No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/28/05 PUBLIC HEARING June 28, 2005 Ptesent Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Keith Montag Diane Mauriello Don DuBois Chairman CommisSioner Commissioner Acting County Administratot County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Comtnissioners for their consideration: Executive Session CotntIiissiOner Runyon moved that the Board of County CofnInissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on matters concerning: home rule, spending questions, and potential litigation regarding Private Escapes, LLC; as well as determining positions that may be subject to negotiations with the Cordillera Property Associations; as well as for the purpose of discussing potential litigation and potential negotiations concerning the runway extension, all of which are appropriate topics for discussion putsuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e). Commissioner Stone seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, CommiSsioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session and Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Co'nsent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the fitst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of June 27, 2005 (Subjectto review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department .13. Approval ofthe Minutes ofthe Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for June 9 and June 13, 2005 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder C. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Child Care Association Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services D. Agreement between Eagle County and Sharon Thompson Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for the Tuberculosis Program . Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services ,j- F. Agreement between Eagle County and Beth Hervey, Pura Vida Counseling Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services G. Agreement between Eagle County and Aspen Youth Experience Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Resolution 2005-079 Reappointing Earnest A. Chavez to the Minturn Cemetery Board Attorney's Office Representative 1. Intergovernmental Agreement by and between Eagle County and Pitkin County for Matters of State Interest 1 6/28/05 Attorney's Office Representative J. Resolution 2005;..080 Appointing Members to the Eagle County Fair Board Brad Higgins, Fair & Rodeo K. ResOlution 2005-081 Appointing an Associate Member to the Eagle County Zoning Board of Adjustment Community Development Staff L. Federal Aviation Administration Grant Agreement for the Airport Runway Extension Project AlP 3-08- 0020-37 Phillip Bowman, Engineering Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated there were none. COhimissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-L. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda Jena Skiililer-Matkowitz, Community Development There were no planning or land use resolutions for the Board's consideration this week Milmt Subdivision Plat Signing Jena Skiililer-Markowitz, Community Development There were no minor subdivision plats for the Board's consideration this week Coni:n1issioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissiohers and re-convene as the Eagle COUhty Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda R~rteWals A. The StuDlllit Edwards, CO / This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, with Optional Premises, in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. eat! Edwards, CO This is a renewal of a Tavern Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. C. Route 6 Cafe Eagle- Vail, CO This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. 2 6/28/05 D. Savory Inn Vail, CO This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. I E. Paddy's Eagle-Vail, CO This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Eagle-Vail. This was one of the establishments that failed the State's compliance check in March. This is Paddy's first violation and State will be administering the Show-Cause Hearing for the penalty phase. As such, staff recommends that the renewal be approved. All the necessary fees have been paid. F. Riverwalk Wine & Spirits Edwards, CO this is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Commissioner Runyon rnoved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for June 28, 2005, consisting ofItems A-F. Commissioner Stone seconded the rnotion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Liquor . YM&A Ranches LLC ba Piney River Ranch REPRESENTATIVES: LOCATION: CONCERNS /ISSuEs: Heidi & Cory Raymer, Owners 700 Red Sandstone Road, Vail None DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the transfer of a Hotel and RestaUtant Liquor License. DM & A Ranches LLC. has applied for a transfer of Ownership from D & L Ranches Inc. dba Piney River Ranch. The applicant is operating under a temporary license issued by the Board On June l4, 2005. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS ESl'ABLISIDNGTIIE NEIGHBORHOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF TIlE NEIGHBORHOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. OTHER FINDINGS ~ This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been filled out, and all fees have been paid. ~ The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and local licensing authorities and was valid as of the date of receiving the application. 3 6/28/05 ~ the applicants are reported to be of good moral character. ~ Applicants are currently operating under a temporary license issued by this Board. ~ The statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been received. ~ The applicants are over 21, fingerprints are on file, and Personal History Records are on file. ~ Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises at least lO days prior to the hearing. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. ~ The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 yeats preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requitements of the neighborhood and tmH:lesifes-efthe adult-inflabitants-were-satisfied~ye*istingeatlet~- - - -----.- ~ The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the date ofthe application, a license has been denied at the same location fOr the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. ~ The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval DISCUSSION: CoifiIllissionet Stone asked how the majority the liquor license would be used. Ms. Raymer stated it would be used mostly for weddings, at the request of the client. They also have a bar inside the reStaOtant, but business is quiet at this time. Commissioner Runyon moved the local licensing authority, incorporating staff fmdings, approve the transfer of the hotel and restaurant liquor license from D & L Ranches Inc. to DM & A Ranches LLC dba Piney River Ranch. CommisSioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairtnai1Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as .-, the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS..00130. ~Moufitain. Meadow Ranch Lot. 34 Joe Forinash, Community Development ACTION: Special Use Permit to operate a catering business (home business) in the agricultural residential (AR) zone district. LOCATION: l846 Upper Cattle Creek Road, EI Jebel BOARD STAFF REPORT: Mountain Meadow Ranch Lot 34 - Home Business ~ File No. ZS-00130 Planning Commission Hearing Date: 16 June 2005 Board of County COlllmissioners Hearing Date: 28 June 2005 TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCAtION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Mountain Meadow Ranch Lot 34 ~ Home Business ZS-00130 I Special Use Permit l846 Upper Cattle Creek Road (one mile north ofEI Jebel) Alexander Kim Alexander Kim Alexander and Laura Kim STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions 4 6/28/05 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions (3-l) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Applicant was commended for seeking a special use permit for this home business rather than operating without a permit. Some of the planning commissioners xpressed concern with the compatibility of the use with the neighborhood and about potentially adverse impacts. Concerns about how the nature of this home business might grow over time seemed somewhat alleviated after a discussion of the recolTlmended condition that "all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval" (See Condition #9 below). The concerns most commonly expressed were related to the size and style of the proposed building, commenting that it seemed large and would be mote commercial in appearance than agricultural or residential. There was some discussion with the Deputy County Attorney regarding the appropriateness of reviewing the design of an allowed building in conjunction with consideration of this Special Use Permit. The proposed building requires a building permit, but may be built whether or not the Special Use Permit is approved. PROJECT DESCRIPTION StJMMAR.