No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/12/13 PUBLIC HEARING February 12, 2013 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Sara Fisher Commissioner Jill Ryan Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board 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: Resolution 2013-016 Supporting Starting Hearts and Sudden Cardiac Arrest Prevention Efforts in Eagle County Jennifer Ludwig, Public Health Ms. Ludwig spoke about February being American Heart Month. Heart disease was the leading cause of death for men and women in the United States and a leading cause of death in Eagle County. The county was pleased to be partnering with Starting Hearts and looking at other aspects of heart conditions. Starting Hearts was a local non-profit whose mission was to save lives. She introduced Lynn Blake, founder of Starting Hearts. Ms. Blake shared her story of survival after experiencing sudden cardiac arrest at 27. She developed the program to increase awareness, educate and save lives. There would be an event on February 14,2013 at the Sebastian in Vail. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.2013- Resolution Supporting the Starting Hearts Program and Sudden Cardiac Arrest Prevention Efforts in Eagle County WHEREAS, sudden cardiac arrest(SCA) is a leading cause of death in the United States; and WHEREAS, in 2013 an estimated 325,000 Americans will experience a SCA and only 8%will survive; and WHEREAS, CPR,provided immediately, can double or triple the chance of survival from an SCA; and WHEREAS, in rural communities the chance of survival decreases 7-10%for every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation; and WHEREAS, bystanders are reluctant to perform CPR because it is difficult to remember, training methods are inadequate, and concerns associated with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, and therefore only 33% of SCAs receive bystander CPR; and WHEREAS, the general increase of SCA awareness, the Good Samaritan Law,the introduction of hands- only CPR, legislation regarding CPR and AED education, and community defibrillator programs allow for an increase in prevention efforts that can save lives; and 1 02/12/2013 WHEREAS,Eagle County residents and guests could be at an increased risk for SCA due to an aging demographic,high-altitudes, colder temperatures, excessive lifestyle behaviors and a large underinsured population; and WHEREAS,the majority of sudden cardiac deaths are preventable by living a healthy lifestyle, exercising regularly, eating healthy foods,maintaining a reasonable weight, and avoiding smoking; and WHEREAS,the Starting Hearts Organization of Eagle County aims to increase general awareness about SCA among Eagle County residents and guests through its work to: 1. Educate the public about SCA as a preventable local and global health problem; 2. Increase general awareness of SCA among Eagle County residents and guests; 3. Educate residents and guests about saving lives through immediate recognition of SCA, calling 9-1-1, performing hands-only CPR, and using an AED; 4. Increase public education and access to AEDs through a comprehensive Community Access to Defibrillation program; 5. Collaborate with existing community organizations, such as the Vail Valley Medical Center, Eagle County Paramedic Services, Eagle County Public Health, Vail Fire Department, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and Gypsum Fire Protection District, to increase public awareness,and provide CPR/AED education; and 6. Implement a formal process for documenting and analyzing SCA in Eagle County and measuring project goals. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recognizes and supports the beneficial work of Starting Hearts in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. MOVED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 12th day of February 2013. Commissioner Ryan moved,read and adopted the resolution Supporting Starting Hearts and Sudden Cardiac Arrest Prevention Efforts in Eagle County. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of February 11, 2013 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance B. Approval of Payroll for February 21, 2013 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meeting for Jan. 15,Jan. 22 and Jan. 29,2013 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder D. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle County School District for Early Head Start Health Coordinator Maggie Swonger,Health&Human Services E. Resolution 2013-017 Ordering Cancellation of Certain Uncollectible Taxes Karen Sheaffer,Treasurer F. USDA Work and Financial Plan and Cooperative Service Agreement for Wildlife Hazard Assessment and Management Plan for Eagle County Regional Airport 2 02/12/2013 Chris Anderson, Airport Bryan Treu spoke about item E. Condominiums were built on a lease that was on State Land Board property, so the county got possessory interest based on the value of the lease. The lease had an escalating clause that made payments unobtainable and turned into a mess. The State Land Board came to a resolution,waving the lease payments owed. Delinquent interest was holding up the title work. Maggie Swonger explained that item D was a contract was for an Early Head Start Health Coordinator that provided services to 82 children enrolled in the program. This was the second year collaborating with the School District. Gregg Phillips spoke about item F. The assessment management plan was required for commercial airports. