No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/18/2024 PUBLIC HEARING June 18, 2024 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Jill Klosterman Chief Financial Officer Beth Oliver 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: Constituent Input Chairman Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Commissioner Updates Commissioner McQueeney congratulated Megan Burch,the Director of Human Services, on being elected president of the Colorado Department of Human Services. It was terrific to have Eagle County represented. Commissioner Chandler-Henry spoke about the Eagle County Animal Shelter's participation in the GoPro games and recognized their work at adopting 24 dogs during the event. Chairman Scherr reminded everyone to vote in the Primary Election. Everyone should have received their ballots; if not, simply contact the County Clerk's Office. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll stated that he had nothing to report. Consent Agenda 1. Resolution 2024-037 Appointing Independent Referees for the 2024 County Board of Equalization Rhea Silverkorn,Administration 2. Resolution 2024-038 Approving The Format For Intergovernmental Agreements Concerning The 2024 General Election And Authorizing The Clerk And Recorder To Execute Regina O'Brien, Clerk&Recorder 1 06/18/2024 3. Agreement Between Colorado Dept of Public Health&Environment and Eagle County Public Health& Environment for Emergency Preparedness&Response for Colorado State Fiscal Year 2025 Maria Gonzalez,Public&Environmental Health 4. Ratify Agreement Between ECPHE and CDPHE for OPHP(Office of Public Health Practice, Planning and Local Partnerships)Grant SFY25 Maria Gonzalez, Public& Environmental Health 5. Eagle County May 2024 Payment Report Christina Andrews, Finance Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for June 11, 2024 as presented. Q Y pP g Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Business Item(s) 1. Resolution 2024-039 Proclaiming June as Pride Month in Eagle County Dani Moore,Administration Executive Summary: This resolution will be recognizing June as Pride Month in support of the LGBTQ+ community. Madison Partridge,Executive Director of Mountain Pride, spoke about their upcoming event and thanked Eagle County for its continued support. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Resolution Proclaiming June as Pride Month in Eagle County. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2. Colorado Retirement Association Retirement Plan and Trust and Participation Agreement Amendment- Vesting Schedule Change Hollis Dempsey,Human Resources Executive Summary: Amend our current retirement plan provisions to change our employee vesting from a tiered schedule to all active and newly hired employees being 100%vested. Hollis Dempsey, Human Resources Director, stated that an amendment to the participation agreement for the county's retirement plan provision was before the board. The amendment would revise the current vesting schedule,which was tiered. The vesting schedule would allow for 100%vesting in the plan,meaning all active employees would be 100%vested regardless of when they separate employment, and the 8%contribution that the county puts into their retirement account would be theirs. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Colorado Retirement Association Retirement Plan and Trust and Participation Agreement Amendment-Vesting Schedule Change. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 2 06/18/2024 3. Resolution 2024-040 Adopting a 2nd Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2024,and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies Between Various Spending Agencies Anna Earl,Finance Executive Summary: Public notice will be completed on June 13th,2024,and the review and request for these additional appropriations will be made in the June 18th,2024 public meeting. Anna Earl,Deputy Finance Director,presented the 2nd supplemental to the 2024 budget. She reviewed the summary of the revenues and expenditures included in the supplemental request. There were a total of$214,062 in revenues, and$1,820,797 in expenditures. She highlighted the requests as presented. Following is a summary of the 2nd Supplemental to the 2024 Adopted Budget: Fund# Fund Name Revenues Expenditures 1001 -General Fund $ 38,100 $ 541,100 1110-Human Services $27,008 $48,561 1160-Airport $ - $264,500 1200-Public Health $ 108,954 $36,586 1410-Workforce Housing Rentals $- $30,000 1442 -Open Space $ - $400,000 2150-Capital Improvements $ - $411,300 3690 -Seniors on Broadway II $35,000 $ 60,000 3900-E911 Authority $ - $ 18,750 3990-Golden Eagle $ 5,000 $ 10,000 Total $214,062 $ 1,820,797 Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve Adopting a 2nd Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Unanticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2024 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies Between Various Spending Agencies. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Vail Pass Summit County Wildlife Safe Passage Presentation and Funding Support Request Site Visit - El Jebel 1. Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Executive Summary: Site Visit to 623 Fender Lane in El Jebel related to the Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Consolidated Special Use Permit. Please see the attached map. Planning File - Mt. Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Executive Summary: Request for the Twin Acres Riding Stable and Boarding Stable ZS-009260-2022 Consolidated Special Use Permit approval for development and operation of a 25-stall horse boarding stable and a 3 06/18/2024 100 x 200 foot covered riding stable,proposed to be commercial operations and open to the public on a reservation basis as space allows to accommodate horse boarding&horse riding,training, and lessons. Owner: Whiskey Mountain Estates,LLC Applicant: Jess Graber Representative: The Land Studio,Inc./Doug Pratte Staff Planner: Vince Hooper The location of the parcel is 623 Fender Lane. The parcel zoning is Agricultural Residential (AR). The existing acreage is 101 acres. Primary access to the property is Fender Lane, and secondary access is Green Meadow Drive. A well on the property and irrigation water rights supplies water. Sewer is processed through a private onsite wastewater treatment system. The parcel is a legal parcel of record and historically used as a ranch for over 50 years. The new proposed uses on the property include a 25-stall horse boarding stable, one enclosed riding stable/area, and up to 45 boarding horses(36 indoor and nine outdoor). Chairman Scherr stated that the file may be continued. He understood that the public process was important to each individual and hoped everyone would be respectful as the board reviewed the standards. Vince Hooper, staff planner, stated that the application was submitted in May of 2022 and was being processed based on the Special Use Permit requirements. The application was sent out for a 21-day referral period to 23 referral agencies, and a number of responses were received. Staff had received a multitude of public comments. He reviewed the definitions of boarding stable and riding stable according to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations(ECLUR). It was important to note that the LURs categorized a boarding stable as an agricultural use and defined the riding stable as a resort/recreation/amusement use. They were not categorized as"commercial uses." He provided a vicinity map and identified the location of the parcel, 623 Fender Lane. Doug Pratte,with the Land Studio and planner working on the application,introduced the applicant's team. Jess Graber,property owner,Annie Graber Wells, owner&trainer at Twin Acres LLC, Sara Dunn with Balcomb&Green,Andrea Hall with Balcomb&Green,Chad Lee with JVAM Law firm, and Tom Scott from High Country Engineering. He started with a visual assessment of the Twin Acres, showing its proximity to the El Jebel area. The property was 100 acres in total,with 80 acres in a conservation easement and 20 acres that would allow for the equestrian uses proposed by the applicant. Chairman Scherr disclaimed that he recently attended a democratic event in El Jebel,a meet and greet for commissioner candidates,and some folks asked him about the application. He let them know that he could not talk about the application outside of the hearing,nor could he hear anything about it outside of the hearing. There was talk about the process in general. He did not feel the need to recuse himself because he didn't believe he had any issue judging the file fairly. He asked the applicant if they had concerns with him judging the file. Mr. Graber shook his head"No." Mr. Pratte stated that the applicant had submitted a lengthy application that complimented staff's review of the standards. He stated that the Twin Acres Riding and Boarding Stable was a consolidated Special Use Permit application. The owner was Jess Graber with Whiskey Mountain Estates, LLC, and Annie Graber Wells of Twin Acres LLC would be the operator. The operation would include a full-service equestrian operation that included pleasure riding,horse training, riding lessons, horse boarding,and maintenance and care of equine. Anne Graber Wells was the CEO,and Twin Acres and would be responsible for maintaining the facility,upkeep of the horses, and property management. The facility would be open to the public as space allowed on a reservation basis. The applicant was dedicated to allowing Aspen Mountain View residents to be moved to the top of the waiting list at this location. Annie Graber Wells spoke about her background. After college, she pursued management,agriculture, horse boarding, and horse training in the Kansas City area. For multiple years, she managed two full-time boarding facilities with 60+horses. She returned to the mountains and currently worked out of Cozy Point Ranch. She was excited to move her business and provide a riding opportunity for this valley. Mr. Pratte stated that the applicant had put together an operations and management guide for this project, which was included as an exhibit in the application. The operation and management would accommodate horses 4 06/18/2024 and riders from novice to professional equestrians. There was an existing nine-horse stable,tack equipment/storage space, and an office at the facility. Twin Acres proposes to add an additional stable to accommodate 25 horses and cover the existing outdoor arena for wintertime use. There would be hay storage and existing onsite buildings. The hay storage would be out in the conservation easement area. The operations would start at 7 AM for feeding, and horse training lessons would be from 8 AM to 7 PM. The barn closed at 8 PM. There would be indoor boarding of horses and a possibility to board horses outdoors. The two horse show competitions for local riders had been eliminated from the application. The boarding stable height was 19'10"at the peak height,less than half the allowed height at the midpoint. The proposed riding stable was slightly over 30' high, a little over 25' at the midpoint, and 10' lower than the allowed height limit. The