\': This is a Special Use Permit application to allow a catering opera.tion as a home business in the Agricultural Residential(AR) zone district. The Applicant intends to build a two...story structure with a 6,000 sq. ft. footprint, subsequently tedticed to 5,000 sq. ft. The ground level will consist primarily of agricultural Uses plus, if approved, a cotnIIlercialkitchen approximately 850 sq. ft. in size. The second level will initially include a 2,500 Sq. ft. dwelling. The Applicant's intent, as part of this Special Use Permit, is to eventually build a separate primary dwelling within the existing building envelope. At that time, the dwelling in the initial struc~e\yo!lktQ~ re(luced to nO greatet 1,000 sq. ft. to conform to the maximum floor area allowed in the AR zone district for an accessory dwelling unit (ADD). The Applicant indicated before the Planning Commission that the size of the proposed building has been reduced to 5,000 sq. ft. CIIRONOLOGY: 1974 - Board of County Cotnhlissioners approved the Final Plat which created the Mountain Meadow Ranch tlbdivision, Second Filing. .1.998 - Board of County Commissioners approved an Amended Final Plat which re-subdivided Lots 27, 28, 34 and Vista Hi Drive and created Lot 34 in its present configuration. 2000 - An amended final plat was. submitted would have deleted the previously approved building envelope and created a 3.23 acre primary building envelope (for a residence) and a 2.1 acre auxiliary building envelope (for agricultutal buildings). The application was withdrawn prior to being considered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - An amended final plat was approved which deleted the previously approved building envelope and created the existing 2.55 acre building envelope. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential/Agricultural Residential West: Residential/Agricultural Residential; Resource North: Residential/Agricultural Residential; Resource S()uth: Residential/Agricultural Residential Zoning: Agricultural Residential Area: 46.78 acres Access: Upper Cattle Creek Road ST AFFREPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering . No comment regatding the Special Use Permit. Eagle County Environmental Health 5 6/28/05 . An engineer-designed septic system is required for the proposed system on site. State law requires the ISDS permit to be issued prior to issuing the building permit. . Prior to submittal of the Plan Review to Environmental Health, the well must be tested to ensure that the water meets drinking water quality standards. It is recommended that well water testing for nitrate, occur on an annual basis and bacteriological testing occur monthly. ~ . Plans for the commercial kitchen will need to be submitted and approved by Environmental Health prior to issuance of the building permit. Construction and/or operation must not begin until the plans have been approved and the Applicant is notified by Environmental Health in writing. The food service establishment specifications form located at the end of Colorado Retail Food Rules and Regulations (Appendices C and D) must be completed and submitted to Eagle County along with a $75.00 plan check fee made payable to the Eagle County Treasurer. . A floor plan, proposed menu, and specification sheet (cut sheets) for all equipment used in the establishment is required. If cut sheets are not available, the make and model numbers for the equipment may be submitted, so Environmental Health may verify the items are National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) approved. . It should be illusttated On the site plan the erosion control measures that will be utilized during the construction phase. Eagle County Assessor . No comment. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District . District representatives have met with the Applicant and have discussed with him the Internatiohal Building and Fire Code requirement regarding sprinklers for mixed use occupancies which include a residence. The District supports his efforts to achieve a home business and offers several comments regarding fite code compliance. . Access is required to meet the applicable provisions of the International Fire Code as adopted by Eagle County. The access on the grading plan needs to be verified. Turning radius needs to meet the large~ responding vehicle, in this case requires a minimum inside 28 foot radius and an outside 45 foot radius to maneuver. Vehicle weight is 60,000 pounds. . A crucial part of access is attachment to a water source. Mr. Kim has indicated that a nearby pond could be accessed for manual water supply. If this becomes the final choice, then access needs to be designed to allow safe drafting operation via dry hydrant and provide the room required for tactical maneuvenng. . Pursuant to the International Building and Fire Code, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings with a group R area. This building would be required to be sprinklered to the NFP A l3 standard for the commercial space and 13 R could be considered for the residence based on separation in building design. This standard requires water supply meeting sprinkler demand and additional water for manual fire suppression needs. The fire sprinkler in this scenario is sufficient t meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. . The stored water supply fot the system can be from a pond or a buried tank. In either scenario, the fire fighting apparatus would need to connect to the tank via a dry hydrant system meeting the policies and specifications of the Fire District. . The District supports the Applicant in his home business. It is recommended that the Applicant and his engineer representative meet with the Fire District to determine sprinkler and outside hose requirement design that meets the Districts operational needs and complies with the adopted Building and Fire Code prior to submitting plans for building permit application. Colorado Division of Wildlife . The Division of Wildlife staff has reviewed this plan to operate a catering business. The impacts to wildlife should be minimal. . The Division has had reports of black bear activity in this area. All precautions for food and waste storage to minimize conflicts with wildlife should be considered. A list of approved bear resistant containers is available at the Division of Wildlife office. 6 6/28/05 . In other situations, especially with food smells, bears have gained entry through unlocked windows and doors. The Division suggests that extra care be taken to secure these entrances to prevent this from happening. ~dditi()nal R~fer..al A2:encies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Housing, Eagle County Weed & Pest, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the r~view of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities, and densities, and intensities of use. Xl - A voids critical wildlife habitat. The individual sewage disposal system will be engineer-designed to minimize adverse impacts to groundwater quality. x2 ~ Supports and encourages the diversity of the County's economic base. Encourages home occupation uses, while applying standatds to ensure that such uses are compatible with the residential chatacter of the surrounding neighborhood. x3 = Once the separate primary dwelling is constructed at some time in the future, the dwelling in the first building to be constructed will be reduced in size and become an accessory dwelling unit, contributing to the hiix of affotdable housing. x4 - Site is in an area designated as "Rural". Lot 34 is 46.785 acres in size. The Agricultural Residential zone district, as this site is zoned, is consistent with this land designation. Home business is a use permitted by Special Use Permit in this zone district. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN 7 6/28/05 x x x x x x Xl ~ Maintains existing water quality. Impacts on wildlife are minimal. x2 ~ The existing agricultural portion of this site continues to be preserved. EAGLECOlJNTYCOMPID:HENSIVE HOUSING PLAN vISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a cortl1fiunity-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing COtnI11UI1ity centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of govemrnent, thetewill be dnly limited success . It is impdrtant to preserve existing local tesidents housing · PerSons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing oppdttunities within the county · Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whethef they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nohprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and Workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought ort line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7, Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment wiIl provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the neareSt existing comniunity center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 8 6/28/05 ITEM 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the PLUM ofthe Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. All equipment and materials are required to be stored in a building and catering operations are required to be conducted indoors. The neighbors closest to the building envelope are north of the site. The building envelope is a minimum of 50 feet from the north property line. The Applicant reports that the closest dwelling is more than 350 feet aWay. In addition, the site slopes somewhat to the south and the proposed building will be recessed into the slope and vegetation is proposed along the north side of the building. Rome business is a use pennitted by Special Use Permit if it conforms with the specific review standards set forth in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Patticular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses, including the requirement that all activities be conducted indoors and all equipment and materials be stored in a building. EmPloyees residing off-premises will be limited to two. Patrons will rarely come to the site. Deliveries of food will be limited to two to three times per week. Specific commercial and industrial performance standards will apply. [+JFINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250..13.