No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/30/2022 • SPECIAL MEETING September 30, 2022 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Matt Scherr Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Beth Oliver Deputy County Attorney Matt Peterson Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Site Visit - El Jebel 1. Site Visit for Planning File: CRMPI-ZS-9170-2021 Special Use Permit Planning File - Mt. Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. CRMPI-ZS-9170-2021 Special Use Permit Trent Hyatt, Community Development Deputy Director Executive Summary: Special Use Permit for a resort recreational facility, one home business, one home occupation, an accessory dwelling unit, and detached structures ("Application") submitted by Maya Ward-Karet ("Representative")on behalf of Jerome Osentowski("Applicant"and"Owner"). Project Name: Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute,Home Business,Home Occupation,Accessory Dwelling Unit, Detached Structure(s) File No.: ZS-009170-2021 Location: 1919 and 2101 Cedar Drive,parcel number 2467-043-04-001 Owner: Jerome Osentowski Applicant: Jerome Osentowski Representative: Maya Ward-Karet, Earthbound Architecture Staff Planner: Trent L. Hyatt, Community Development Deputy Director Staff Engineer:Julie Pranger, PE, CFM, Staff Engineer County Attorney: Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney Recommendation: Deny I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 21, 2021, Eagle County received an application for a Special Use Permit for a resort recreational facility, one home business, one home occupation, an accessory dwelling unit,and detached structures("Application") submitted by Maya Ward-Karet("Representative")on behalf of Jerome Osentowski("Applicant"and"Owner"). The special use is located on property owned by the Applicant and located at 1919 and 2101 Cedar Drive(referred 1 09/30/2022 to as Upper Cedar Drive, Lower Cedar Drive, and Basalt Mountain Road), also identified as parcel number 2467-043-04-001 ("Property"). The Property is approximately 7.834 acres in size and is zoned Resource(R) The Property is a legal,non-conforming Resource(R)zoned property. The Property is non-conforming because it is 7.83 acres in size,which falls below the 35 acre minimum lot size requirement for the Resource Zone District. Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations("ECLUR") Section 6-120.A.2,uses that could be permitted on a conforming, legal lot in the Resource Zone District may still be allowed on a non-conforming Resource parcel through a Special Use Permit. Utilizing ECLUR Section 6-120.A.2-Additional Uses for non-conforming legal lots of record,the requested special use entails the following component uses in addition to the existing use-by-right single-family dwelling unit on the eastern side of the property: 1. Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute/The Demonstration Farm("CRMPI"): The Application explains that CRMPI is an educational facility which provides lodging(in the form of on-site camping), dining facilities, parking, shuttling, and restrooms for students and teachers. Based on the types of activities and operations of CRMPI, the use has been interpreted to be most similar to a"Resort Recreational Facility"per Table 3-300 of the ECLUR. ECLUR Article 2 -Definitions defines a Resort Recreational Facility as: "A dude ranch,boating base camp,hunting or fishing camp, cross-country or trail skiing lodge or other similar facility for the purpose of recreation or education which provides lodging,recreational activities,dining facilities,parking, storage facilities, and restrooms or other needs operated on the site for guests or members."2 Furthermore,pursuant to ECLUR Section 3-310.V-Resort Recreational Facility, additional zone district standards specific to this use limit the maximum number of accommodations allowed depending on the zone district the use is located. In the Resource zone district, a Resort Recreational Facility is limited to twelve(12) dwelling units or forty-eight(48)beds of visitor capacity. The Application proposes eleven(11)total campsites and a maximum of twenty-eight(28) campers/participants,teachers, volunteers, and/or employees(an increase from 25 previously analyzed by staff)at any time. 2. Jerome's Organics: This component use is determined to be a Home Business primarily based on the fact that customers visit the Property in order to view and purchase fruits and vegetables. Home Businesses are allowed in the Resource Zone District, subject to a Special Use Permit review. After multiple requests from staff for the Applicant to address the standards for a Home Business as outlined in ECLUR Section 3-310.F.1,the Applicant has proposed that Jerome's Organics is no longer a separate business venture and is fully incorporated into the CRMPI operations. While staff understands this sentiment, adding a for-sale agricultural component to CRMPI is not consistent with the definition of a Resort Recreational Facility. Therefore,the growing of food products for-sale must be evaluated as a separate component use because the students and visitors for CRMPI are most likely separate patrons from those who are purchasing the fruits and vegetables, therefore,having a separate, and potentially additional, impact on the property when evaluated holistically. 3. Eco-Systems Design: This component is a consulting company the Applicant operates on the Property. Since this operation is generally conducted online,with occasional off-site work,this component use has been determined to be a Home Occupation which is a use by right in the Resource Zone District for conforming lots. A previous version of this staff report indicated that this use was potentially a use-by-right on the Property. However, as the Property is non-conforming to the minimum 35 acre lot size requirement for the Resource Zone District, a Special Use Permit is required for a Home Occupation on the Property per ECLUR Section 6-120.A.2. 