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation (ECAT) Chris Anderson, Airport 1. Approval of meeting minutes from Dec.4,2012 and Jan. 15,2013 Ms. Fisher moved to approve the meeting minutes for December 4, 2012 and January 15, 2013. Ms. Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Consideration of the First Amendment to Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Display Advertising Concession Agreement with Tiga Advertising Mr. Anderson explained that the downturn in the economy resulted in a hardship for Tiga Advertising and the bids submitted were unsustainable in the changing market conditions. The amendment would change the basic terms of the agreement, reducing the term to 2015,requiring annual renewals, and allowing Tiga Advertising the opportunity to succeed and continue to serve as ECAT's advertising concessionaire. Mr.Philips believed that bidding the job again might get them lower agreement levels then with the amended contract.Financially,they reduced their minimum annual guarantee but concurrently raised their percentage of gross requirement. As the economy improved,they would pay more. Ms. Fisher believed that having a local business was important but at the same time,the county needed to be conservative. Mr.Montag stated that number 6 of the agreement outlined the past due amounts and what Tiga Advertising would be paying ECAT to bring them up to date. Mr. Anderson stated much of what was owed had been paid. Ms.Fisher moved to approve the first amendment to the ECAT display advertising concession agreement. Mr.Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 02/12/2013 3. New Business Mr. Philips spoke about an article he read in the New York Times. Today was the 4th anniversary of the accident in Buffalo,New York, four years since a fatal accident in the United States. 2012 marked the safest year in aviation history since 1945. The death risk in flying was 1 in 45,000,000 flights. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. State of the County Presentation Kris Friel,Communications Chairman Stavney congratulated the Communication Department for a job well done on the Annual Report and acknowledged the Elected Officials in attendance. He spoke about the Annual Report and believed the quick facts were a great resource. He thanked the county employees for keeping the county running so well and added that their efforts were appreciated. He was excited about the collaboration between the county and Augustana for the skilled nursing assisted living facility. He hoped that by spring the project would begin moving forward. He spoke about the Open Space program and the properties purchased over the last 10 years. He recognized Gregg Phillips for his achievements at the airport. Commissioner Ryan thanked the employees of Eagle County for their dedication and energy making life better for the citizens of Eagle County. She highlighted some important areas moving forward,which included emergency preparedness, environmental sustainability, maintaining river health, economic development, and a community health center that would provide services to anyone in the community regardless of insurance status. Commissioner Fisher acknowledged former county commissioner Peter Runyon. She recognized all the county employees for their accomplishments, commitment, and contributions. She acknowledged Teak Simonton for her work addressing salaries for elected officials and Mark Chapin for serving as the President of the Colorado Assessors Association during 2012. Karen Sheaffer was appointed first Vice President of International Association of Clerks,Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers and would soon be sworn in as president. Keith Montag continued to serve as the President of the Association of Colorado County Administrator. Bryan Treu served on the Colorado County Attorney's Association. Sherriff Hoy was also very active on a statewide level. She spoke about the other awards received throughout the county and employee accomplishments. She looked forward to 2013 and working together within the valley. The board presented the 2012 Years of Service Awards. Years of Service Full Name: Home Department: in 2012 Robert Baron Airport 5 Reyna Medrano Sheriff 5 Scott Lingle Information Technology 5 Jake Best Sheriff 5 Kristina Hollinger HHS-Economic Services* 5 Scott Peterson Sheriff 5 Ericka Soto Clerk&Recorder 5 Kimber Walker ECO Transit 5 Kim Williams Housing 5 4 02/12/2013 Eva Wilson Engineering 5 John Lewis Finance 5 Karen Sepp Planning 5 David Blum Information Technology 5 Laura Sambrano Clerk&Recorder 5 Modesto Sanchez Road&Bridge 5 Claudia Montes HHS-Child Family&Adult Services* 5 Vanesa Doty HHS-Public Health* 5 Robert Ernzen ECO Transit 5 Lori Gunther Animal Services 5 Carla Kempton Clerk&Recorder 5 Maria Elizalde HHS-Child Family&Adult Services* 5 Juan Reyes ECO Transit 5 Kristie Williamson HHS-Economic Services* 5 Corey Bruce Sheriff 5 Bonnie Embry Assessor 5 Amy Szczesny GIS 5 John Strubel Fleet Services 5 Evelyn Velasco HHS-Child Family&Adult Services* 5 George Dow Sheriff 5 Ben Gerdes Engineering 5 Denise Matthews HHS-Fiscal&Operations* 5 John Thatcher Fleet Services 5 Rosa