Fisher appreciated all the input from the community. She was challenged by it and by the county
taking the lead. She believed it was incumbent on the county to stay on top of it and be as conservative as possible.
She believed it did damage to the developing brain. A lot still remained to be seen.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution approving Eagle County Land Use
Regulation Amendment pertaining to retail marijuana business regulations(Eagle County File No. LUR-4476)
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner
Fisher voting against.
3
12/31/2013
11. Resolution 2013-124 Adopting Eagle County Medical and Retail Marijuana
Business Licensing Regulations
Bryan Treu,Attorney's Office
Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the resolution adopting Eagle County Medical and Retail
Marijuana Business Licensing Regulations.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion.The vote was declared unanimous.
Manager Update
Communications Update
Information Sharing
Discussion Items
BoCC Schedules
Planning Files
12. LUR-4550 Floodplain Overlay Zone District
Greg Schroeder,Planning
Eagle County Government,Applicant
Action: The purpose of this Land Use Regulation Amendment is to update Section 3-350 of the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations,to amend the current floodplain regulations per the State of Colorado's Colorado Water
Conservation Board revised floodplain regulations.
Location: Unincorporated Eagle County
FILE NO./PROCESS: LUR-4550/Land Use Regulation Amendments
PROJECT NAME: Floodplain Overlay Zone District
LOCATION: Unincorporated Eagle County
OWNER: Not Applicable
APPLICANT: Eagle County Government
STAFF ENGINEER: Greg Schroeder
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Purpose of Text Amendment
Eagle County has been a participating community in the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) since 1977. The
NFIP allows residents within Eagle County to purchase NFIP Flood Insurance to protect their homes and
businesses. As a part of the NFIP, the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) requires that participating
communities adopt a minimum set of regulations to minimize damage due to flood losses. Additionally, the
Legislature of the State of Colorado has, in Title 29, Article 20 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, delegated the
responsibility of local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. The responsible
State branch for floodplain management is the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). CWCB has adopted
revised Rules and Regulations for Floodplains in Colorado (Rules) that contains the minimum requirements for the
NFIP requirements, as well as additional requirements for the State of Colorado. These rules were adopted in late
2010, with an effective date of January 14, 2011. A three year transition period is allowed for all participating
4
12/31/2013
communities to adopt the rules, that being January 14, 2014. To assist communities in the adoption process, the
CWCB has published a model ordinance (attached as Exhibit B for reference) that allows for communities to
modify their existing regulations to be in conformance with the new rules, as well as provide technical support from
their staff.
These proposed amendments to the Land Use Regulations, attached as Exhibit A, are to update Eagle County's
Land Use Regulations to be in conformance with CWCB's revised Rules and Regulations for Floodplains in
Colorado.
Proposed Text Amendments
All of the proposed text amendments are shown in Exhibit A. Included in the Exhibit are three color"markup" sets.
The red color set represents the originally proposed text amendments. The purple color set represents changes made
based upon referral responses. The blue color set represents changes based upon the planning commission
comments. The overall proposed modifications consist of all three color sets.
Based upon the referral responses received from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Basalt
Sanitation District, a meeting was held with both of these organizations on November 8, 2013 to discuss and
incorporate their comments. The purple comments represent these revisions, as well as revisions from the Colorado
Water Conservation Board's comments.
Changes to three of these articles, Article 2 — Definitions, Article 3 — Zone Districts, and Article 5 —
Administration, will comprise the revisions for this update, as follows:
Article 2—Definitions:
A total of 48 new definitions are added to this section from the model ordinance. 12 definitions
have been modified.Precise wording is included with this submission.