4. Accessory Dwelling Unit("ADU"): Due to the non-conforming size of the Property within the Resource Zone District, the ADU component use requires a Special Use Permit review per ECLUR Section 6-120.A.2. Since ADUs must meet specific zone district standards described in ECLUR Section 3-310, the Applicant must demonstrate that those standards are met in addition to the Special Use Permit review standards. The specific Zone District standards applicable to an ADU are set forth in ECLUR Section 3-310.A. 3 Staff has conducted an analysis 2 09/30/2022 of the proposed uses,which is the sum of the use-by-right and four component uses described above, against the standards for a Special Use Permit set forth in ECLUR, Section 5-250.B. - Standards for Special Uses. Review of the Application also considered referral agencies' comments outlined in Section V-Referral Responses below. Based on this review and the referral agency comments, staff finds the Application does not meet all of the standards for a Special Use Permit as outlined in Section VI. After months of communication and detailed discussions,the Applicant and County staff were unable to come to terms regarding conformity with applicable standards of approval Therefore,the Applicant requested to present the file to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission(the"Commission")and Board of County Commissioners("Board")with the understanding that staff would likely recommend denial of the Application. Furthermore,County Staff has determined that based on the standards,the proposed use including the use-by-right and all four component uses, and referral comments received,the Application cannot be reasonably conditioned to meet standards. While staff is generally supportive of agricultural uses,climate action initiatives, and many of the environmental stewardship improvements the Applicant has made to the Property and the related public education efforts, life safety issues and conformance with the County's development standards remain unaddressed or unsatisfied by the Application and its corresponding materials. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the Board deny the Application as submitted. II.BACKGROUND: The Property was illegally subdivided via a deed dated July 6, 1970 and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Number 113804. The current Owner and Applicant,Mr. Osentowski,purchased the property via a deed dated May 13, 1975 and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder at Reception Number 136003. The Applicant applied for and received a building permit to construct a single family home on the Property in 1975. Eagle County received a code enforcement complaint alleging illegal construction on the Property on October 12, 2018. While investigating this complaint, staff discovered apparent component uses on the Property which were not permitted nor allowed by-right in the Resource Zone District. These component uses, as described above, necessitate additional land use approvals per the ECLUR. The Property was legalized via a Subdivision Exemption Plat administratively approved by the Community Development Director on May 1,2020. The exemption plat is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder at reception number 202010735. However,because the lot does not comply with minimum lot size required by the zone district,the lot is still considered legal nonconforming, therefore,ECLUR Section 6-120.A.2-Additional Uses, is the principal provision applicable to this request. The intent of this request is to legalize the existing and proposed component uses. The Application states CRMPI was established on the property in 1987. The County does not have a record of any Special Use Permit for the Property. Resort recreational facilities have been permissible in the Resource Zone District, subject to an approved Special Use Permit, since Eagle County adopted zoning regulations on October 19, 1974. The term"home business"did not appear in the 1986 ECLUR but a similar use, "home occupation",was permitted via an approved Special Use Permit. It appears that CRMPI and the home business and home occupation have been unlawfully operating on the Property since approximately 1987. Pursuant to ECLUR Section 1-140.1 - General Applicability,"No development within the unincorporated area of Eagle County shall occur without first obtaining the appropriate development permit pursuant to the provisions of these Land Use Regulations."ECLUR Article 6-Nonconformities is only applicable to those uses which were"lawfully established before these Land Use Regulations were adopted or amended,that now do not conform to the standards of the Land Use Regulations." Since the component uses CRMPI, Jerome's Ogranics,and Eco-Systems Design were not lawfully established,they are not granted legal non-conforming status. To become legal uses, these component uses, in addition to the ADU component use,must acquire a Special Use Permit from the County. ECLUR Section 6-120.A.2 states the owner of 3 09/30/2022 a non-conforming legal lot of record may apply for a Special Use Permit to allow any other use that is allowed by right,by limited review, or by special use for any use normally permitted in the applicable underlying zone district. The Property has been developed over several decades and existing improvements include a single-family home, a cabin,multiple greenhouses,and other accessory structures. Existing uses on the Property include residential, CRMPI, a home business, and a home occupation. A summary of County-issued permits is provided in the table below. Permit Number Scope Date Issued Status IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: Per ECLUR Section 5-210.E.1 -Notice in Newspaper,notice was posted in the newspaper on May 19 and September 15,2022. Per ECLUR Section 5-210.E.2 -Mailed Notice,adjacent property owner notification was sent on May 18 and September 13,2022. As of the time of the writing of this report,many public comments have been received and they are included as Attachment 2. Per ECLUR Section 5-210.E.3 - Posted Notice, the Applicant posted a hearing sign on May 18,2022. V. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Per ECLUR Sections 5-210.D.4.c-Referral Distribution and 5-210.D.4.d-Referral Time Period,referral copies of this Application were sent to 24 agencies for review on September 1, 2021 for the 21 calendar day referral period. The following section lists the agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County by the deadline of September 22,2021. The Applicant's referral response did not address comments from several external referral agencies,namely Pitkin County,the Town of Basalt, and the Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority. These three referral agencies were given a second opportunity to provide comments during Staff's 10 day Post-Referral under ECLUR Section 5-210.D.5.c. Any secondary referral comments from the above-mentioned agencies are also shown in the following section. Please see Attachment 3 for the full text of all referral agency response letters and emails. 1. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE)a. CDPHE provided its form referral comment. This comment did not address any particularities of the present Application,but rather,provided resources to locate CDPHE's regulations regarding hazardous and solid waste,water quality, air quality, asbestos and lead based paints, health equity, and environmental justice. 2. Eagle County Fire Mitigation a. Due to the high wildfire rating for this property,the following comments were provided: i. Require Class-A roof assemblies on all new structure(s). ii. Provide 3-5 feet of noncombustible landscaping surrounding new structures,campsites, or outdoor cooking areas. iii. No coniferous trees or shrubs are to be located within 30 feet of structures.Native, low-growing plant and deciduous shrub species are encouraged g gp g and lower limbs of trees and downed trees must be removed within 100 ft of all structures. iv. Adhere to requirements related to the use of ignition resistant building materials for all new structures(per Eagle Building Resolution). v. Create wildfire evacuation plan(s) for CRMPI employees and guests approved by Roaring Fork Fire and Eagle County. vi. Signage from both sites identifying emergency evacuation routes. vii. Create viable solutions to access and on-site parking issues identified by Roaring Fork Fire. 8 3. Pitkin County a. Pitkin County permits and approvals for Sustainable Settings do not allow for its use as a parking/shuttle pick-up location for students participating in courses held at the Permaculture Institute. Pitkin County Post-Referral Comments: i. Pitkin County was given the opportunity to provide additional post-referral comments but did not do so. 4. Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority("RFFRA")a. All clients of CRMPI and associated businesses should park at the CRMPI employee parking area and utilize the trail to access the buildings rather than utilize Lower Cedar Drive/Basalt Mountain Road. b. The van shuttle parking spot located on the southwest side of the parking lot is not a viable parking space as it would block in the other vehicles. c. At no time shall vehicles be parked in the emergency turnaround and a"No Parking" sign is required to be posted. d. The automatic fire sprinkler system installed in the cabin must be inspected as a condition of occupancy and the fire suppression system shall be compliant and in working order prior to occupancy. Annual test and inspection reports shall be sent to RFFRA and 4 09/30/2022 compliance shall be maintained. e. Staff of CRMPI should sign up to Eagle County Alert. f. CRMPI staff should have a satellite phone if there is no cell service. g. All CRMPI staff should have a current Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation(CPR)card as part of the medical training. h. The trail width from the cabin leading down to the greenhouses should be a minimum of three to four feet wide to accommodate medical personnel carrying a patient on a stretcher. The trail must be maintained throughout while classes are in session. i. The fire extinguishers shall be inspected and serviced annually according to the National Fire Protection Association 10: Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, Chapter 7.j. All signs are acceptable except the proposed"Welcome to Jerome Organics and Eco-systems" sign should not be posted at the intersection of Lower Cedar Drive as it is not in the public's best interest to travel on the Lower Cedar Drive. k. The existing pond estimated at 15,000 gallons should be signed at the roadway/gate to help ensure that the pond is easily identifiable from the road at all times. RFFRA Post-Referral Comments: i. It is of the utmost importance that this emergency turnaround area remains clear and accessible. Signage in this area shall say"No 9 Parking"or"Emergency Access Only"and will be verified before any classes. ii. The driveway is considered that stretch of access from the turnoff at Upper Cedar Drive to the structures served on Mr. Osentowski's property. A sign at the pullout by the gate shall say"No Parking."iii. The automatic fire suppression system shall be inspected annually by a licensed fire suppression installer and records of the test and inspection shall be forwarded to RFFRA for review. iv. The fire extinguishers will be inspected prior to the start of the summer sessions and a fire extinguisher training video and test will be completed by every student and forwarded to RFFRA for review. v.All staff shall sign up for Pitkin Alert for emergency notification. vi. Other mitigation work has been verified by Eagle County. 5. Roaring Fork School District a. Ensure that any applicable school land dedication or fees in lieu is applied to this Application. 