No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/17/2022 PUBLIC HEARING October 17, 2022 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Matt Scherr Commissioner 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: Planning File - Mt. Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. CRMPI-ZS-009170-2021 Special Use Permit Trent Hyatt, Community Development 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 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) RE: CRMPI, File No: ZS-009170-2021, 1919 and 2101 Cedar Drive(PIN: 2467-043-04-001) 1 10/17/2022 At the September 30, 2022 special meeting,the applicant provided updated information regarding the above referenced file. You asked staff to review the new information to determine if various review standards previously determined not to be in compliance had been addressed by the applicant. The meeting was continued to October 17, 2022 at 6 PM. Please find the attached presentation which outlines the following: 1. Eagle County Land Use Regulations standards applicable to the application; 2. The response provided by the applicant related thereto;,and 3. Staff's analysis of whether those details address our previously identified concerns. Trent Hyatt,Eagle County Community Development Deputy Director, explained that there had been new information provided at the last meeting, and staff would provide an analysis of the information. The applicant argued that Central Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute(CRMPI) should be classified as agriculture. Staff determined that CRIMPI was not a single family dwelling or bonafide agriculture use and required a Special Use Permit. Staff reviewed the Resort Recreational Facility use in June of 2021,however,the Eagle County Land Use Regulations(ECLUR)did not define agritourism, demonstration farm, etc. Staff recommended condition#17 to address the home business and sale of books or other educational materials onsite and be limited to participants of the resort facility. CRMPI was not part of agriculture use and the use went beyond Rural Agriculture,therefore, staff found that the application was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff did not believe the application complied with the Compatibility Standard as the uses on substandard Cedar Drive were not compatible. Julie Pranger, Eagle County Staff Engineer,reviewed the road standards. Staff believed the application did not comply with the Zone District Standards due to a basis for variations not being met for minimum lot size and setbacks. Staff did not find that the existing road infrastructure was adequate for the proposed uses. Maya Ward-Karet,representative for the applicant, spoke. She indicated that the applicant was comfortable with all the proposed conditions. She listed all the uses which included some uses by rights. Those listed under the Resort Recreational Facility included camping, shuttle, and educational classes. She referenced the ECLUR and the Special Use definition. The regulations indicated that the uses were based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration,density, and intensity of use. She asked that the board consider the proposed uses. The applicant requested some flexibility to allow for an ADU as it was below the acreage requirement,but the applicant reminded the board that a neighboring property owner was granted an ADU special use permit in 2016 under similar circumstances. The applicant was a permaculture pioneer and had been in business for 40 years. She talked about traditional market farming and the CRMPI farming model with the proposed shuttle system. She reviewed the applicant's calculated trips per day per employee, student,and services. With the proposed shuttle system, the total average daily traffic(ADT)for all uses totaled 6.44. She reviewed the improvements of Cedar Drive and the calculations used to account for the maximum buildout. Future buildout could increase traffic to 343 vehicle trips per day. The applicant believed there was some leeway. The CRMPI Operation Plan stated that the operations would be seasonal,May-October. They would offer 41 days of agricultural courses with a maximum of 28 persons;this number included participants, employees and teachers. The application had received over 200 letters of support. The applicant agreed with many of the conditions but suggested that some be amended and others were unnecessary. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the 6.44 average daily trips and if staff supported those numbers. Ms. Pranger stated that staff reviewed the trip generation and believed it was a reasonable estimate. Mr. Hyatt presented the variation requests and staffs evaluation of them. Staff determined that the basis had not been met. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that the basis for granting acreage limitations was to allow for an ADU. Since there were two components/special uses in addition to the single family, they were using the"obtained desired design qualities"as the basis for granting the variation request. There were a variety of variations being requested by their engineer for slope and access to the driveway. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked staff to address the public benefits. Ms. Pranger stated that it came down to whether the private commercial facility represented a public benefit. 2 10/17/2022 Chairman McQueeney asked about the ADU and why it did not meet the zone district standards. Mr. Hyatt stated that the determination was based on the dimensional standards in terms of the overall acreage. Staff had not had an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate the applicant's presentation that was provided just yesterday. Chairman McQueeney asked if the agricultural use was a use-by-right. Mr. Hyatt stated that they were only doing agriculture; it was a permitted use. Matt Peterson,Assistant Eagle County Attorney, stated that the applicant agreed to a condition limiting the number of people on the property to 28 while the CRMPI operation was in use. Ms. Pranger reviewed the conditions 11 & 12. Staff recommended that Basalt Mountain Road not be used for any traffic. The applicant had proposed language that would allow for privately contracted companies familiar with the road to utilize the road at their discretion. Staff believed that due to the extreme life safety concerns they didn't want anyone up there associated with these special uses. Ms. Ward-Karet clarified that they would only utilize Basalt Mountain Road for delivery and servicing porta potties. They estimated 20 trips per season. Ms. Pranger stated that staff did not support the use based on the condition of the road. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that condition 12 related to porta potty services and would not be necessary if the porta potty's delivery and servicing was addressed in condition 11. They did receive confirmation from Colorado Site Services that they had no problem using Basalt Mountain Road. Commissioner Scherr asked about the applicant's interpretation of the density. The FLUM classification or target density being one dwelling unit per acre. Mr. Hyatt stated that the FLUM outlines the intended classification of the properties. Staff did not believe the proposed uses were in-compliance with the classification. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. Micheal Thompson spoke. He was a partner and had known the applicant for many years. He had seen people from all over the world attend Jerome's courses and believed what he offered was a huge benefit to the world. He hoped the board would see this as a very special use and deserved some merit and continuation into the future. Janet Lightfoot, 1500 Cedars Drive resident, spoke. In 2009 she was instrumental in forming the Cedar Dr. Maintenance and Fire Mitigation Association, Inc./Road Association. In 2011,the group worked with the Eagle County board to improve the road with federal hazard grant money. The 28 members put in 10%,their portion was $155,000. This year their final payment on their special assessment was paid in full. In 2014, they applied for the variance for the private sector. She was not willing to increase the traffic on the road or willing to allow 25 campers to build campfires. She appreciated the applicant's work and promoted what he currently did but did not support the application. Gwen Garcelon spoke. She worked on regenerative strategy with communities and organizations. She believed it was important to consider the variations and step outside the traditional way of looking at these issues. She believed it was important to take this opportunity to support operations like these. Operations like these were an important part of our future. Jana Bouchard, 1921 Cedar Drive resident, spoke. She expressed concern for safety, fire,and illegal activities. She believed there were a lot of standards not being considered. It was a hazardous area and she did not believe it was an educational facility. She stated that the Upper Cedar Road was private,public use was not allowed. She disagreed with the trip generation numbers. Jimmy Hunter spoke,he lived south of Jerome and had been a neighbor for 35 years. He appreciated Jerome's work but did not believe that the road could handle additional traffic. He believed that Jerome's septic system was inadequate. He plowed the road in the winter and understood the hazards. He expressed concern for the risks and didn't think there was adequate water to suppress fires. He did not support the application and felt it was not fair to the adjacent property owners. Bill Stirling expressed support for the application. He believed Jerome had a vision and his permaculture center was a feather in Eagle County's cap. 3 10/17/2022 Ron Kokish,Carbondale resident, spoke. He expressed support for the operation but understood that he was out of compliance. He asked the board to consider whether Jerome was doing more harm than good. Eden Vardy, executive director of the Farm Collaborative at Cozy Point Ranch, spoke. He met Jerome Osentowski over 20 years ago when Mr. Osentowski spoke at his high school class. Mr. Vardy did the work he did today due to that presentation. He recognized Jerome's leadership and supported the application. Rocky Sparks spoke. He resided 1300 Lower Cedar Dr. and expressed concern for road hazards. There had been some scary situations on the road. He asked the board to consider the location. He did not believe this was the right location for this type of business. Fallon Santander spoke. She worked with Jerome to help manage the farm. She understood that the road was dangerous,but they took tons of precautions. She asked the board to approve the application. Eric Berry spoke. He was a neighbor of Jerome and expressed concern for overuse of the septic system. He opposed the ADU and proposed use for the property. Barbra Bremmer spoke. She expressed concern for water use. She did not understand where all the water would come from to support the farm. She believed the road conditions were dangerous. Sady Alprin spoke. She expressed support for the application. She understood that the road was dangerous and there were fires and the neighbors chose to live in the area. She supported the application and believed the operation was special. Sondy Reeve thanked Jerome for all that he'd done for the community. She supported the application. She asked the community to work together to support Jerome's mission. Vanessa Harmony spoke. She worked for CRMPI and trained with Jerome. She lived in Carbondale and had a business. She urged the board to permit CRMPI and preservice the legacy of plant life in the valley. Will Hodges spoke. He asked the board to consider climate change and Jerome's ability to grow diverse food crops at 7,000 ft. in greenhouses. He was a model for a paradigm shift that needed to happen. Chairman McQueeney closed public comment. Ms. Ward-Karet responded to comments made during public comment. She believed the applicant had tried to address all the concerns by the neighboring property owners. There were no fires allowed, and all the uses were seasonal,May through October, so concerns about snow and severe weather weren't much of an issue. A shuttle would be used to transport students and minimize road use. She indicated that the septic for the ADU would be separated from the residence. There were two large ponds on the property that could be used for fires;he also added a water valve and was approved for grants for irrigating. Any issues on the property in the past,had been fully addressed in the application. Chairman McQueeney requested some time to review additional public comments in the form of letters that were received this evening. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the porta potties and if they would be permitted and inspected by the county environmental health office. She also asked about their placement. Mr. Hyatt believed it would be difficult to deliver them to the lower portion of the property. The porta potties were intended for the guests of the institute, so the sanitation was addressed for those users. The homes and ADUs would be per the County's onsite wastewater treatment standards. Commissioner Scherr asked about the comment made related to the upper road being private. Ms. Pranger stated that it was her recollection that it was a series of easements. It was not a public through road so there was no public access. Commissioner Scherr asked if the applicant had the right to use the upper road to deliver the porta potties. Mr. Peterson stated that private vendors were permitted to use the road. It was really about whether this was allowed for the uses on the property. Chairman McQueeney asked if there was a specific condition that addressed campfires on the property. Mr. Hyatt stated that there was no specific condition related to campfires. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that campfires were addressed in the application, in the student handbook, and in the operating plan. There were no campfires or smoking allowed. 4 10/17/2022 Mr. Osentowski stated that he had many different water sources to address fire. He had created fire protection for both he and his neighbors. Ms. Ward-Karet stated that there were several conditions that addressed fire related concerns. Chairman McQueeney asked if staff had evaluated the water concerns. Mr. Hyatt stated that the applicant worked with the Water Commissioner and staff deferred to the Division of Water Resources opinion on that. Ms. Ward-Karet clarified that the water confirmed by the Water Commissioner was all of the water for the ADU, all the landscaping, and agricultural uses. All drinking water would be imported from offsite. Mr. Osentowski added that due to the recent fire his spring had been running 50%stronger. He built a special spring house below his house. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matters that may be subject to negotiation regarding the CRMPI Special Use Permit application,which was an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and(e). Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. At the close of the discussion, it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioner. Chairman McQueeney transitioned into deliberations. Chairman McQueeney requested that the 17 conditions of approval be displayed. She expressed concern about campfires and requested a condition be added stating that there would be no campfires. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the board read all the public comments and appreciated the response from the community. She believed that as conditions, and if the applicant agreed with them,a Special Use Permit could be granted. She believed the basis for granting variations could be tied to the public facilities and public benefit. • Commissioner Scherr agreed with Commissioner Chandler-Henry's comments. He believed that the work being done was remarkable. The question was whether the use complied with the standards. Over the course of the file,the neighbors expressed concern. He believed that the applicant had addressed many of those concerns but this fell on his shoulders. With all the promises being made, it would be tied directly to Jerome Osentowski. Mr. Peterson stated that the land use regulations allowed the county to set limits on the length of any final or consolidated special use permit to obtain assurances that the ongoing operation of an approved use would comply with all of the applicant's representations and all conditions of approval. The proposal would read that CRMPI and its associated uses allowed under this special use permit shall be owned and operated only by the application, Jerome Osentowski. Any change in operation or ownership of CRMPI shall result in revocation of the special use permit and would require a new special use permit applican. Chairman McQueeney believed it was important that the application met the standards to meet the health and safety requirements. She believed the added conditions made the file better. Ms. Ward-Karet wondered if Mr. Osentowski passed if all operations would have to cease and if there was a new owner,would they be required to apply for a special use permit? Mr. Peterson stated that as the condition was worded,the special use permit would be revoked. Language could be added allowing any change in ownership of CRMPI would require a new special use permit application within one year of change in ownership or operation. Ms.Ward-Karet stated that since Mr. Osentowski was 81 years old, it was realistic that he would be turning over the operations in the future. She requested wording that would tie it more to compliance with the conditions and less specifically to Mr. Osentowski. Chairman McQueeney stated that what was concerning was that everything that was represented to the board was about the skills and the promises made by Mr. Osentowski. Changing ownership was a big deal. Mr. Osentowski stated that he had teachers, and he was the visionary. He had teachers that helped him run the place, and he'd hoped they would take over one day. He wished to do other things and believed the condition 5 10/17/2022 was restrictive. He was not planning on selling the property but planned to turn it over to other people and be less involved. Ms. Ward-Karet asked that the special use permit run with the land and not specifically with the owner. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed this was a critical issue. Chairman McQueeney stated that there have been a lot of promises made buried within the application. Ms. Ward-Karet indicated that they were hesitant tying the permit to Mr. Osentowski at his age. Mr. Peterson stated that if the conditions were not followed,the county had the authority to revoke the permit. What he was hearing from the commissioners was that the standards are only being met because of the operation proposed by the applicant himself. The concern would be that if someone took over the operation in the future,they may not follow all the representations made in the application. Commissioner Scherr asked if the applicant could apply for another new special use permit. Mr. Peterson stated that"yes"the county does allow an applicant to apply for another special use permit on a property where there is already a permit if one wished to change some sort of representation or potentially add or remove a use. Given the situation with the property,he could not say whether staff would support this. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that this may allow for a path forward if there were future changes in management or ownership. Ms. Ward-Karet asked staff to explain the legal side of what was represented in the application with regards to enforcement and if a permit were to be revoked. Mr. Peterson stated that the LURs allowed the county to revoke a special use permit if a condition was not adhered to. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered if it would be beneficial to spend some time crafting how the permit would be granted. Chairman McQueeney expressed a comfort in tying the approval to the applicant. Ms. Ward-Karet asked that staff review the proposed conditions 11 and 12,as the applicant had concerns about those two. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. ZS-009170-2021, CRMPI Special Use Permit until November 30,2022. Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. h�0.0 EgGie -41 There being no further busin �,'. ard,the meeting w s adjourned until October 25, 2022. Raoo Attest: �� = (41-4011filk 4lq< Clerk to the Board Chairman 6 10/17/2022