The following 33 new definitions have been added:
100-YEAR FLOOD, 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, 500-YEAR FLOOD, 500-YEAR
FLOODPLAIN, ADDITION, ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING, AREA OF SHALLOW
FLOODING, CHANNEL, CHANNELIZATION, CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP
REVISION(CLOMR), CRITICAL FACILITY, DIGITAL FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
(DFIRM), ELEVATED BUILDING, FEMA, FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR,
FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT,
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS, FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE,
FREEBOARD, FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT USE, HISTORIC STRUCTURE,LETTER
OF MAP REVISION(LOMR), LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL (LOMR-F),
MEAN SEA LEVEL,MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET(MSDS), NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP), NO-RISE CERTIFICATION, PHYSICAL MAP
REVISION(PMR), SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE,
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT, and THRESHOLD PLANNING QUANTITY(TPQ)
Eight definitions have been added with the Flood Overlay Zone District only:
BASEMENT, VARIANCE, and VIOLATION EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
OR SUBDIVISION, EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
OR SUBDIVISION, HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE, MANUFACTURED HOME PARK
OR SUBDIVISION, NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION.
Nine definitions have been modified:
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION(BFE), DEVELOPMENT, FLOOD OR FLOODING,
FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD-PRONE AREA, FLOOD WAY(REGULATORYFLOODWAY),
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY(FIS), LEVEE, LOWEST FLOOR, and START OF
CONSTRUCTION
5
12/31/2013
Three definitions have been modified for the Flood Overlay Zone District only:
MANUFACTURED HOME, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, STRUCTURE
Article 3—Zone Districts
Section 3-250 Floodplain Overlay Zone District has some simple rewording, and the LOMR-F
language added to it to designate that areas with LOMR-F are still subject to the floodplain overlay
zone district.
Section 3-350 Floodplain Overlay Zone District has the following changes, summarized in the
table below:
Section Description of Revisions
3-350.B Added severability language from the model ordinance
3-350.C,and Changed references of"Floodplain Management Administrator"to
throughout "Floodplain Administrator"for consistency w/the model
ordinance
3-350.0 Duties of the Floodplain Administrator-Added duties to be
consistent with the model ordinance
3-350.E Zone District Divisions-Added Shallow Flooding to be
consistent with the model ordinance
3-350.G Flood Fringe-Added"All Structures" section that applies to both
residential and non-residential structures to be consistent with the
model ordinance
3-350.G Flood Fringe-added additional language to both residential and
non-residential structures to be consistent with the model
ordinance
3-350.G.4.d Flood Fringe-added"Enclosures"section to be consistent with
the model ordinance
3-350.G.4.e Flood Fringe-added"Manufactured Homes"section to be
consistent with the model ordinance
3-350.H Floodway-Added stream restoration projects and CLOMR
requirement
3-350.J Alteration of a Watercourse-New Section added to be
consistent with the model ordinance
3-350.K Properties Removed from the Floodplain by Fill-New Section
added to be consistent with the model ordinance
3-350.L Subdivision Proposals -New Section added to be consistent with
the model ordinance
3-350.M Critical Facilities-New Section added to be consistent with the
model ordinance
3-350.0 Floodplain Variance-New Section added to be consistent with
the model ordinance
Article S—Administration
There are various references in Article 5 that relate to the Floodplain Regulations, as summarized
in the table below:
Section Description of Revisions
5-260.H Variances—added the section to reference Floodplain Variances
5-280.A.8 Subdivision—added reference to subdivision requirements of
section 3-350.L
5-295.E.3.a.5 Subdivision— added reference to subdivision requirements of
6
12/31/2013
section 3-350.L _]
Planning Commission Deliberation
The proposed text amendment was presented to both the Eagle County Planning Commission and the
Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission on November 20th and 21st, respectively. At their
public hearings on the matter,the following discussion and deliberations ensued:
1. Suggested to add a footnote, italics, or color change for the "(Floodplain Overlay Zone District
Definition)"definition term for clarity
2. Check"Recreational Vehicle"language, seems there are two"lesses"in the definition, confusing
3. Had questions if an Architect can certify floodproofing or elevations
4. Section 3-350.E.4. subsection a and b — make language consistent between certification (last
sentence)
5. Section 3-350.H.3 — Allowed Uses (Floodway) add another use — "whitewater and recreation
parks"
6. Section 3-350.0 Variances — Felt that the Appeal Board could be served by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA), but wanted to find out other counties/communities were doing. They thought
that a non-staff board would be most appropriate.
7. Section 3-350.G.4.d Definitions—Check the definition of`Enclosures"
Both planning commissions unanimously approved the proposed text amendment application.