6. Town of Basalt a. Permaculture is consistent with the Town of Basalt's rural landscape and environmental identity,however, camping and education operations need to be managed in a way that does not negatively impact neighboring properties, Town infrastructure such as Cedar Drive,or parking within the Town. b. The Town has concerns with the Applicant's parking plan and its impacts on Town right-of-ways and on neighboring properties. Additionally, the Applicant's plan to use Basalt Elementary School and Sustainable Settings for parking between the months of May and September does not address how the Applicant will handle parking during its proposed operations in October. c. The Town recommends that Eagle County implement a yearly review of the Applicant's parking plan prior to the start of classes each year and provide the Town of Basalt and Pitkin County opportunities to comment on that review. d. The Town recommends that RFFRA verify the adequacy of the pond for fire fighting purposes. e. The Town recommends that the Upper Cedar Drive access be improved to the minimum width required by the Fire Department, and requests that the road to the site be reviewed for adequate width and turning radius for emergency vehicles,and the need for any pullouts. f. The Town recommends that the Applicant be required to meet the Fire Department's requirements regarding the emergency turnaround. g. All public information put out by the Applicant must direct the public to utilize Upper Cedar Drive to access the property. 10 h. The Town recommends that the site's drainage and water quality be reviewed to ensure that operations are not contributing to stormwater pollution. i. Eagle County should review the traffic impacts of the existing and proposed uses. j. The Applicant should provide wayfinding signage along the road to the site. Town of Basalt Post-Referral Comments: i. The Town of Basalt noted that while the Applicant had changed the names of the uses or considered one a part of another now,the proposed uses remained the same and the Town's previous comments remained unchanged. 5 09/30/2022 VI. ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION The Commission considered the file at its regularly scheduled meeting of July 21,2022 which was continued from the originally scheduled meeting dates of June 2 and July 7,2022. Many of the Commission's issues/concerns are addressed in various sections above. The Commission was generally supportive of the permaculture agriculture techniques utilized,promoted, and taught by the Applicant but brought forth concerns regarding the intensity of the operation in regards to its location of the property, available infrastructure (access roads/driveways/trails,water,and sanitation), and general conformance with applicable ECLUR standards. Public Comment at the Hearing Significant public comment was taken during the Commission hearing,the vast majority of which in support of the Application. Those in support expressed various reasons related to the following: the unique nature of the use compared to those otherwise permitted by the ECLUR;the value of permaculture to the community and region; the need for permaculture training in the community; a need for revisions to the ECLUR, other examples of similar uses approved elsewhere;the positive character of the Applicant; aspects of the Application in accordance with County's climate action goals; improvements to access at the Property made over time; and bureaucratic limits to action on climate. Speakers in opposition outlined a lack of a special use for the Application;non-compliance with the ECLUR, deficient access, fire hazards in the area,lack of evidence of adequate water rights, and inaccuracies in Application materials. Recommendation The Commission discussed continuing/tabling the file to afford the Applicant an opportunity to address safety concerns raised by staff and various referral agencies. However,the Applicant requested a decision in order to move forward with Board review of the file. Ultimately,the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the file to the 11 Board and indicated the Application could not be conditioned to meet standards even with conditions proposed by staff or the Applicant. STANDARDS AND CONFORMANCE: Pursuant to ECLUR Section 5-250 - Special Uses, special uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district,but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration,density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All special uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section, as follows: Standard 5-250.B.1: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Conformance PROPOSED MOTION: I move to deny File No. ZS-009170-2021, incorporating staff's findings,because this Application does not meet all of the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. ALTERNATIVE MOTIONS: To approve with conditions the Special Use Permit: I move to approve with conditions File No. ZS-009170-2021 because this Application, as conditioned,meets the standards for approval of a Special Use Permit. To table/continue the Special Use Permit: I move to continue File No. ZS-009170-2021, [enter date here],to gather additional information necessary for a determination. CONDITIONS SHOULD THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHOOSE TO APPROVE: In the event the Board determines the standards of approval have been met, staff recommends the Commission consider inclusion of the following conditions of approval: 1. The Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute shall be restricted to one shuttle load of 15 participants/teachers/volunteers per session. 2. The Applicant shall provide records of the off-site parking plan to the Community Development Director upon request. These records shall include, at a minimum, the location of parking, the number of spaces available, and written agreement or contract with the off-site parking property owner for each calendar year. 3. The Applicant shall enter into a contract for use of a portable toilet for each event and must keep records of this agreement on hand for review by Eagle County at any point during the operating season until such time as the Water Quality Control Division has approved a composting toilet meeting their design standards. 