visual assessment viewpoint demonstrated the proposed boarding stable with horse trailers. The illustrations demonstrated the building height and viewpoint from Green Meadow Dr. He provided some specifics with regard to the distance of the neighboring properties. The applicant anticipated having three to four employees at the ranch daily, and there was an opportunity for these employees to live in the ADU they proposed as an employee residence. They would have to come back to get a permit for the ADU,pending approval of this application. The goal was to be a self-sustaining agricultural and equine operation. The applicant had taken note of all the public comments. They removed the equestrian events to address some of the concerns with access but would like to reserve the right to request a special event permit. The applicant was committing to a maximum of 45 horses on the 100-acre property at any time. The dust and manure concerns had been addressed in their management plan. The proposed light would meet Eagle County standards for lighting at the entrances to the boarding and riding stables. They committed to only having ten horse trailers on the south side of the riding arena at any one time within a 72-hour period. They worked with the Roaring Fork Fire&Rescue to ensure they supported the application. The new horse boarding stable would have a sprinkler system and a 15,000-gallon underground water storage tank with a dry hydrant for fire suppression. It would also be available for the community for fire suppression if needed. There was currently a primary residence and bunkhouse on the property that were not habitable and would be demolished and replaced with an ADU and primary unit. The water used for horse washing was defined in their application. They have worked through mature and dust suppression, and there would be a max speed limit of 5 mph within the ranch for safety and to mitigate dust. They worked with the Aspen Valley Land Trust(AVLT)to protect the 80-acre conservation easement and ensure that the operation in the 20 acres does not negatively impact the 80 acres. The AVLT would monitor the activities at the equine facility and the 80-acre ag parcel annually. Their water attorney was present to answer any questions about use of the spring on the property. The spring would be operated pursuant to the court decree. He reviewed the entry driveway standards and 10%grade. They would be upgrading the width of the driveway and turning radius to accommodate the engineering standards. The traffic assessment was done on October 28,2022. The LOS (level of service)was an A on Fender Lane. The applicant believed that their operation and best practices guide addressed some public concerns. The applicant agreed with the recommended conditions of approval from staff with a slight variation of #9,that they would like to inspect the existing OWTS system and bring it up to code versus removing it. Mr. Hooper moved forward with the staffs presentation. The subject property was zoned Agricultural Residential(AR). The parcel was a legal parcel. The proposal was for a 25-stall horse boarding stable, one enclosed riding arena, and up to 45 boarded horses (36 indoor and 9 outdoor). The property had been used historically as a ranch. There were a few parking spots near the existing boarding stables. The proposed parking for trucks and trailers was located within the loop. The Colorado Parks &Wildlife expressed concerns about black bear and human interaction and limited fencing to allow wildlife to move through the property. The Roaring Fork Fire Rescue Authority expressed concerns over the location and quantity of the hay storage and water storage and recommended the applicant utilize a sprinkler system and that the parking be graveled and not grass. Aspen Mountain View HOA provided a list of concerns. He reviewed some of those concerns. The Division of Water and Resources had expressed concerns for water rights. Since then, the applicant had secured water rights through court action and now had adequate water rights. The applicant had made several changes to the application in response to the Planning Commission's comments and concerns and concerns voiced by the public and other referral agencies. He reviewed the standards and proposed conditions as presented in the PowerPoint presentation. The applicant would pay a road impact fee of$16,000 at the time of building permit. He indicated that the application met the standards of approval with 15 conditions and staff recommended approval of the application with conditions. Chairman Scherr asked the applicant if they had anything to add. 5 06/18/2024 Mr. Pratte stated that they had nothing to add. Commissioner McQueeney asked about how the conditions would be verified and the county's process for verifying them. Mr. Hooper stated that the applicant needed to go through various steps,primarily the grading permit or a building permit. At that point, staff would evaluate the conditions passed by the board and ensure those that were required were in place. The business would also be evaluated during its operation, and part of this would rely on any complaints. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the number of horses inside and how many would be outside. She also wondered if there was a national standard for the number of horses per acre. Ms. Graber Wells stated that the standard was 2 acres per horse if they were not supplemented with grain and hay. She believed the land could support 45 horses. There were no plans to put horses on the conservation easement; it would be used strictly for hay use. Chairman Scherr wondered when the property was last used for boarding horses. Mr. Graber stated that when he purchased the property, 4 horses were being boarded and 50 head of cattle were fenced in the outdoor roping arena. The paddocks were fenced within the CPW guidelines. Chairman Scherr asked whether the uses for horses and cattle would be allowed today without a special use permit. Ms. Graber stated that cattle and horses could be on the property with no limits. She was applying for the Special Use Permit for the sole purpose of boarding horses. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the standard of design with regard to"diverse impacts"and one of the impacts was odor. She wondered how the condition to minimize odor related to hours of operation. Mr. Hooper stated that the applicant had a management plan that identified the removal of manure and how it would be removed from the stalls, stored and how it was being removed from the site. It would be removed once every two weeks. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about hay storage and delivery. Ms. Graber stated that they hoped to hay the property, and if they had to supplement hay they would bring in more as needed. They would store hay in areas currently used for that purpose. Chairman Scherr asked about condition#3 regarding the grass parking areas and the 24-hour mowing requirement. Brooke Stott,Deputy Fire Marshal with Roaring Fork Fire&Rescue (RFFR), stated the requirement was part of the event parking management. Since there will no longer be events, she wondered if this requirement would be necessary. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the source of water for irrigation. Mr. Graber stated they had the Mountain Meadows and Monarch ditch and considerable water rights from the reservoir. Chairman Scherr asked about the lighting that would be used in the facilities. Mr. Graber stated that there would be no lighting leaking through from the stable or enclosed arena. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the number of trailer parking and the 72-hour time frame. Mr. Hooper stated that the intent was to allow up to 10 horse trailers for more than 72 hours,but they could have more than 10 trailers during the day. There was no limit on the number of trailers for less than a day. Commissioner McQueeney wondered if there was a simple way to rewrite the condition. Chairman Scherr asked about condition#6 with regard to minimizing habitat loss and setbacks. Mr. Hooper believed the applicant met the standard currently based on the site plan. This was a recommendation by the CPW. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about drainage for storm runoff. Mr. Pratte stated that originally there was an area in the conservation easement where much of the water drained. Their engineer proposed that the area was big enough to accommodate run off from the proposed facilities. There were some concerns that if grading improvements were required for water retention it may conflict with the conservation values so they moved the retention area into the 20-acre area. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the concerns about trails getting close to residential boundaries. 6 06/18/2024 Ms. Graber Wells stated that there wouldn't be a trail around the property. The riding would be within the field. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the second road consideration to provide fire safety and how they were now comfortable with having only one road. Ms. Stott with RFFR stated that they supported a secondary access but never required one per code. The current access met their standards. Chairman Scherr opened public comment and asked folks to be respectful. Dan Gageby spoke. He lived at 135 Fawn Drive. He believed that the proposed barn was too close for comfort. There were 15 addresses within 1,000 feet of the existing barn. There was still no clarity as to the proposed uses. He expressed concern for the number of students and trainers,with no restrictions. The operation statement was insufficient. The language in the staff report was interesting but didn't justify some of the applicant's proposed uses. He expressed concern for water,traffic, environmental impacts,and public safety. The applicant requested permission for a high-intensity commercial operation on site they had barely maintained since purchasing it. They place the impact,burden, and risk on their neighbors. Melanie Rock spoke as an active equine professional. She understood that there was a lot of fear regarding Graber's organization,but what concerned her the most was the aggression. She believed that Ms. Graber Wells simply wanted to maintain her ability to run her business and dream in her home valley and had no desire to upset people or create something disruptive. She believed the applicant had crossed all their Ts and dotted all their Is. Debra Hanson ceded her time to Haley Carmer. Haley Carmer, attorney at Garfield&Hecht, spoke. She represented a group of property owners in the Missouri Heights neighborhood who had banded together to protect and support their neighborhood's rural agricultural and residential character by opposing this application. Staff and the applicant failed to provide much information with regard to compatibility,which was most lacking in this case. Quality of life had also not been supported by this application. The Mid Valley Community Plan advises against uses that are incompatible with residential areas and impact the area's rural character. The staff presentation mentioned that these uses are designated