Changes to the text based upon the above planning commission deliberations are shown in Exhibit A as a
blue color set,as follows:
1. Added footnotes to Article 2.
2. Removed extra wording.
3. No changes made. The language about Architects certifying floodproofing and elevations comes to
individual responsibility and personal liability. For instance, an Architect would be comfortable
providing an architectural detail showing floodproofing, and would therefore certify it. If they were
not comfortable in determining surveyed elevations (something that a Professional Land Surveyor
(PLS) is comfortable with), they could choose not to do so, or, if prepared by a PLS under their
supervision, the Architect could certify if they felt comfortable. Furthermore, the FEMA issued
Elevation Certificate allows certification to be "signed and sealed by a land surveyor, engineer, or
architect authorized by law."
4. Revised the section to be consistent with each other.
5. Added subsection j.
6. No changes made.
7. The "Enclosure" definition is similar to basements, but enclosures typically consist of structures
that have been elevated on piers or posts, and have "siding" attached to these vertical structures.
The language is consistent with FEMA's definition, and therefore no changes are made.
Staff Analysis
Overall, the proposed text amendment updates the Floodplain Overlay Zone District to be up to date with
the Colorado Water Conservation Board's Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado.
The CWCB went through a rulemaking process in 2010 and adopted their current rules in 2011. The
amendment also adds the following benefits:
• Adds additional definitions for better clarity.
• Adds uses for the floodway that were not well defined.
• Adds section on Critical Facilities,to better protect these facilities.
• Adds a Floodplain Variance Section.
• Updates the regulations to be in conformance with State and Federal floodplain regulations.
7
12/31/2013
During the referral period, a letter was sent to 686 property owners representing 990 properties that are
impacted by, or are close to, a regulatory floodplain, seeking their comment. Many of these property
owners are not familiar with the County's land use public process and regulation text amendment process,
and as a result, staff received approximately 60 phone calls or emails inquiring on what type of input was
needed from them. Many did not understand the application and thought that the regulatory maps were
being revised. Upon explanation that the maps were not changing, and only the revised text was proposed
to change under the public process, there were not any other comments other than the five (5) referrals
received that are included in the appendix.
II. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS:
1. Approve this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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 this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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 this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT request if additional information is required to fully
evaluate the petition, giving specific direction to staff.
4. Approve this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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).
III. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
There are no suggested conditions.
APPENDIX`A'
A. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
PROCESS INTENT
ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official
Zone District Map
Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of
the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations
by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not
intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on
any person,but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions.
8
12/31/2013
Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that
the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the
County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the
application submittal requirements and standards.
Note: There are no specific standards directly applicable for changing the text
of the Land Use Regulations.
B. STAFF DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals, the proposed
amendments have been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all municipalities within Eagle
County;
Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public
notice has been given;
Pursuant to Chapter 2,Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment:
a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter 2, Articles 2, 3, and 5 of the
Eagle County Land Use Regulations and do not amend the Official Zone District Map.
b. Precise wording of the proposed changes has been provided.
Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-230.C.3 Action by Board of
County Commissioners:
a. General. After receipt of the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the Board of
County Commissioners shall conduct a public hearing for the application. At the public hearing,
the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application, the relevant support
materials, the Staff Report, the Planning Commission recommendation, and the public
testimony given at the public hearing.
C. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
All referral responses are included in their entirety in Exhibit C as attached. Below is a summary of the
responses:
Eagle River Water and Sanitation District: In the attached letter dated October 9, 2013, ERWSD offers
the following comments:
1) 2-110, Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Definition, this definition is confusing,
consider clarifying.
2) 2-110, Development Definition, Storage of Materials and Equipment is included in model
resolution, but this definition says that storage of materials and equipment requires a land use
permit.
3) 2-110, Functionally Dependent Improvement Definition, this should include intakes, channels,
diversion structures, riverbank filtration galleries, alluvial wells, storm sewer, effluent outfall
structures,pipelines, etc.Unless those improvements are exempted elsewhere?
4) 3-350 E.4. First paragraph,last sentence, should it state"may not be evident?"