4. A licensed fire suppression installer shall inspect all automatic fire suppression systems on the Property annually. Records on annual test and inspection shall be forwarded to Roaring Fork Fire Rescue for review. 6 09/30/2022 5.All Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute staff shall sign up for Eagle County Alerts and Pitkin County Alerts for notification of any evacuation or warning for weather, flash flood,wildfires, etc. 46 6.All Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute staff shall be required to have a satellite phone on their person at all times when cell service is unavailable. 7. All fire extinguishers will be inspected prior to the start of the summer sessions and a fire extinguisher training video and test will be completed by every student,teacher, and volunteer and forwarded to Roaring Fork Fire Rescue for review. 8. All Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute staff shall have a current Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)card. 9. Prior to the commencement of operation of the Special Use, the Applicant shall demonstrate adequate parking to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. Work to construct new parking spaces shall be completed under a County-issued grading permit. 10. Directional signs shall be placed in a conspicuous location to direct all visitor traffic to use Upper Cedar Drive to access the Property per Roaring Fork Fire Authority. 11. Basalt Mountain Road shall not be used for any traffic associated with these Special Uses. 12. All portable toilets shall be serviced via Upper Cedar Drive. 13. The emergency turnaround area shall be signed"No Parking"and"Emergency Access Only."No obstructions or vehicle parking are permitted in this area at any time. 14. Prior to the commencement of operation of any Special Uses, the Applicant shall demonstrate proof of legal access rectifying the small portion of the existing access driveway from Upper Cedar Drive which currently falls outside of recorded easements. Alternatively,the Applicant shall reconstruct the driveway to be entirely within the existing access easements under a County issued grading permit. 15. Prior to the commencement of operation of the Resort Recreational Facility use,the pedestrian footpath shall be improved to meet the minimum design criteria for a United States Forest Service USFS Non-Wilderness Double Lane Trail Class 3 for the entirety of the footpath,both existing and new segments.Work shall be completed under a County-issued grading permit. 16. The Applicant shall pay a road impact fee of$1,535.52 to Eagle County within 60 calendar days of Special Use Permit approval. Trent Hyatt,Community Development Deputy Director, started the meeting by giving a brief overview of the meeting process and introduced the applicant. Maya Ward-Karet with Earthbound Architecture,representative for the applicant,presented a PowerPoint detailing the farming operation and application timeline. Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute(CRMPI) began in 1990 offering hands-on workshops to offset the cost of maintaining a high elevation farm. All educational workshops remained solely agricultural in nature. She spoke of Mr. Osentowski's accomplishments and contributions to the community. In October of 2018 a code enforcement complaint was lodged, and in the summer of 2019,Mr. Osentowski was verbally notified of a code violation complaint. Mr. Osetowski acted quickly to resolve the matter. In September of 2020,he responded to the Notice of Violation with a letter of intent to pursue a Special Use Permit to legalize the educational aspects of his farm and his intent to remedy the minor building code violations as outlined in the violation. On October 21,2021, after working with various staff members, a virtual meeting was held with Consultant Planner TJ Dluback and Eagle County Engineer Julie Prnager to review county and referral comments. During the meeting, it became clear that the current use category,"Resort Recreational Facility,"could cause a conflict with the previously approved Variance from Improvement Standards for Cedar Drive. At this point the applicant had questioned the shifting determinations of similar use, as none of the proposed accurately represented CRMPI operations. On December 29, 2021, a Special Use Permit(SUP)application was initiated as the proposed uses appeared to be compatible with the existing ECLUR definitions. On February 28, 2021,the applicant submitted a revision of the CRMPI SUP and formally requested that the determination of similar use be re-evaluated. The revision requested review of agricultural use(CRMPI demonstration farm),home occupation(ecosystems design), and accessory dwelling unit(conversion of existing structure). CRMPI was a seasonal educational facility that was operational for classes up to six months a year. They were applying for 2 one day courses, 5 two day courses,2 eight day courses, and 1 thirteen day course per year during the months of May 7 09/30/2022 through October. Historically Mr. Osentowski had hosted fewer courses,but they wanted to be prepared to expand if the opportunity arose. Attendance for demonstration courses ranged from 10-20 participants. For the purposes of the application they were requesting approval of a total of 41 days of courses on site with up to 20 participants in each course. In order to minimize impact to the surrounding community, students would be shuttled to the demonstration farm via Upper Cedar Drive Road. The applicant believed that this method of transportation would create a minimal impact on Cedar Drive Road and would be well within the parameters set for use of the private access road in the approved road variance request,VIS-4422. The applicant recognized