as agricultural and recreational,but the definition of those clearly included a compensation component. The scale of the development and intensity of the use could spill out not only onto the agricultural component of the conservation easement but to adjacent properties as well. The recreational component was outside the purpose of the easement. Mitigating adverse impacts was addressed by conditions,but there were remaining issues that had not been addressed. With respect to environmental impacts,wastewater, drainage,odors, and dust continue to be a concern, and an annual review of the operation was suggested. Paul Noto,water attorney representing Fawn Dr.,LLC, spoke. The application was still raising questions about issues that needed clarification in terms of water. The use of the well should be clarified in the application. He noted that in the staff presentation, there was a reference to the use of springs on the property that were not the applicant's springs. They were concerned about the applicant having sufficient water to supply the horse boarding operation. The decree allows for the use of water from a spring with ongoing drought conditions,but it's not guaranteed that the spring water will always be available. The applicant's augmentation sources on Blue Creek were located downstream. They would haul water to the site if the spring didn't produce enough water or the augmentation sources were inadequate. More importantly,the decree states they would stop horse washing and dust suppression in these events. The water decree provides for 30,000 square feet of dust suppression;he wondered if widening the road and watering the grass in the parking area were considered. The hay storage would necessitate hauling hay, and dust suppression water would be needed. He asked about the treatment of spring water. Regarding the hay being grown on-site for the horses,he believed there may not be enough water to get two cuts a year. Just because you have a water decree doesn't mean you've met the standard to demonstrate an adequate and physical water supply. Dave Mikulyuk of 280 Fawn Dr., spoke. He had a clear view of the property from his property. He wondered how this proposal was not considered a commercial use. He expected that there would be light coming out of the translucent panels in the ceiling during the night. He believed the proposal would affect all of Fawn Drive and Deer Trail. Lastly,he never saw anything about covering the existing riding arena. He believed the covering would be very visible from his property. 7 06/18/2024 Rebecca Chase ceded her time to Mary Elizabeth Geiger. Mary Elizabeth Geiger of Garfield&Hecht spoke. She spoke about the exempt well on the property. She did not believe the well could be used to water the horses. She wondered who would ensure that the well doesn't get used to water horses. Regarding the potable water in the barn for sanitary services,there was no information in the water court case about any other potential uses, like laundry. Staff's presentation stated that the stables would be sprinkled. The water court decree did not allow for fire protection as a use. There was no dust suppression water available for the paddocks. The paddocks were the closest to the Red Table Acres homes and based on the calculation provided by the applicant in their water court case,this was still water short. She asked the board to consider the water shortage. As the climate changed,the amount of water delivered to shareholders was becoming less predictable and more variable from year to year. The county was clear that hauling water was not a legal water supply. The water storage tanks weren't shown on the site plan. She asked that they be identified on the site plan. In summary, she believed that the water for the operation was insufficient and potentially unreliable. Tom Griffiths ceded his time to Tim Whitsitt. Timothy Whitsitt, spoke. He represented Joyce Woltman,who resided at 265 Fawn Dr. His client had concerns about the paddock area. His client expressed concern about a panoramic view of a building that resembled a small City Market grocery store. The proposed buildings were incompatible with the residential uses. For the SUP to be approved, it needed to meet the standards under the LUC. The paddocks,the hay,and the manure would be in everyone's backyard. There needed to be monitoring and enforcement. He believed there was a real lack of analysis and quality consideration of what the requirements should be for this operation. He did not think the use was compatible with the neighboring uses and strongly recommended that the board turn the application down. Sean Sewell of 1291 Green Meadow Dr. ceded his time to Susan Sullivan. Susan Sullivan believed the proposed horse complex was not compatible. There was a risk to neighbors with airborne contaminants such as dust, flies, and odors. She questioned if horse-related pollutants would be in their indoor air. She expressed concern for the increase in traffic. She asked about the parking plan and wildlife mitigation. Bob Shultz of 354 Fawn Dr. stated that he'd lived in the area for 36 years and his home overlooked the property. He was familiar with the property and the conservation easement. He had some initial concerns but they'd all been addressed through the staff conditions and asked the board to support their application. Gay Lewis spoke. She ran Someday Ranch a mile and half down the road from this property. She found it disturbing that there had been so many people complaining about the lights. She would rather see horse trailers, tractors, and hay