5) 3-350 G.4.a (6) Please define water supply systems and which components of a water supply
system this provision is applicable to. Does it apply to both potable and non-potable systems?
9
12/31/2013
Are water supply intake structures exempt from this provision?
6) 3-350 G.4.c (4-8) Are these items simply allowed non-residential structures? These 5 items
don't specifically appear to refer to design considerations that would allow for the uses (ie.
Non-residential structures or uses are allowed provided that). It appears that they should be
bulleted under a separate list.
7) 3-350 H.3. Utilities should be an allowed use. There are water lines, manholes and sewer lines
in creeks, likely within floodways.
8) 3-350 H.3.e. Consider adding wetland and riparian improvement projects after `stream
restoration.'
9) 3-350 M.1.a.(5) This would subject WTPs, water pumping facilities, wells, etc. to this
requirement. WWTPs and `redundant' systems are specifically exempted. Also, add well
facilities specifically.
10) General ERWSD Comments:
We have many service lines in the flood plain, how do we deal with this in new infrastructure?
Shouldn't this be regulated by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) design guidelines vs. Eagle County?
Generally all building requires a building permit which would require a floodplain
development permit with the county or applicable floodplain administrator. Utilities should be
an allowed use in the floodplain zone district; it's not clear in the proposed regulation.
Specific Exemptions—Shouldn't this include alluvial wells, surface water Intakes for irrigation
systems, public drinking water systems, snowmaking systems, wastewater effluent structures,
augmentation systems,non-potable collection,distribution and storm sewer systems?
The requirement of redundant systems could be cost prohibitive for many systems. The
protection of such water and wastewater facilities is already regulated by CDPHE, why add
this redundancy requirement to the County's jurisdiction? Some specific exemptions or
allowed uses need to be very clearly spelled out.
General overarching comment: It seems that the new language is largely copied from the
attached DNR/CWCB Ordinance,however both documents seem lacking clarity when it comes
to water and wastewater infrastructure and in many cases they seem to be prohibiting things
that CDPHE already allows and regulates.
Basalt Sanitation District: In the attached email dated November 1, 2013, BSD offers the following
comments:
1) Our biggest concern is in the definition of Critical Facilities in 3-350 M (1). We believe that
the term public utility plant facilities should be clarified by adding the following: and
appurtenant facilities structures, lift stations and pipelines." This clarification should also be
added to the paragraph following subsection(a)(6).
2) Also, please add to subparagraph M (1) (a)(5) waste water treatment as expanded in our
preceding paragraph.
3) Subparagraph F(2)(c) should be clarified to define "waste" to exclude wastewater from a
wastewater treatment facility.
4) Waste water treatment systems and appurtenant facilities, including lift stations, are heavily,
closely and comprehensively regulated by CDPHE. Many include buried collection lines that
actually go below the natural stream bed. Therefore, any regulation by the County of matters
within the purview of CDPHE is redundant and potentially even in conflict with CDPHE
regulations and requirements. For the same reasons, 350(F)(7) should be deleted. CDPHE
requires approval of the plans and specifications of all facilities subject to its regulations and
site approval requirements. At a minimum there should be a reference to Best Management
10
12/31/2013
Practices in F(7).
5) Finally, we join in the comments of the Eagle River Water& Sanitation District dated October
9, 2013.
Colorado Water Conservation Board: In the attached email dated September 25, 2013, CWCB offers the
following comments:
1) In the nonresidential standards, the electrical, heating, service facilities, etc should be in the
freeboard section,not the setback section.
2) Also, the freeboard needs to be applied to floodproofmg and the draft only includes freeboard
for elevation.
3) Under the variances section, 5 should be removed. This is old FEMA language that I have
recently removed from the model ordinance because it creates problems.