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards ATmlicable to Particular Residential. A!tricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The site is located in the Agricultural Residential (AR) zone district. A home business is permitted in the AR zone district by Special Use Permit. Section 3-310.F. provides certain standards that must be met in the operation of a. home business, including the following: USe Subordinate - The use of the dwelling for a home business must be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and not change its basic residential character. The initial building on the site will be two-story and have approximately a 5,000 sq. ft. footprint. The ground level will consist primarily of agricultural uses plus, if approved, a commercial kitchen approximately 850 sq. ft. in size. The second level will initially include a 2,500 sq. ft. dwelling. The Applicant's intent, liS part of this Special Use Permit, is to eventually build a separate primary dwelling within the existing building envelope. At that time, the dwelling in the initial structure would be reduced to no greater 1,000 sq. ft. to conform to the maximum floor area allowed in the AR zone district for an accessory dwelling unit (ADD). However, an ADU is subject to the requirement for a Limited (or administrative) Review as provided in Section 5-300, Limited Review Use, and Section 5-2l 00, Certificate of Zoning Compliance, of the Land Use Regulations. 'he commercial kitchen and related catering business will be secondary to the primary residential nature of the site. Nonetheless, as a condition of al'proval, prior to the construction of a second dwelling on the site, the owner should 9 6/28/05 apply for and obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance as provided in Section 5-300, Limited Review Use, and Section 5-2100, Certificate of Zoning Compliance, of the Land Use Regulations. [Condition # I] ActiVity Conducted Indoors - All activities associated with the home businessmu$t be conducted indoors, and all materials and equipment used in the home business must be stored in a building. The Applicant states that all catered cooking will be done indoors. A condition of approval requiring that all materials be stored in a building is provided below. EmploYlllcnt - A home business must be conducted by persons residing on the premises and by no more than two (2) employees residing off-premises. The Applicant has indicated that up to two seasonal employees residing off- premises will be used. PatronS ~ A home business may serve patrons on the premises. However, the Applicant states that, only on rare occasions, will patrons come on premises for a "tasting" prior to a catered event. Parking ~ A specified number of parking spaces is required to acconunodate off-premise employees and patrons, in addition to the requited residential parking. The Applicant is providing adequate parking on-site. Sales .~ Only incidental sales. on'-site ate permitted. Since the home business is catering, all sales are off~site. Nuisance ~ Noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibrations, heat, glare, odors, fumes, smoke or dust are limited, and hours of operation must be such that the home business operation does not create a public nuisance, disturb neighbors, or alter the residential character of the premises. It is not ex.pected that any such nuisances Will occur. Codes ~ The building housing the home business is requited to comply with all County or State building, fire and safety codes applicable to the particular business. Eagle County Environmental Health has noted a number of spec'ific requirements for establishing and opeta:ting a commercial kitchen on this site. As a condition of a.poroval, the Applicant shouldconfon11 to all requirements for operating a commercial kitchen, including those noted in the memdra:ndumfrortl Eagle County Environmental Health dated May 27,2005. [Condition # 2] SignS and Illumination - Signs or other outdoot structures advertising the home business are not permitted. No Signs areptoposed. As a general condition of approval, the catering home business should be conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 3-310.F.1., Home Business, in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 3] [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] With the recommended condition, the proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the Zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avplicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDAIU): Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] - The design of the proposed Special Use shdllminimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. All equipment and materials are required to be stored in a building and catering operations are required to be conducted indoors. The neighbors closest to the building envelope are north of the site. The building envelope is a minimum of 50 feet from the north property line. The Applicant reports that the closest dwelling is more than 350 feet away. In addition, the site slopes somewhat to the south and the proposed building will be recessed into the slope and vegetation is proposed along the north side of the building. 10 6/28/05 While the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has noted that impacts on wildlife should be minimal, it does note that black bear activity has been noted in the area. When the most recent amended final plat for Lot 34 was approved in 2002, it included a plat note regarding trash storage which prohibits outside storage of trash, except in certified bear-proof receptacles. The Applicant has committed to keep all trash in a bear proof container. As a :ondition of approval, all restrictions contained in notes on the plat for the Mountain Meadow Ranch Second Filing, Lot 34, recorded at Reception No. 796363, should be strictly adhered to. [Condition # 4] the Applicant reports that the occasion of having patrons on site will be tare. The number of employees living off- premises will be limited to up to two seasonal workers. Deliveries to the kitchen are ex.pected to he limited to two or three times per week, similar to FedEx or U.P.S. deliveries. Adequate space exists for parking and loading of vehicles. It is reasonable to ex.pect that odors, noise, glare, vibration and other forms of nuisance will be within applicable limits. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the operation of the commercial kitchen and its related activities should be done in conformance with the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 5] [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant.adverSe impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmelttal Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] ... The proposed Special Use shall . minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Eagle County Envirolunental Health has noted the need for an engineer-designed septic system. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should conform to all requirements for operating a commercial kitchen, including those 'oted inthe memorandfun from Eagle County Environmental Health dated May 27,2005. [Conqition # 2] While the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has noted that impacts on wildlife should be tninimal, it dOes note that black heat activity has been noted in the area. When the most recent amended final plat for Lot 34 was approved in 2002, it included a plat note regarding trash storage which prohibits outside storage of trash, except in certified bear-proof receptacles. The Applicant has comtnitted to keep all trash in a bear proof container. As a condition of approval, all restrictions contained in notes on the plat for the Mountain Meadow Ranch Second Filing, Lot 34, recorded at Reception No. 796363, should be strictly adhered to. [Condition # 4] All equipment and materials are required to be stored in a building and catering operations are required to be conducted indoors. The neighbors closest to the building envelope are north of the site. The building envelope is a minimum of 50 feet from the north property line. The Applicant reports that the closest dwelling is more than 350 feet away. In addition, the site slopes somewhat to the south and the proposed building will be recessed into the slope and vegetation is proposed along the north side of the building [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. he site is adequately served by roads, parks, schools, police and fire protection and emergency medical services. Potable water will be provided by a private well, and wastewater treatment will be by an individual sewage disposal system. Eagle County Environmental Health has noted the requirement for an engineer-designed septic system and 11 6/28/05 testing of the potable water to ensure that nitrate and bacteriological-related levels are acceptable. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should conform to all requirements for operating a commercial kitchen, including those noted in the memorandum from Eagle County Environmental Health dated May 27,2005. [Condition # 2] [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adeqUately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical setvIces. STAN'J)ARJ): Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develooment Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standatds. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ +]) or does not meet the standard ([..]), or the standard does not apply ([ n/aD. A plus/minus ([ +/- D indicates that the finding is mixed and warrants particular attention by the Planning Commission and the Board. [+]. Division 4-1. Off-Street Patkin!t and. Loading Standards Adequate space is available on-site for parking required for the residential use and the home business use. [+] Division 4-2. Landscaping and TIlumination Standards Landscaping is proposed along portions of the north and west sides of the building envelope to mitigate the most likely visual impacts. As a condition of approval, the proposed landscaping plan should be implemented within six months of the start of construction of the initial building on the site and maintained throughout the life of the Special Use Pertnit. [Condition # 6] [+] DivisionA-3. Sign Regulations No COh1111etcial signs are allowed or proposed. All other signs will be required to conform to the Sign Code. [+-] Division 4-4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] SectionA-4lO. Wildlife Protection While the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has noted that impacts on wildlife should be minimal, it does note that black bear activity has been noted in the area. When the most recent amended final plat for Lot 34 was approved in 2002, it included a plat note regarding trash storage which prohibits outside storage of trash, except ih certified beat-proof receptacles. The Applicant has committed to keep all trash in a bear proof container. As a condition.ofapproval, all restrictions contained in notes on the plat for the Mountain Meadow Ranch Second Filing, , Lot 34, recorded at Reception No. 796363, should be strictly adhered to. [Condition # 4] [+] Section 4-420. Development. in Areas Subject to Geologic Hazards Specific geologic hazards were not identified with the earlier subdivision of this lot. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards The Wildfire Hazard Rating on the site is Low. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements of this Section. [n/a] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection 12 6/28/05 This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map as having possible ridge line impacts. c+] Section4-460. Environmental Impact Report A satisfactory Environmental Impact Report was previously provided at the time the subdivision was initially approved. [+] Division 4-5, Contrnercialand Industrial Performance Standards. '" It is reasonable to expect that odors, noise, glare, vibration and other forms of nuisance will be within applicable limits. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the operation of the commercial kitchen and its related activities should be done in conformance with the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 5] [+] DiviSion 4-6, Jmprovements Standards the .l3asalt & Rutal Fire Protection District has noted the need to conform to requirements for access to the building site by its fire fighting equipment. the District indicates that access appears to be adequate, but needs to be confirtned. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer that adequate access for fire fighting equipment will be provided prior to commencement of a home business under this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 7] The District also notes the need for an adequate water supply for fire fighting and for sprinklering of the building. The Applicant has proposed the use of a nearby pond, and the District indicates that it may be acceptable. As a condition of approval, the Applicant shoUld demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Chief Building Official that an adequate water supply and adequate sprinklering of the buildings will be provided prior to omtnencement of a home business under this Special Use Permit. [Condition # 8] [n/a] Division 4-7, ImpactFees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4~ 700: School Land Dedication Standards No subdivision ofland is occurring in connection with this Special Use Permit. Consequently, these School Land Dedication Standards do not apply. [n/a] Section4-710: Road Impact FeeS This Section was approved on 15 May 2002. The most recent amended fmal plat (which deleted a previous building envelope and created the existing building envelope) was approved on 7 May 2002. Based on Section 4-7l 0.E.2., Exemptions, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The application materials include somewhat conflicting statements regarding the proposed use of that portion of the itial building other than the dwelling and the commercial kitchen, that is, whether the uses will be limited to dgricultural uses or include certain non-agricultural uses such as garage uses and storage of four-wheelers. The significance ofthe issue is that accessory buildings, other than garages and agricultural buildings are limited in size 13 6/28/05 to 850 square feet. The Applicant has clarified that the intent is that the building other than the dwelling and the commercial kitchen will be primarily for agricultural purposes. Staff is satisfied with the clarification. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. HOllsin1! Guidelines. ~ On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to eStablish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The ptoposed home business does not represent "new residential development" as provided in the Housing Guidelines. ' DISCUSSION: Joe ForinashofConun.unity Development presented this file to the Board. Utilizing a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Forinash detailed the proposal, the background of the property, and showed various photographs and maps to the Board. The applicant wishes to receive a Special Use Permit to allow a catering operation as a home business. There would eventually be a sepatate dwelling built and the initial dwelling would become an Accessory Dwelling Unit. All of this is currently allowed under the zoning and this request is solely for the Special Use Permit. There are two accesses to the site. The height of the proposed building would be about 35 feet. It would be a two story dwelling. The first floor would include an 850 square foot commercial kitchen, the balance of the area would be used for agricultural storage and parking associated with the business. The upper level would be the residential dwelling unit; initially 2,500 square feet. At the time that a separate primary dwelling would be build, this would be reduced to l,OOO square feet, which is the maximum allowed for an accessory dwell unit in this zone. district. Staff and Planning Commission findings are positive and both recommend approval with conditions. He ex.plained the additiol1alletters that were placed in the Board's packets before this meeting, and also the recdmmended conditions, found in the Staff Report. Laura (Kim) Foster, the applicant, spoke to the Board. She explained the nature of the proposal. They intend to keep their property agricultural, calling it the Dragonfly Farm. Their desire is to be a good neighbor and have written letters to adjacent property owners to explain their plans. The nearest adjacent property owners SUpp<5rt their application. She explained what impacts would be from vehicular traffic, detailing how minimal they would be. She also told how the majority of adjacent property owners support their project and the opposition seems to be with regards to increased traffic. She ex.plained where the deliveries would be made. She cleared up some misconceptions concerning her property, stating that the kitchen will be used to prep food and deliver to off- site facilities and there would be no on-site liquor delivery. They have never received any complaints in their 10 years of living in the valley and they desire to remain good neighbors. Alexander Kim, the applicant, also spoke to the Board. He went over the guidelines and rules for operating a home business and stated how this application is c<5mpatible. He reiterated the support that this application has received from the Staff, Planning Commission, Fire Department, and nearby property owners. He stated that the building in question would be their barn and primary dwelling and they have made concessions to the neighbors in the area. He showed photographs of the various styles of homes being built in the nearby area and showed how His proposed building does fit into the neighborhood. He stated that this will be a small, client-specific business and would not involve a parade of commercial trucks. It would be just him 50% of the time preparing meals in the kitchen. The wind blows from west to east and the only neighbor to the east is Basalt Mountain. Commissioner Stone asked the applicant how the business would be subordinate to the home, as the regulations require it to be different. Ms. Foster, stated that they are constructing their primary residence first. They hope to achieve in the future, a second residence, but cannot afford to do so at this time. This will be their primary home for the foreseeable future. Commissioner Stone stated that primary residence is not listed in the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Foster stated that they cannot afford to build their second residence at this point. Mr. Kim stated that it is subordinate as the plan is to build the barn and residence at this point because that is the only way they can afford to live there. 