equipment than the Teslas,Audis and race cars that use Fender Lane as a race track. She believed it was important to keep ranching going. She believed there was plenty of water. There were so many dogs, people,bikers and hikers that the elk were no longer coming down. She asked the board to support the application. Krisin Conner spoke. She was currently employed at Windwalkers about two miles from the Graber's property. They currently had about 28 horses on 11 acres. They have manure control and fly traps. She believed that horses helped the community, children and adults. She believed everyone had done their homework and she supported the application. Sophia Varga spoke. She loved living where she lived and loved the dark skies and believed that many were struggling with the lack of clarity around the actual impacts with regards to traffic and noise. She appreciated how the community was so engaged. Stuart Edgerly ceded his time to Robert. Robert Sardinsky aka Sardo spoke. He believed the application was complex; it was about the intensity and density of the use. He believed the land was too small, exposed, and dry for the proposed use. While 20 acres seems like a lot,the ranch parcel gets very small when you put 45 horses on it. He spoke about the storage of trash, manure, snow, shavings and feed grain. Besides the new buildings and widened driveway the drawings show little or no provision for these essentials. The site plan submitted with this application was incomplete, inconsistent and too sketchy. The site design is conflicted and certainly does not make for being a good neighbor in its current form. Mary Bereska ceded her time to Bill Niro. Bill Niro spoke. He expressed concern about the dust generated by this proposed use. Dust generated from a horse facility was completely different. He found a large number of publications that directly identify the 8 06/18/2024 dangers. Research shows that bacteria laydend dust in riding arenas imposed a health risk to horses,riders, and people on the ground. 80%of the airborne bacteria was involved in respiratory diseases. The applicant was aware of the potential dust problem but the plan only addresses the riding areas. The scale of this proposed special use was enormous and the dust created would be uncontrollable. George Bereska ceded his time to Michele Holland. Michelle Holland stated that the application had been extremely heart wrenching for all involved. The application barely addressed waste management. The applicant's waste management plan was one paragraph containing no actual data. This was a high impact,high density commercial enterprise in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. There were a lot of unanswered questions. She asked the board to deny the file. Joyce Woltman ceded her time to Elaina Barni Elaina Barni spoke about the environmental effects of the proposed operation. She stated that the ranch report did not address the proposed changes to the land. Increased water runoff quantity was not addressed. Drainage during rain events may overwhelm the retention basin and render the proposed pond ineffective. Waste disposal and dust generation had also not been addressed with 45 horses more than million pounds of manure would be generated per year. She was concerned about the impact on her personally. Alan Feldman,Fox Run resident, spoke. He supported Tim Witsitt's comments. He read a quote from the conservation easement and believed the proposal was not inline with the conservation easement. Robert Brandon ceded his time to Holly McClain. Holly McClain,Upper Cattle Creek Rd. resident, spoke. She was a lifelong equestrian. She moved to Missouri Heights in 2014. She believed it would be inappropriate to place 45 horses on 20 acres in full view and in close proximity to so many well established Eagle County residential homeowners. There was not enough room for the animals to move freely. She believed the fencing was unsafe and would not keep the horses safe. She also expressed concern for the increase in traffic. Donald Flaks and his wife Marsha ceded their time to Glenn Mongomery. Glenn Mongomery of 1021 Green Meadow Drive spoke. He spoke about the importance of the abundance and wide variety of wildlife to the community. The wildlife was a critical element to the peace and serenity they all enjoy. The proposed activities within the 20 acre ranch headquarters parcel and the volume of human,canine,and equine activity would impact the wildlife on the easement. There had been no mention of the Aspen Valley Land Trust letter submitted to staff expressing concerns that the amount of activity in the headquarters may negatively impact the wildlife in the agricultural parcel particularly,the elk. There was no mention in the application of provisions to accommodate or manage wildlife that frequents the parcel. AVLT submitted a n updated referral letter yesterday indicating that while they could not dictate what is done on the 20 acres,they were concerned about the intensity of use and impact on the agricultural parcel and the spirit and intent of the easement. Sarah Bayer ceded her time to Glenn Mongomery. Glenn Montgomery spoke about traffic impacts. He believed the impacts were grossly underestimated. The applicant asserts that the traffic could consist of 28 vehicles per day. Their study showed that the proposed year around operation would involve more activity. They estimated the riding stable would generate 26 thousand vehicle trips annually, 72 trips per day. Feder Lane and the roads leading up to Twin Acres were mountainous, windy, and had little to no