that"Demonstration Farm" was not defined in the Eagle County Land Use Code as a specific land use category. However, in today's society, small scale farmers like Mr. Osentowski could not remain financially viable as agricultural producers without the additional income that agricultural events,courses, and training workshops provided. As such, all the uses outlined under the umbrella of the Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute (CRMPI)were logical and necessary extensions of the primary agricultural use of the subject property. Many jurisdictions throughout Colorado had recently recognized this reality and added use categories such as "Demonstration Farm,""Agritourism,""Agricultural Educational or Research Facilities,"and"Farm Events"to their land use code documents,typically as accessory agricultural uses. They believed that all of the uses outlined in the related definitions were appropriate to consider as extensions of the primary agricultural use of the subject property when evaluating the Special Use Permit application, and have chosen"Demonstration Farm"as the simplest terminology to address the uses requested herein. They requested that the Planning Director review the proposed"Demonstration Farm"use as"sufficiently similar"to the defined"Agricultural"use allowed by rights on the property to be evaluated upon the same criteria per ECLUR section 3-300.F.2. The applicant believed that the interpretation that led to the"Resort Recreation Facility"use was done so in error. Chairman McQueeney asked if the applicant was requesting to pull this file as a special use file. The commissioners could only evaluate the file they had in front of them,they did not have the authority to make a change. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that she was trying to explain why the applicant was before the board today without staff's support. This stemmed from the fact that they requested a change in the determination of similar use and were denied the request on the grounds that they had missed the 30 day deadline for appealing the determination. She would be reviewing the review categories from both their prospective as an"Agricultural"use, and from staff's perspective as a"Resort Recreational Facility". Chairman McQueeney stated that she would like to seek advice from the county attorney because this was feeling very convoluted. Commissioner Chandler motioned to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matters that may be subject to negotiations regarding the CRMPI Special Use Permit Application which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b)and(e), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Chairman McQueeney stated that the board did not have the authority to change the classification nor the authority to send the file back to the Planning Commission. She apologized for some of the staff changes that had been pointed out and the delays. She believed that from the beginning staff had been trying to make this file successful. They had tried to find the proper classification. Staff only got involved because there was a complaint, and the county needed to represent the community when there were issues. Staff was simply trying to make this right. Matt Peterson,Assistant Eagle County Attorney, stated that when an applicant approached the county with a proposed use that county staff did not believe was adequately reflected in the Land Use Regulations, staff had two options. Because the use was not listed within the regulations,the use would not be allowed on the property. The second option was for the Director of Community Development to make a determination of similar use. In this case, after reviewing all of the operations at CRMPI,there was a discussion about Mass Gathering Permits,an educational facility, and ultimately,a discussion regarding a Resort Recreational Facility. Staff made that determination in order to find a path forward for this application. If the applicant had disagreed with the determination of similar use,the applicant was required to appeal the determination within 30 days. That did not 8 09/30/2022 occur, and because of that,the application must be continued to be analyzed as a Resort Recreational Facility. From here there were potentially two paths forward. The applicant could withdraw and resubmit the application or the applicant continue with tonight's hearing and attempt to meet the standards for a Special Use Permit under the use determinations that had already been made. The commissioners did not have the authority to send the file back to the Planning Commission unless there were substantial changes. The board would analyze the uses and not the specific terminology of the uses. Chairman McQueeney asked the applicant if they wished to proceed with the application. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that the applicant wished to proceed with their presentation because they believed that the application met all the requirements. She would adjust her presentation to only focus on how staff had reviewed their application. She believed that there had been some information lost in translation as they had worked with so many different staff. In the staff report it was stated that the only use that was allowed by right on a non conforming lot of record was a single family home and other uses required approval via a special use permit. The applicant did not believe the statement made by staff was accurate for this project. Mr. Peterson believed the language was correct. If staff were analyzing the use as a Resort Recreational Facility and not Agriculture,they may have chosen not to include that in the staff report. Ms. Ward-Karet believed that regardless of the outcome of today's hearing,Jerome Osentowski had the right to continue to practice agriculture on his property in a way he saw fit as long as it was in keeping with the zoning regulations as written. She noted that in the Resource zoning that dwelling for persons and their immediate