14 6/28/05 Commissioner Runyon asked about the size and zoning. Mr. Forinash stated it is 40 acres and zoned Agricultural Residential, with zoning 1 per 10 acres. It could he subdivided into a maximum of four lots. The intent is to leave the Jot as agricultural as possible, as an open meadow and thus keeping the lot large. Commissioner Runyon asked if there were any legal constraints to development. Mr. Forinash stated that it was not part of a PUD or other constraints. Chairman Menconi opened Public Comment. David McConaughy, representing various homeowners, spoke to the Board. He doesn't think this use is allowed under the AR district guidelines. He read from the Land Use Regulation's and stated how the building is not a residential building, as the kitchen is on a separate floor. He also reiterated Commissioner Stone's statements as to how the use would not be subordinate to the dwelling and this proposal belongs to a separate zone district. He urged the Board to deny the application. Jay Leavitt, nearby homeoWller, showed a map to the Board of the Aspen Mesa Estates plat. He is speaking on behalf of the Aspen Mesa Estates Board of Directors. A third of the subdivision looks doWll on the applicant's meadow, he pointed out the views of the subdivision and showed how the Kim's big 850 square foot kitchen would be viewed, then stated that there aren't many residential kitchens of that size. He talked about the Water Plan that is required for a commercial business andwhat is required by Eagle County and the Fire Department. He stated these requirements don't make this business subordinate to the residence. He showed pictures of the building and stated that it is industrial and not residential. There is no enforcement to require the applicant to build its secondary residence. He feels the applicant should apply for the Special Use Permit after the other residence is built with a scaled down kitchen. The barn to be used for a commercial or home business is a special use and not a use by right. This is not a subordinate use building and is not compatible with the rest of the district and denial is recommended. Kit Mason, subdivision resident and Home Owners Association President, stated that they have no problems with the land and its use. They have issues with the Special Use Permit requested and reiterated that it is not compatible with the neighborhood. The concern is with the commercial use and they feel it is inappropriate for their neighborhood. There is a note on the plat which does not allow for further subdivision and the applicant acknowledged it. The building proposed is not reflective of other barns Or residences in the area. He gave photos Id diagrams to the Board for their review. He demonstrated the visual impacts that would occur with the building. 'hey are opposed to the request. penny CartUth, OWller of Lot 33, stated that she no longer supports the application. This is based on the new testimony that has been given concerning the rules and guidelines. Mary Bright, adjacent property owner, stated that she has two 5,000 square feet industrial buildings on her property that are more visible than the Kim's proposal. She feels that they are being very considerate with many issues and feels that the traffic impacts would be less than other residents of the area. She urges approval of this application. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Bright about the previous hearing's testimony and the changes that have been made. Ms. Bright feels that it takes time for property uses to evolve. They are within their building envelope and bas no problems with the changes. Lesley Rameil spoke in opposition to the proposal. She feels that businesses must be run from within the confines of the home and the plans don't support it. She told how bears and other animals may be attracted by the odots that would be generated from this business. She feels the Kim's should honor the zoning that exists. She fears setting a ptecedent for future variances to be granted. She is concerned about quality of life. Scott DeWind, adjacent neighbor, spoke in opposition to the proposal. A yes vote would only benefit the applicant to the detriment of the others. He asked the BOCC to respond to his concerns as the Planning Cotnmission and Community Development have not. He detailed the changes in representations that the applicant has made over time. Catering is not an 8-5 business, but is conducted on weekends, holidays, and evenings, which is when people will be at home. They are concerned about the resulting odors that will come from the catering business and the predator animal activity that could result. Larry, nearby resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He questioned if a survey had been done to gauge the neighbor's true feelings and questioned the verbal commitments made by the applicant. Jody Edwards, nearby owner, agreed with the previous comments and doesn't feel that the Board has the gal authority to approve this proposal. He doesn't feel the conditions set forth are sufficient enough and suggested additional conditions. He wants special use limited to catering with a maximum number of employees and parking spaces. He wants the building re-designed to be more residential in nature. He disputed some of the 15 6/28/05 photographs shown by the applicant. The property should be subject to an annual compliance review, which is allowed in the regulations. Nancy DeWind spoke in opposition to the proposal. She asked the commissioners and members of the public who would like to see this established in their area. Carol Mason spoke against the proposal. She wants the integrity of the neighborhood, includIng property values, maintained. This proposal is in the interest of the Kim's only and no one else. Bud Gates, former commissioner, spoke to the Board and gave a history of the land, especially the developments that occurred while he was commissioner. He is in opposition to the proposal. He doesn't feel that the impacts or conditions have been fully addressed. Adele Hubbell agreed with Ms. Bright and feels that Kit Mason has already set a precedent for the ADU that the Kim's are requesting. She supports the project as there are multiple home businesses that exist and they are an asset to a community. Greg Hunter feels that this property would set the tone for the neighborhood and doesn't feel the plans reflect the current style of the neighborhood. Chairman Menconi closed Public Comment. He asked if it could be tabled due to the conflicts. Mr. Mathews stated they could table and it is scheduled to be <heard in the afternoon. Commissioner Stone thanked everybody for their civil comments and refraining from personal attacks. He is a strong private property rights advocate andhe does remember the previous hearing involving the Kim's. His impressiorl was that they would try to be good neighbors and he is discouraged that they are trying to push the envelope as to what be allowed. Right now, he is inclined to deny, until the home could be built. He doesn't feel that this application meets the intent of the Home-Business Regulations. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Forinash to gather examples of where home-businesses have been established. Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. ZS-00l30, until the afternoon session. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. IUSCtJSSION. PART ll: Joe Forinash of Community Development stated that he found eight Special Event Permit requests for home businesses in Eagle County filed in the past, per the Chairman's request. Chairman Menconi feels that it is very likely that many of the homes located in the area probably have some sort of home business located within their homes. They are probably taking a tax credit but are not filing for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Forinash stated that there is a distinction between a home business and a home occupation. A home btisihes'S allows up to 2 employees who reside off-premises and also allows patrons to come on site. A home occupation does not allow patrons to come on site, or off-premises employees, is a use by right. He detailed the history of the SUP requests. He stated that Loftworks was denied and the Rasnic SUP in McCoy was approvedifi 2001. He detailed the specifics of the Rasnic SUP, as it had similarities to the current file. The dwelling located there is the lesser of the two uses on that parcel. The Bones SUP was truly a home business. Their property was a 3 acre parcel, 3,000 square residence with attached garage and a 3,200 square foot shop building were they operated their wood flooring business. There were other Special Use Permits that were heard before the current Land Use Regulations were adopted in 1999. He detailed these for the Board, also. Chairman Menconi asked the applicant if they wanted to respond to Public Comment. Ms. Foster clarified that their intentions for their property has not changed since 2002. They moved the building envelope to help with water storage. They did not expect to get sued, and they had to take out a second mortgage to defend themselves. They intend to maintain the agricultural status of their property and they had to put a lot of money into the irrigation system to protect the water. The building will be built regardless of the outcome of the process. They went through this process because they wanted to be good citizens and good neighbors. Thdr primary residence will be built on the second floor and this will be the focus of their life. They feel the SUP will be compatible and will be willing to be subject to a review after a year, as Jody Edwards suggested. Mr. Kim submitted a photograph to the Board which depicted what their building would look like. He showed how his building would "disappear" with the addition of berming and landscaping, and stated that they would have a charcoal grey roof, not a shiny silver one. They believe they have done their homework and believe that they meet the criteria for a SUP. They are willing to make further concessions of an annual review and a written stipulation that this will not be paid event site. They feel they can run their business and be good neighbors. 16 6/28/05 He went over the surrounding properties and what each of those lots entailed. He closed with a quote and explained its meaning to the Board. He reiterated that there would be very minimal traffic impacts. Commissioner Runyon asked if the house could be built as is with no other approval, without the kitchen, and if they had no Design Review capability. Mr. Forinash concurred that the house could be built as is. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Forinash to explain Home Occupation and Home Businesses. Mr. Mathews pointed out where Commissioner Stone had read from the Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Runyon asked if this application was for home business or home occupation. Mr. Forinash stated home businesses allow off-site employees and vendor Visits. Home occupation, a use by right, allow no off-site employees and no visits. This is a home business. Commissioner Runyon asked if it could have two dwelling units. Mr. Forinash stated it could have a primary residence and an Accessory Dwelling Unit by limited review, and explained what this meant. Commissioner Runyon asked how the secondary dwelling unit was defined. Mr. Forinash stated it is identified by the presence of a complete kitchen. Commissioner Runyon asked if the property could be sub-divided. Mr. ForinaSh stated there was a plat restriction that could be changed by the .l3oard, ifit desired. He detailed how the change could be made. Commissioner Runyejfi stated that his one reservation is that this application is stretching his definition of home-work. He had concerns about the tax rate, as business property is taxed at a higher rate than residential property. Comtnissioner Stone asked if the Special Use Permit is applicable goes with the land or is tied to the applicant. Mr. Mathews stated that it would run with the land, but the Board could put conditions to it. He gave examples to the conditions that could be imposed. Commissioner Stone stated that he is thinking long-term with regards to issuing a Special Use Pertuit. He decides applications by taking out the applicant and looking to see if the use is good in general, no matter who the applicant is, and if there were enough controls put in place to protect the County and neighbors. He is concerned ryout the extent to which the home business doesn't seem to be secondary to the residential aspect. He feels that nose people who are getting away without a Special Use Permit are doing so because; the use is uililoticeable to the neighbors. He feels that the kitchen is very large and dominates the residential aspect, and that this application could become a burdento the public in order to maintain compliance. As a reSult, he is not in favor of the project. CommiSSioner Runyon stated that ifthis were to be approved, there would be limit on hours of operations, a compliance review, restriction of delivery days, and specifically disallow on-site catered events. He has the same reservations as Commissioner Stone and feels that more landscaping could be added. Chairtnan Menconi asked the applicant what would happen if they were denied. Mr. Kim stated that the barn will be their home. Chairman Menconi asked if the kitchen square footage would be removed if the application was denied. Mr. Kim stated that the agricultural nature of the barn would easily fill that space. They would still build the building at the current size and include the berming and landscaping that they proposed. Ms. Foster stated that they value their privacy. Chairman Menconi asked about the 850 square foot kitchen. Ms. Foster feels that it is small, as their current kitchen is 750 square feet and is fairly small. It's big enough to do the large events when they need to be done. They biggest wedding that they do is 250 to 300 people and don't want to do any bigger than that. Chairman Menconi asked if they would be agreeable to annual reviews, no on-site events, and limited delivery. Ms. Foster agreed to that and stated that delivery hours are M-F during normal hours, anyway. Chairman Menconi asked about the SUP being tied. to the owners. Ms. Foster stated that they expected it. Chairman Menconi stated that most testimony that would support denial would be because of subordinate use. He feels most of the testimony does not speak to the criteria for denial of the application. He feels with the elPport of the Planning Commission and Staff and the willingness of the Kim's to agree to conditions, he is willing . support this Special Use Permit. He feels that most of the impacts would be very small. Commissioner Runyon asked if a condition be added that the land not be subdivided in the future. Mr. Mathews stated that it could not be added. 17 6/28/05 Commissioner Stone stated that he is not in favor but liked the conditions that were added by the other Cotnmissioners. Chairman Menconi asked Commissioner Runyon ifhe is in favor of approval or denial. Commissioner Runyon stated that he would favor approval with conditions. Chairman Menconi stated his additional conditions: Annual compliance review of the operation; no on-si paid events with wiggle room for family events; reasonable limits on delivery hours (M-F 8-5); tied to ownership oj. the ptbpetty, and the landscaping and berming as stated in the hearing. He doesn't want a full landscape plan, though. Commissioner Stone moved to table File No. ZS-00130, at the applicant's request, until July 5, 2005. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There was discussion as to the proposed conditions. It was determined that events being held for their own family woul be permitted. ed until July 5, 2005. Attest: ~ '-I;~:: ~l&-'- Clerkfo the Board 18 6/28/05 Christopher II7(jt" e:l Caro{ 9dason PO Box 2540, Basalt, CO 81621-2540 Phone: 970-963-7030 (Carol) 970-963-8500 (Kit) Fax: 970-963-8510 Email: kit@ChristopherMason.comorcarol@EthereaIDesigns.com June 28, 2005 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners PO Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 Joe Fornash Eagle County Planning Department of Community Development PO Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Mountain Meadow Ranch Lot 34 Special Use Application ZS-00130 Dear Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and Planning Staff, As residents of Mountain Meadow Ranch (Lot 7, 102 Blue Creek Trail), we STRONGLY OBJECT to the approval of the above referenced application. We believe that this use of the property is not at all in conformity with or compatible with the existing area ... and especially with the pattern of high-end residential single family homes. Purpose . Our purpose today is not to call into question the right of the Kims to fair and reasonable use of their land ... or the construction of buildings which would provide them with the comfort of a home and the necessary structures with which to carry out their expressed agricultural interests. · It is, however, about what they are requesting in the application before you, which will have a significant and long lasting impact on those of us in the community. The Application . This application is NOT in conformity with or compatible with the existing or present direction of Missouri Heights development. o The Roaring Fork Valley, unlike most of Eagle County, has had existing development throughout the valley for years. o The Roaring Fork Valley, whose