J.C. Plott (on behalf of Edwards Plaza and Cecilia and Fritz Schmidt): In the attached email dated
October 23,2013,Mr. Plott offers the following comments:
1) On behalf of Edwards Plaza and Cecilia and Fritz Schmidt, please accept the following
comment concerning the amendments the LUR-4550 regulation:
2) The definition of"Floodway (Regulatory Floodway)" provides in part that "However, for all
rivers, in no instance shall the floodway-flood fringe boundary be closer than twenty-five (25)
feet to the natural streambank." The aforementioned twenty-five foot defined floodway-flood
fringe boundary is arbitrary. For an elevated parcel(e.g., one that is twelve feet above the water
line), the natural flood-fringe boundary will fall closer to the natural streambank than the
proposed regulation provides. The proposed land use regulation should not contain an arbitrary
definition setting forth a floodway-flood fringe boundary.
Chupa Nelson: In the attached email dated October 24, 2013,Mr.Nelson offers the following comment:
1) I've done a cursory review of the proposed changes/amendments to the regulations for the
Flood Plain Overview. I don't see any major issues with these changes and support the
adoption of them.
Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response at
the time of writing this report:
• Eagle County: Airport, Animal Services, Assessors, Attorney, ECO Trails , ECO Transit ,
Engineering, Environmental Health, Housing Division, Road and Bridge, School District
(Administration), School District (Transportation), Sheriff's Office, Surveyor , Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist;
• State of Colorado: CDOT (Local Office), Division of Minerals and Geology, Division of Water
Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Geological Survey, Health Department:, Land Use
Commission, Water Conservation Board;
• Federal: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Arm Corps of Engineers U.S. Forest Service, USFS
(Sopris Ranger District, �!
• Towns:Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum,Mine ail, Basalt;
ib
• Service Districts: Ambulance District: Al(, ct tricts, Fir Distri 4. Fir Districts, Holy
Cross Electric, Public Service C o./K N Endgy A g i v o' �D i rk Qwest T I nt vTe, ier/Sewer:
All Water/Sewer Districts; ,'_ _ "R• Engineers:All Engineers which are currently'egrs21ied with the Eagle County Tanning Division.
• Planners:All Planners which are currently registered with the Eagle County Planning Division.
• Property Owners: All property owners that have property on or near to the FO Zone District (686
Owners for 990 Parcels)
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Fisher was absent
11
12/31/2013
Mr. Schroeder explained the purpose of the regulations. The county was required to adopt a minimum set
of Floodplain Management Regulations as required per FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. He
provided an overlay that showed the floodway, flood fringe, and high risk areas in Edwards. The regulation
amendment referrals were sent to any one impacted by the Flood Overlay Zone District.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked him to define critical facilities.
Mr. Schroeder stated that critical facility was a structure or related infrastructure,but not the land on which
it was situated that if flooded may result in significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential
services. The Eagle County Planning Commissioner and Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission unanimously
approved the amendments on November 20&21, 2013.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if there were any areas with critical facilities of concern in Eagle
County.
Mr. Schroeder believed Eagle County did not have a lot of those problems. He was more concerned with
the low bridges and utilities that crossed streams and rivers.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if the regulations were reviewed by Colorado Water
Conservation Board or whether this was just something done on a local level.
Mr. Schroeder stated that they were a referral agent. They would be provided a copy of the resolution if
approved by the board.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if any concerns surfaced about the other land use regulations.
Mr. Schroeder stated that there was only one incident where he came across a definition that didn't sound
right, and he forwarded the information to Bob Narracci.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed Mr. Schroeder did a thorough job and it seemed to be a piece to
the watershed plan.
Commissioner Ryan asked when the regulations were last revised.
Mr. Schroeder believed they were last revised in 2007.
Commissioner Ryan wondered if it was standard practice to use the statute from the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
Mr. Schroeder stated that some people just adopted the model ordinance as stated with changes and others
integrated them in their existing regulations as Eagle County did.
Commissioner Ryan believed the regulations seemed enhanced.
Commissioner Ryan opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve file no. LUR-4550 Floodplain Overlay Zone District
amendment.
Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared
unanimous.
Work Session
13. Road Impact Fee Regulation Review
Eva Wilson,Engineering
There being no further business befor • '∎St, meeting was adjourned until Janua , 2014.
i'
Attest: « C01.00 t 1 4-....._Clerk to the Bo rd --- Ch . an
12
12/31/2013