families employed principally or seasonally in a bonafide agricultural or ranching activity on a minimum of 35 acres were also allowed. The model that Mr. Osentowski had developed and successfully sustained, included up to 3 employees, 5 volunteers, and a maximum of 20 participants. While one employee may stay on for a full year,all other participants were seasonal. She reviewed the standards applicable to a SUP. What was being requested in the application was approval of agricultural courses, a home occupation, and ADU. They believed that the uses were in line with the goals and policies stated in the Future Land Use Maps(FLUM). A home occupation had no impact on the surrounding neighborhood,the agricultural use was a use by right on the property, and the request ADU was located so the access to the proposed ADU was separate from the existing single family home. The primary purpose of CRMPI was to provide agricultural education experience through short term hands-on farm activities and courses. Their application maintained Rural Residential(RR) densities at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. CRMPI provided a major sustainable agricultural component for the local economy while preserving a quality of natural resources to a degree unseen on any other farm in the country. All the proposed uses on the property utilized both passive and active alternative energy sources. Approving this SUP would preserve and showcase local history by legalizing a 31 year old institution that has had a significant impact upon the agricultural heritage of the Roaring Fork Valley. She reviewed the remaining standards and believed that their application met the standards. To mitigate the access concerns, staff proposed 3 conditions to be added. They were in agreement with condition 10 but requested changes to condition 11 and if those changes were accepted condition 12 would be unnecessary. Staff requested that a condition be added that Basalt Mt. Rd. not be used for any traffic associated with the special uses. The primary concern was they were requesting approval solely for porta potty delivery and servicing in order to place the units in the most central location possible. In regards to the pedestrian path, staff proposed a condition requiring full compliance with USFS trail standards. The path had received the blessing of the Roaring Fork Fire and Rescue Authority in its current configuration. Condition 15 as written included the requirement for a grading permit to be issued for any work done to the footpath. Since there was no work that would be required in order to meet the USFS standards that would trigger the need for a permit,the applicant requested that condition 15 be removed or edited to resolve the requirement for a grading permit. In summary, they were in agreement with the majority of the proposed conditions of approval and only requested adjustments to the language of two conditions. Mr. Hyatt shared a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the permit process and showed a map of the property north of Basalt which was accessed by Cedar Drive Road. Staff provide two separate referral timelines for the application. There were 24 referral responses received. Staff received numerous public comments related to the application, most in support,but some against. The Roaring Fork Planning Commission reviewed the application in July of 2022. The property and all surrounding properties were zoned Resource and included single family residential. The application was brought forth due to a code enforcement complaint. ECLUR allowed an owner of a non-conforming legal lot of record to apply for a Special Use Permit to allow any other use, limited review, or 9 09/30/2022 allowed by special use for any use normally permitted in the applicable zone district. Staff found that the application did not conform to the Frying Plan Future Land Use map,was not compatible with the surrounding uses, did not comply with the zone district standards,did not meet the standard for a home business or home occupation,the standard was not met for an ADU, and the standard for adverse impacts was not met. The use proposed was not consistent with Resouce Zone Distirct on a small non-conforming lot surrounded by single-family residential and wildlife. Julie Pranger reviewed Standard#6 with regard to the impact on public facilities. She stated that upper and lower Cedar Drive, a.k.a. Basalt Mountain Road,were substandard roads. It was staff's position that the variance from improvement standards(VIS) did not cover the uses on the property. The additional 2,300 vehicle trips per year were not in accordance with what was contemplated and approved in the 2014 variance. There were no public pedestrian paths however there was an internal path which served as the only means of access for emergency responders,participants, and other visitors to the property. The applicant requested a variation to the standard for the trail as it did not meet the standards. Staff agreed on a certain level of improvement but did not find a basis for granting a variation. Staff had concerns with Cedar Drive given the narrow roads and lack of sufficient water. The more density to Cedar Drive would increase traffic and could impact response time for emergency vehicles. The Roaring Fork Fire Protection District had some prescribed conditions of approval to help reduce some of the impacts to potential life safety events on the property. Standard#7 with regards to site development standards. Staff believed that the application did not comply with the off-street parking and loading standard. Staff received additional communication from the applicant on September 9, 2022 indicating that they would be minimizing road use by using a 15 passenger van and an 8 passenger SUV along with a 5 passenger truck. It was unclear to staff as to when,where, and how the vehicles would be used. The proposed parking areas were necessary to be used as a turnaround for vehicles reversing