character has changed dramatically over the past thirty years, has consistently strived to control growth so as to improve its quality, protect the community at large and limit non-conforming and incompatible uses. o Missouri Heights is now undergoing a solid resurgence as the price of land escalates as does the value of homes being built. Most new homes now under development are at the $2 million plus mark. Concern . Anv commercial use outside the defined commercial areas in the valley is not consistent with, not in conformity with and not compatible with the changing nature and character of the community of Missouri Heights. o There are still a number of families who were raised here in an earlier age when they could do whatever they wanted with their land. This is no longer appropriate as the number and value of developed homes continues to grow. o Approval of this application would set a precedent for commercial use of this land beyond its historically agricultural use that has not existed legally on this mountain and about which many of us are concerned. Rather than encourage more commercial use, we would like to see the county enforce the existing regulations. Impact · Commercial use could significantly impact residential values ... especially if allowed in the scale and style as proposed. Structure . This IS a LARGE, COMMERCIAL UNATTRACTIVE BUILDING, not suitable to the surrounding community at all. o It is not residential or historically agricultural in nature. o It is inconsistent with what Mr. Kim represented in the hearings for his change in building envelope in May of 2002. · See pages 47 & 48 of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Hearing May 7,2002 o This not a "small barn" nor a "small greenhouse". When addressing the impact of the building on the surrounding community at the last meeting with Roaring Fork Planning Commission, Mrs. Kim stated that they had story poles erected... the problem is that they were not even close to the location of what is now proposed. Impact on the Surrounding Community · Visual: This is a large unsightly grey commercial industrial style building in the midst of a beautiful field ... seen by a large percentage of the home owners above and from the road. · Safety and Enjoyment of Others Property: The proposed grey metal standing seam roof is highly visible and highly reflective creating potential extreme safety hazards, as well as negative view and enjoyment issues for the uphill homeowners. 2 o We need only to drive down the valley and notice which structures are most offensive . .. large reflective roofs. Good of the community versus the wishes of one land owner . Mr. Kim stated emphatically in the last hearing that he "wants to do whatever he wants to on his land" ... apparently in total disregard for his neighbors. He even sued the homeowner's association to be exempt from the covenants so that he could do just that, with the association relenting only because of the endless and expensive lawsuit. Summary We ask the you, the County Commissioners and the trustees of our community to stand behind the standards of reasonable and fair development such that no one land owner can create an unreasonable and negative impact upon the community. We ask that you to categorically deny this application. istopher "Kit" and Carol Mason 3 Fred Wooden 0116 Caballo St. Carbondale, CO. 81623 28 June 2005 Eagle County Commissioners Eagle, Colorado Re:~S- CJt) /3" Dear Commissioners, I have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley for 10 years. I own my residence at 0116 Caballo St., Aspen Mesa Estates, Eagle County. Colorado. I wish to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change that would allow a catering business to be located on the old Fender property in my neighborhood. Please make my letter part of the public hearing and case file. I am opposed to the requested change for the following reasons; 1. A catering business is not compatible with the existing agricultural and residential character of the area. 2. A catering business will certainly increase vehicular traffic on an already busy, steep and narrow Upper Cattle Creek Rd. 3. Commerical property is readily available in El Jebel,just 1.5 miles from the site in question. To approve the request before you would violate a fundamental rule ofland use separation and, more than likely, Eagle County's own Master Plan. Please keep me informed of the disposition of this case and count on me for any help I can provide. Sincerely yours, J . ~L Fred Wooden 970-704-1243 ::," , . June 28, 2005 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Meeting in EI Jebel regarding Kim Special Use Permit EI Jebel, CO Dear Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, We have lived in the lower portion of Missouri Heights above EI Jebel directly across from the proposed commercial development for 29 years. We do not support the approval of the Kim Special Use Permit for a Home Business. First, by definition, asking for a permit to operate a "commercial" catering kitchen, immediately sends up a red flag that this is in no way a "home" business. I would think that in order to have a home business, first one needs to have a home and be running the business from within the confines of that home. This proposal states that the primary residence will be built at an unspecified later date. They do say they will build a residence in the original structure, but it appears that the living space is still a completely separate area from the proposed kitchen; consequently the business is still not being run from their "home." Also the proposed kitchen is to be 850 sq. ft., and a kitchen of that size does not appear to fit the definition of a "home" business. Second, in reading the proposal, we find way too much room for subjective interpretation. That is not to say the Kims will deliberately defy the intention of the permit, but that there is no guarantee that could not happen in the future. Some of the other concerns we have regarding the effects of having a business of that size in this area are: safety - increased traffic on the already crowded Upper Cattle Creek Rd. attraction of bears from cooking odors impact on deer and elk which have been in the area for years nuisance of noise and odor which will travel across the short valley The bottom line for us is that we purchased a home and chose to live in an area with residential/agricultural zoning for a reason. We did not want to be in an area with nearby commercial businesseses. We belileve the Kims should honor the zoning under which they purchased their property. If they want to have a business of that size, they should do that in a commercially zoned area. :z::~n~moconSidermiO~~ Larry and Lesley Ramell ~ 0217 Caballo Carbondale Co 81623 970-963-3477 \\uJG~~ " !' , ( il..~ tCH:r)'t~ - 1I1A J ii -.L. I ;/ 'v < '1 &1 IlQ-1<t,'te. ~? ;i.iJJ ~" ~C-GrrI7' ~ ~ ~ ~J,v<~ -Co "t"''f'c~~VYVL~-5r we~ '-\'lV0vL ~S ~. .Yvu ~ ~ I (. \ I' d' If \j"f-..~ ~+v liVthM.~ 1M ~fJv'G &t<; '~<:...{./--f M~ &-rIOS<cQ +" !,u,,, ~.~ - ~ klL' ~ A;('4j\J.- - ~ f 1) (,,{ ~ 4-v ~~ ~ v~ s"5 __ ~.~ ,~,-~.'AJ ,J~. t.. ~~ ~ ~ - '(+17 t--l.- 0~~hS. ~ ' ~ .~ t ~~ ~"J' Mrez.~ ~ ~\th r~ u-Cn.~./ r+ ~ 'rLJr '+~~ ~ &~ ~ ~,j...,' ~d~ ~ ~ ~, ".~ ')* I;W! \ fv-dw. ~ "'^4 ~ - W ~ ~ 4 ~~k~~ ~. LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 14TH STREET, SUITE 200 P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 dhm@lklawfirm.com DENVER OFFICE:'" W AZEE EXCHANGE BUILDING 1900 WAZEE STREET, STE. 203 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID H. McCONAUGHY JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST-HEATH SUSAN W.LAA TSCH NICOLE D. GARRIMONE ANNA S. ITENBERG MICHAEL J. SAWYER TERESA L. HOCK CASSIA R. FURMAN "(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) June 27, 2005 Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, Colorado EI Jebel Community Center VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Mountain Meadow Ranch Lot 34 Dear Commissioners: I have been asked to comment upon the Special Use Permit Application of Alexander Kim on behalf of my clients, Jay Leavitt and Kit Mason. Mr. Leavitt and Mr. Mason and I will offer testimony regarding the review standards set forth in Section 5-250 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations at the public hearing scheduled for June 28, 2005. Please accept this letter as part of the record to supplement that testimony. I. The Proposed Use is Not Eligible for Special Review Use A commercial kitchen is not permitted as a use by right, by special review, or by any other theory in the AR zone district. Because of this, the applicant is attempting to classify this use as a "home business." Article 2 ofthe Land Use Regulations defines a home business as follows: HOME BUSINESS means the conduct of a business, occupation or trade as an accessory use entirelv within a residential building or accessory structure for gain or support by residents of the dwelling and employees residing off-premises, that may serve patrons on the premises. A home business shall comply with the standards of Section 3-310 F.l., Home Business (Emphasis added). The application does not meet this definition because the proposed commercial barn is neither a residential building nor an accessory structure. .... As stated in the application, the proposed barn is a 7,500 square foot structure and is described as a "residential/agricultural building." However, the residential use is proposed to be initially 2,500 square feet (one tbiutgf.!he total), located entirely on the second floor. The commercial kitchen is proposed a~ot including the large garage or storage areas, located entirely on the ground floor. The residential area has its own separate kitchen. After the . Uti-ZT-U~ Ui:4tiAM FROM-ITALCO FOOD PRODUCTS +3037221982 T-977 P.02/02 F-557 ITALCO rOOD PQODUCT~, INC luae 20. 