shoulders. According to their analysis the road impact fee for this project should be over $50,000. Access to the property was limited and he believed the driveway variance compromises public safety. Vickie Arnold ceded her time to Rob Holland. Robert Holland of 340 Fox Run Dr., spoke about the noise and the intensity of use that would occur at the proposed commercial riding stable. He did not believe the proposed use was compatible with the quiet neighborhoods that surround it. The operating hours were early and 7 days a week. This operation would create noise 24/7 hours a day and did not belong in a residential neighborhood. Missouri Heights was a special place and asked the board to deny the application. Mark Fuller, of 238 Fawn Drive spoke. He's lived in his home for 41 years. His home was about 1,000 ft. from the riding arena. He expressed his support for various other points that had been made about the potential impacts of this development and the detriment on their quality of life in Red Table Acres. In the time they had lived there they had been evacuated twice for wildfires and it was a nightmare. With increased fire dangers and increased traffic he urged the board to consider traffic flow in emergency situations into consideration. 9 06/18/2024 Patty Leckt ceded her time to John Gross John Gross resident of 222 Green Meadow Dr. spoke about compatibility. He referred to the Land Use Regulations and the compatibility consideration for Special Use Permits(SUP). He believed that compatibility was one of the cores for a SUP. The proposed property was surrounded on all sides by residential properties. The basin-like topography was amazing for transmitting sound. In summary,compatibility was a core requirement for a SUP and the criteria was not met, and the proposal was not compliant with the Mid Valley Plan. Susan Cuseo of 226 Kings Row spoke. She'd been a resident in the area since 1980. She spoke about the overuse of the water and water supply deficiencies. She understood Annie Graber's dream of owning a horse facility but she asked that the Missouri Heights water supply become overused and depleted by too much development. She dreamed that water continues to come out of her tap and those of her neighbors. Barbara Brett spoke. She spoke about the elk herd on the property. She spoke about being a homeowner and the high impact of commercialization of their rural lands. She believed approval of the application would set a precedent for future special use permit applications. She believed the proposed project did not fit this location and asked that the board deny the application. Marci Kaufman ceded her time to Mandy Kotzman. Mandy Kotzman of 222 Green Meadow Rd., spoke. She talked about the grass parking and visual impacts of parking south of the arena. There were no estimates from the applicant with regards to the number of vehicles. There were only six gravel spots and grass for an unspecified capacity. She did not believe the board could make a decision on an application without more details. Stephanie Zaza of 297 Green Meadow Rd., spoke. She purchased her home because she was drawn to the peace and quiet,views and unspoiled landscape. The scope and scale of the proposed development would forever change their noise levels and spoil their view of the landscape. It was a violation to purchase a property with the intent to use the land for high impact commercial purpose and to presume and expect the Eagle County Commissioners to capitulate to an attractive business plan while ignoring incompatibility with existing standards. She asked that the board not be swayed that the applicants were of good character and longtime residents of the valley. This argument was irrelevant to the question of compatibility with existing standards. Joe Nuzzarello of 567 Paseo Rd. spoke. He read something he received from Mary Elizabeth Geiger of Garfield&Hecht. She stated in the letter that if the hearing were to be continued after closure of public comment, the board needed to be clear on the record that this did not mean the applicant would be allowed to amend or change the application in any way. She suggested that the board close to public comment and allow the applicant to respond and that the only part of the hearing to continue would be the board's further questions and deliberations. Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney,responded. He did not believe that based on the Eagle County Land Use Regulations that the BoCC had the authority to prohibit or prevent an applicant from amending their application. The applicants did have an opportunity to respond to questions asked by the board as well as issues raised by public comment. There were procedures in place to ensure the public had time to review submitted materials. If there were to be an amended application, it may reopen public comment in writing, in person,or online to address any changes made. Deborah Bradford ceded her time to Robert Gardner. Robert Gardner thanked Eagle County and the Eagle County Commissioners for the great job the Road& Bridge Department did for them. He also thanked the county for the fire mitigation, consulting, and grants being offered. He believed the Twin Acrears Special Use Permit proposed to replace an existing historic small scale residential agricultural use with a non-historic high-intensity,high-impact commercial style equestrian use that would operate 12-14 hours a day, 365 days a year. This proposal was not compatible with surrounding rural residential properties. Most residents lived and voted in Eagle County. The neighbors overlooking the