on the property. It was not clear how the area would serve both as a turnaround and as required parking at the same time. Staff offered conditions which would get the application closer to conformance to standards however staff did not find that the application could be conditioned in a manner in which it would conform with all standards. The driveway did not fully conform to all standards, specifically grade. Staff was supportive of a variation request in terms of functionality of the driveway, however,the applicant had not demonstrated that they met a basis for granting the variance and whether the driveway function was in question. Mr. Hyatt indicated that Standard#8 other provisions had been met. Commissioner Scherr asked about the referral comments/concerns and what had remained un-addressed. Mr. Hyatt stated that there were some concerns regarding safe access that had not been addressed. Some had been in the proposed conditions. Chairman McQueeney requested additional information with regards to the referral comment from the Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority,Town of Basalt, and Pitkin County. Ms. Pragner explained that Pitkin County had a concern about the offsite parking location which resided in Pitkin County,was not allowed per their zoning to serve as parking. The Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority noted concerns about shuttling on the trail. The Town of Basalt expressed concern for the parking plan and the impact on the town rights of way on neighboring properties. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the concern about stormwater drainage. Ms. Pranger stated that the development on the property did not trigger the threshold for Eagle County's water quality quantity requirements. There was no floodplain or wetlands on the property, so as far staff could tell, there were no standards that came into play for stormwater. Mr. Hyatt stated that staff's recommendation of the application was denial of the application. Staff provided some recommended motions. Chairman McQueeney believed there was a disconnect between the staff's presentation and all of the information that was presented tonight. She would like to have some of that clarified. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed it would be helpful to see any revisions that needed to take place based on the information provided and some of the agreements to some of the conditions. It seemed as if there was a lot of information that may help move the file forward. Commissioner Scherr understood from staff that the applicant was rightly frustrated with the issues with staffing. He would like to continue the file and additional time to review any new information. 10 09/30/2022 Chairman McQueeney asked about the request for variances and whether there was going to be a variance request for the road, driveway, and trail. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that they requested variation to the road standards to driveway access and for the pedestrian walkway standards. They had previously requested a variance from improvement standards for upper Cedar Dr., but upon review of the language of the resolution,they decided it was not necessary and removed that request. Chairman McQueeney asked staff if there were any variances that should be reapplied for. Ms. Pranger stated that everything originally identified as a variation request required a variation to meet the standard. Commissioner Chandler-Henry requested clarification on the home business,home occupation piece. Michael Thomson stated that they did not have a home business. Jeromes' Organics was no longer an entity. Home occupation was Eco Systems Design, Inc., which was him, in his house,with his computer and internet. They consult on greenhouse projects both biologically and creating climate designs all over the world. They use video technology to visit sites. Mr. Hyatt understood that this was a change and staff would evaluate it and report back. Ms. Pragner stated that staff's position had been that what was formerly called Jerome's Organics operated as a home business. The name of the business no longer existed and was incorporated into Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute(CRMPI);however, the operation and functionality of the business had not changed,but the use remained the same. Mr. Peterson stated that all written public comments received would be included as part of the record. Video comments received at a Planning Commission meeting could not be considered during the board's review of the file. Mr. Osentowski stated that they had 70 people at the last hearing and he spent a lot of time getting people to this meeting. He expressed frustration and stated that he felt unsupported tonight by the county staff and the board. He asked that folks take the time to attend this hearing to speak on his behalf and now they were not permitted to speak. Chairman McQueeney acknowledged Mr. Osentowski was frustrated but explained the file had changed from what the Planning Commission heard and what the board was now hearing. The board needed to hear the comments to this file. The board read all the comments received, so anyone that didn't have the time to attend a meeting was welcome to write a letter or email. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the board had read all the letters of support. Commissioner Scherr stated that the comments most appreciated were ones that addressed the standards. Ms.Ward-Karet asked about the time on October 17th and requested that the meeting be held longer than two hours. Chairman McQueeney did not support going late in the night. It was not in anyone's best interest. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. ZS 009170-2021 to October 17, 2022 to gather additional information necessary for a determination. Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned until October 3, 2022. Attest: VA-LAI..-414 V l'Ue,12tj Clerk to the Board Chairm 11 09/30/2022