2005 To whom it may CopcetJ1, Alex ad La.... Kim I fusion CareriDJ bavc been doin& business wiIh Italco Foocl Pnxlucts.IDc.. for me last 10 years. J\.S a ~ pracuce Ibeir ~ ftom IUlk:o Food ~ IDe. 0I;C,'1IP twO to fololt times per mcxu:b. I clo DOt traDSpOn iD 1J'ICtOr1trai1er bllt smaller ~ II'\ICks. 1'ha!Ut Y QU. Mike Laurita RECEIVED JUN 27 2005 Eagle County Community Development I r""t\oII-, U.L, U.L Page 10ft Harry Mahleres From: Harry Mahler.s [harry@seattlefish.com] Sent: Wednelday, June 15,20055:03 PM To: 'Joe.ForinashCeaglecounty.us' Subject: Fusion Catering I have known Alex Kim from Fusion Catering for the last 12 years and have been doing business with his company since 1995. My seafood deliveries to him heve averaged 4 to 5 stops per month during the busy mountain season. Off--season deliveries were less, averaging 1 stop per month. If you require more information, please feel free to contact me. Harry Mahleres Director of Purchasing Seattle Fish Company Office: 303-329~9595 Ext. 121 Cell: 720-839-3126 Fax: 303-316-7656 E-mail: harry@seattlefish.com RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2005 Eagle County Community Development 6/27/2005 Dear Ms. Mauriello, I am writing to you as a homeowner in Missouri Heights concerning the above referenced Special Use zoning request that has been filed with Eagle County. As we are not full time residents, we only recently became aware of this application and have not had an opportunity to review the relevant application, staff report and Planning Commission determination. However, as I understand it, the Commission voted to approve this application which is for a catering business to be located in a residential area on Upper Cattle Creek Road, Missouri Heights, EI Jebel. My understanding is that the applicant's property is located in an AR zone and has applied for a special use permit. From what I have been told, it appears to me that there may be several grounds for denying this application, the most important of which appears to that the use will not meet the requirement of the Home Business definition of Section 3-310-IF 1 a. This section requires that the use be incidental and subordinate to use for residential purposes and shall not "change its basic residential character". Given the size and design it seems to me that this standard cannot be met. As we have just learned of this proposed action, we have not yet had an opportunity to hire counsel to assist us in this matter and need additional time to do so. I am requesting the Board to delay a decision on this matter until the relevant application and other documents are published on the Eagle County website so that a complete review of this application and the staff and Planning Commission determinations can be reviewed, analyzed and appropriate responses prepared and submitted. I would ask for an additional 30 day period subsequent to the posting of such full and complete information. Due Process would appear to require that an important and precedent setting decision be carefully and fully reviewed and that the pUblic have all available information in an accessible form prior to the decision being finalized. This email shall also constitute a request under the Freedom of Information Act to provide me with the same information. My contact information appears below. Gary L Auerbach Weinberg Richmond LLP 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 3128452534 312 807 3903 fax aauerbach@wr-lIp.com RECEIVED JUN 27 2005 Eagle County Community Development Joseph aDd SusaD Murphy 611 GleDwood Lane West Chester, PA 19380 616-911-0590 JUN 2 7 2005 AMDG RECEIVED Eagle County Community Development JUDe ZZ, Z005 Eagle COUDty GovemmeDt 500 Broadway Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631-0850 AtteDtioD: CommissioDer Tom StoDe ~.IJ'~~J~lImrf: ChairmaD Am eDcoDi Subject: MouDtain Meadow Ranch Lot 34 Special Use Application ZS-OOI30 Dear Gentlemen, We are frequent visitors to your beautiful Eagle County, being Vail enthusiasts in particular and "mountain country" enthusiasts in general. Almost monthly, we say to ounelves," let's move to Eagle County aDd enjoy God'. bounty in the fuUest". On aD of our visits, winter, SpriDg, summer and fall, we excitedly fiDd our way over to Missouri Heights to gaze upon Mt. Sopris from the abselutely magnificeDt vista of the outside deck at 1848 Upper Cattle Creek Road, CarboDdale, where our wonderful frieDds, Scott and NaDcy DeWind with daugbten, Christiana, Paris, ad Gabriella reside. For us Eastemers, the undisturbed vista is nothing less than spectacular. It is a momeDt of heaven OD earth! Ifwe were to name the experience of being OD the DeWind deck and gaziDg UPOD Mt. Sopris, the closest words are ULTIMATE PRISTINE SERENITY. (In any order) More to the point of the subject, we are shocked to leam that the subject Special Use ApplicatioD, exploitiDg resideDtiaI use for COMMERCIAL GAIN has progressed favorably through the respective jurisdictions as it rmds its way to tbe Board of COUDty Commissioners (BOCC) for next Tuesday's (6/28/05) meeting in EI JebeL In reading the particulars noted in the DeWind'sletter of June 14, 2005 to the appropriate jurisdictions about the subject application, it is amazing to us that the RECEIVED JUN 2 4 2005 Eagle Board pt County Page 2 submitter, Mr. Kim, has such utter disregard forhis neighbon' rights. It is equally amazing to us that the Eagle County Planning Staff and Roaring Fork Planning Commission has, thus far, chosen to support the submitter's utter disregard for his neighbon'rights. A current and prospective resident can only wonder, " what equitable treatment with regard to the preserving/enhancing of their homestead (its value, the quality of life, security for children, peacefulness, freedom from undue noise, odon, glare, etc.) CM lie expected from the Eagle County Planning Staft and the Roaring Fork Planning Commission?" Fortunately, for the DeWind's and their neighbon (and even for us, the frequent visiton to God's country and potential residents of Eagle County), there is the upcomiag review by your BOCC. We look forward to learning from our special friends, the DeWind's, that the subject application (for the 2rosslv non-conformin2. 2rossly incompatible. e2resdous special commercial use) was rejected resoundingly by the Eagle County DOCC. May you have the wisdom and courage to nile appropriately! Sincerely, Joseph A. Murphy t1 ~ur~ r-~- . Dear Ms. Mauriello, I am writing to you as a homeowner in Missouri Heights concerning the above referenced Special Use zoning request that has been filed with Eagle County. As we are not full time residents, we only recently became aware of this application and have not had an opportunity to review the relevant application, staff report and Planning Commission determination. However, as I understand it, the Commission voted to approve this application which is for a catering business to be located in a residential area on Upper Cattle Creek Road, Missouri Heights, EI Jebel. My understanding is that the applicant's property is located in an AR zone and has applied for a special use permit. From what I have been told, it appears to me that there may be several grounds for denying this application, the most important of which appears to that the use will not meet the requirement of the Home Business definition of Section 3-310-IF 1 a. This section requires that the use be incidental and subordinate to use for residential purposes and shall not "change its basic residential character". Given the size and design it seems to me that this standard cannot be met. As we have just learned of this proposed action, we have not yet had an opportunity to hire counsel to assist us in this matter and need additional time to do so. I am requesting the Board to delay a decision on this matter until the relevant application and other documents are published on the Eagle County website so that a complete review of this application and the staff and Planning Commission determinations can be reviewed, analyzed and appropriate responses prepared and submitted. I would ask for an additional 30 day period subsequent to the posting of such full and complete information. Due Process would appear to require that an important and precedent setting decision be carefully and fully reviewed and that the public have all available information in an accessible form prior to the decision being finalized. This email shall also constitute a request under the Freedom of Information Act to provide me with the same information. My contact information appears below. Gary L Auerbach Weinberg Richmond LLP 333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, Illinois 60606 3128452534 3128073903 fax qauerbach@wr-Ilp.com