ranch headquarters property and the conservation easement most likely chose to live there because of the beautiful landscape,wildlife, and open space. If this use was approved,the neighbors would see large buildings,loafing sheds,vehicle congestion, a large dirt parking lot and increase traffic. He encouraged the board to reject the application. Cathy Jacquemin,president of the Fox Run Meadows HOA spoke. She spoke about the guidelines within their HOA that protected the neighbors,the views, and resources. They had strict guidelines on the number of horses allowed on the agricultural lots and the amount of water allotted to each lot. Water was their most precious 10 06/18/2024 commodity not to be over used. Homeowners in their HOA enjoyed walking their dogs and riding their bikes along Fender Lane. There were no shoulders on Fender Lane. Since traffic was fairly low,these daily activities had gone on over the years without incident. The idea that a large horse facility with its many horse trailers, cars,trucks, and deliveries using the narrow two lane road from morning until night was daunting. Chad Jewell,resident of 121 Fox Run Dr., spoke. He grew up in the valley and worked at Aspen Valley Ranch. His main concern was the number of horses,the size of the buildings, and accessibility to the property. He was allowed to have 10 horses on his 17 acres. He urged the board to consider the access and road safety. Larry Kay spoke about light pollution. The sky is filled with stars, and many residents prioritize the night sky. He expressed concern with the hours during the winter season..Dark sky lighting would reflect off snow. He wondered how best practices would be enforced. He was a retired attd31'ey, and this proceeding didn't cut it. The staff shouldn't be doing the applicants'work;they should be doing th eople's work. Joe Sullivan ceded his time to Karen Bannerot. Karin Bannerot,resident of 0045 Sopris Mesa Place spoke. She spoke about the fire danger which was her biggest fear. She's lived in Missouri Heights since 2007 and experienced two wildfires. Having this property developed would add so much more congestion. She stated that it was almost impossible to get homeowners insurance with insurance companies dropping customers. Increased business activity meant an increase in fire risk. The wind gusts can go 40 to 50 miles an hour and should a fire erupt on this property,neighbors would immediately be in danger. The property sits on the cusp of Garfield and Eagle County, and she expressed concerns about getting a fire truck in an emergency. Eagle County and the Mid Valley Community Area Plan did not support projects that increased the threat of wildfire where established residents live and were subject to risk and threats of wildfire. Evacuations and emergency access were concerns, and she believed they would be in danger due to the increased density of cars and trailers attempting to flee Missouri Heights via Fender Lane. She asked that the board deny the application. Lori Brandon spoke. She talked about a similar case in Garfield County. It was a special use permit that was a disaster. After several years,many of the conditions imposed by Garfield County were never met,and the permits expired,but the current owners continue to operate the uses that are prohibited. She believed that if this application were approved, the board could risk similar problems. The situation in Garfield had put the neighbors into being enforcement officers and in fear of retribution by the owners. Permitting high impact commercial entities in such close proximity to a residential neighborhood was a disaster waiting to happen. Karen Moculeski, 1140 Sunset Lane in Missouri Heights spoke. She spoke about the Ascendigo application in Garfield County which was denied by a vote of 2-1. The neighbor's concerns were similar. She requested the denial of the application. Marshall Walker ceded his time to Cheryl Niro. Sandy Nuzzarello ceded her time to Cheryl Niro. Cheryl Niro reminded everyone that serving the public in an elected office was a generous act and a difficult job. The board had heard from a very engaged,thoughtful, and organized community about how this high impact commercial operation would negatively impact their lives. The applicant had two years to articulate their proposal clearly and still failed to comply with the standards. The speakers had provided evidence that the proposed use was incompatible with the surrounding rural agricultural and residential character of this neighborhood. The application did not demonstrate compatibility and should be denied. There were no high intensity commercial operations like this in the area. The proposed development was out of proportion with what this area could safely and sufficiently support. The new structures were enormous. Conditions could not make an incompatible use compatible. The impacts of this proposed development would simply overwhelm this area of Missouri Heights and have dangerous impacts to the surrounding neighborhood and change its rural character. It was clearly incompatible and would be harmful to everyone of the 120 homes adjacent to the property and broader community. Chairman Scherr closed public comment. 11 06/18/2024 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. ZS 009260-2022,to July 23, 2024 at 4 pm, in the Eagle County Building in El Jebel to continue this hearing. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 0*EAGLE_ �P� 2 There b-.4g no further busine•i. , i 4'4,,rd,the meeting was adjourned until June 27, 2024. Atte : ' ler i'o the Board Chairman 12 06/18/2024