Garcia HHS-Child Family&Adult Services* 5 Tom Hyatt Finance 5 Scott Hendrickson Sheriff 5 John Berry Recycling 5 Justin Winstead Sheriff 5 Jayne Borden Treasurer 10 Brad Porter Sheriff 10 Andrew Vigil Sheriff 10 Matt Jaramillo Road&Bridge 10 Aaron Veldheer Sheriff 10 Katina Renzelman ECO Transit 10 Melissa Zintsmaster Clerk&Recorder 10 Barry Smith Emergency Management 10 Kathy Lawn Airport 10 Ellen Taylor Sheriff 10 Mercedes Garcia HHS-Public Health* 10 Steve Ramsey Sheriff 10 Douglas Crabb ECO Transit 10 Griffin Wright Sheriff 10 5 02/12/2013 Bradley Harrison Airport 10 Nicole Sisneros HHS-Fiscal&Operations* 10 Lori Siefers Engineering 10 Chad Puglise Sheriff 10 Daniel Hanson Sheriff 15 Leonard Valdez Sheriff 15 Colleen Wirth Building Inspection 15 Dan Stanek Building Inspection 15 Ray Long Road&Bridge 15 Rita Woods HHS-Fiscal&Operations* 15 Robbie Arndt Finance 20 Pat Magdziuk Clerk&Recorder 25 Mike McWilliam Sheriff 25 Karen Sheaffer Treasurer 25 Bill Kaufman Sheriff 25 Tom Hyatt and John Lewis acknowledged Robbie Arndt for her 20 years of service in the Finance Department. Teak Simonton recognized Pat Magdziuk for her 25 years of service in the Clerk and Recorders Office. Karla Bagley recognized Karen Sheaffer for her 25 years of service in the Treasurer's Office. Sherriff Hoy recognized Mike McWilliams and Bill Kaufman for their 25 years of service in the Sherriff's Office. Chairman Stavney recognized Keith Montag and Rachel Oys. Commissioner Fisher recognized Sharee Wettstein for the work she did keeping the commissioners in line. Keith Montag thanked the Board of County Commissioners and Peter Runyon for their support, leadership, and vision. He looked forward to working with the new board. Work Sessions (recorded) ECO Transit Spine Service Feasibility Study Kelley Collier, ECO Transit Planning Files El Jebel Community Center ZS-3642 and ZC-3643 Dragonfly Ranch Sean Hanagan,Planning Greg Schroeder,Engineering Doug Pratte, Applicant's Representative Alex and Laura Kim,Applicants 6 02/12/2013 ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a Resort Recreation Facility and Home Business to include a rezone to Resource(R)from Agricultural Residential (AR). LOCATION: 0069 Vista High Drive, Carbondale Area FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-3642/ZC-3643 SUP and Zone Change PROJECT NAME: Dragonfly Ranch LOCATION: 0069 Vista High Drive OWNER: Alexander and Laura Kim APPLICANT: Owner REPRESENTATIVE: Doug Pratte-The Land Studio STAFF PLANNER: Sean Hanagan 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant requests review of a Special Use permit for Resort Recreation Facility to be located on the Kim property.The Resort Recreation Facility proposes to include: • An indoor/outdoor special events venue(Guest Ranch)to accommodate up to 130 guests.Proposed uses include: 1. "Farm to Fork"dinners 2. Weddings 3. Corporate retreats 4. Family reunions 5. Seasonal cooking/gardening classes 6. Guest Lodging(Reservation Only) • Up to 26"events"per year not to exceed 2 per week. • Maximum of 12 events will serve not more than 130 guests and staff. • Maximum of 24 events will serve not more than 70 guests and staff • up to 30 vehicles maximum on the property • 8 guest rooms open year round available by reservation only. • 1800 square foot ADU(allowed within the Resource Zone District) The Kim parcel is a 46-acre AR zoned parcel currently being used for agricultural,residential and home business uses. The Dragonfly Ranch currently produces 35 acres of certified"Weed Free"hay as well as houses the operations of Fusion Catering. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: nd. Zoning Ownership' North: Residential AR Private South: Residential AR Private East: Residential R Private West: Residential R Private 7 02/12/2013 Existing Zoning:? Agricultural Residential(AR)10 acre Proposed Zoning: Resource(R)35 acre Current Development: Single Family Residential with agricultural structures Site Conditions: Total Land Area: Acres: 46.785 Square feet: 2,037,954.6 Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: Private: X Sewer: Public: Private: X Access: Upper Cattle Creek Road/El Jebel Road 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district,but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division,this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 8 gg 0 tS • PLUM o & c . Designation Exceeds Recommendations 8 02/12/2013 Incorporates Majority of X X X2 X X3 Xs X6 Reeonamendations Does Not; Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X X X4 X2-Please refer to the letter from Eagle County Engineering dated June 6th 2012 and Feb 5th 2013 X3-No specific concerns were indicated by CDOW X4-This site is not located in an area of sensitive lands X5-Sound issues should be mitigated as a result of the facilities location as well as construction/insulation. See attached noise study conducted by Hankard Environmental. X6-FLUM is silent to this parcel of land currently zoned AR. 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. The Mid Valley Master Plan recognizes this parcel as one designated for"Agriculture". The Dragonfly Ranch proposal seeks to continue this use on 95%of the parcel. The proposed use may also allow for others to take part in the agricultural experience. Agricultural experiences such as this one help to promote the open rural character of the mid valley region. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards.[Section 5-250.B.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 Applicable to Particular Residential,Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. As proposed, the Resort Recreation facility will be located in a Resource Zone district. 48 beds are considered the maximum numbers that are permitted through this Special Use Permit. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize 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. Exceeds EMIR Requirements Satisfies" ' 'ECLUR ; Xi X X X X2 X Requirements" 9 02/12/2013 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable X X XI—Currently the parcel has two access points. The primary access point located at Vista High drive and Upper Cattle Creek road has been improved to bring site distance into compliance. The improvement was done by removing tree branches which obstructed views of Upper Cattle Creek from Vista High drive. Eagle County Engineering has developed a condition to insure this site distance is maintained. Please refer to Traffic study completed by SGM. X2-Please refer to conclusions contained within the Hankard Environmental noise conducted on the property on EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental 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. Over 95 %(43 acres) of the site is to remain as active Agricultural operations. 4 a 8 o t il i b t 3 1 g x <C 0 as w GIS E., Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement Xl X X X X2 X X3 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable Xl-Please refer to correspondence from the Noone Law Firm as well as Wright Water Engineers for a discussion of water rights associated with the property. X2-Please refer to conclusions contained within the Hankard Environmental noise study conducted on the property X3-Please refer to the traffic study conducted by SGM. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit 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. 10 02/12/2013 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR. ` X X X2 Requirements Does Not Satisfy .ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X X1-Please refer to the Eagle County Engineering memos dated April 30th and June 5th and Feb 5th 2013 X2-Please refer to BRFPD the letter dated April 20th 2012 • EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Caad o, ' z X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards(Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards(Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations(Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection(Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls(Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection(Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report(Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards(Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration(Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates(Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare,Radiation and Electrical Interference(Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials(Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards(Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards(Section 4-620) See Condition#3 X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630) 11 02/12/2013 X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards(Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards(Division 4-7) NOT APPLICABLE EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Zone Change: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(9)]—The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning Land Use Zoning Ownership North: Residential/Agricultural AR Private South: Residential AR Private East: Residential R Private West: Residential RR Private Existing Zoning: Agricultural Residential(AR) 10 acre Proposed Zoning: Resource(R)35 acre Current Development: Single Family Residential with agricultural structures Site Conditions: Total Land Area: Acres: 46.785 Square feet: 2,037,954.6 Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: Private: X Sewer: Public: Private: X Access: Upper Cattle Creek Road The general character of the area is rural in nature and consists of mostly residential and agricultural/open space parcels. The majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned either Resource(R)or 12 02/12/2013 Agricultural Resource(AR)with the exception parcels to the west that are zoned Rural Residential (RR). The parcel is located in the early portions of what ultimately becomes 2 acre lot residential in nature. A zone change from AR to R would have very little impact on the compatibility of the parcel with surrounding parcel. The proposed Special use would however bring the possibility of compatibility issues with regard to traffic and nuisance. The applicant has attempted to address these concerns by limiting hours of operation as well as the number of vehicles on the property. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(10)]—The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 FLU M p Designation a �'. ff ' U A W P4 S a W Exceeds. Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X1 X2 X4 X5 X6 X8 X9 Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X X3 X7 Xl: Development • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County" The subject property, in its current state, is predominantly natural and the proposed Zone Change/Special Use will not necessitate a major modification of the site conditions. • "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The proposal attempts to preserve open space by maintaining>43 acres of land in an Agricultural Tract • "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives" Not Applicable • "Promote compact,mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The parcel is located less than one and a half miles from the community of El Jebel. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". The proposed use of the parcel could infuse money into the local economy. • "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". The proposal includes a 43 acre Agricultural Tract. "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". N/A. "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". See previous FLUM discussion 13 02/12/2013 "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". Any additional development on the parcel is required to be located within the current building envelope. • X2: Economic Resources • "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". See compatibility discussion • "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance" NM • "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population" The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. • "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities" The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. • "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing • "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population" No commercial zoning is proposed. • "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". No Service commercial development is proposed for this application. • "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The proposed Special Use Permit would attempt to service the local community as well as visitors to the area. • "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development,pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". • X3: Housing • "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". • "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". No significant development is proposed. • "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". No significant development is proposed. • "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". No significant development is proposed. • "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". No significant development is proposed. • X4: Infrastructure and Services • "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". No significant development is proposed. • "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development" NM • "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". NM • Encourage transit oriented development NM. • "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking': NM "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops,schools, businesses,parks,playgrounds,etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". N/A. • "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". NM • "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces,store fronts, landscaping,plaza areas,marked cross walks and traffic speed controls': NM • "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". NM • "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". NM • "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". See Eagle County Engineering comments 14 02/12/2013 • "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". N/A • " "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity" N/A • "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". A 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be not be required. • "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". N/A • "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". N/A • "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". NM X5: Water Resources • "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The application has evidenced sufficient water to service the project.. • "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". NM • "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". NM • "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination" NM • "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible"The development will minimize impervious coverage whenever possible. • "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources" AMA • "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". NM • "Evaluate efficiencies of non potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". NM • "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". Existing on parcel • "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". NM • "Require the demonstration of the availability of real(wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application" NM • "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts" NM • "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan" NM • "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution" Best Management Practices will be required with regard to any grading activities. • "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". N/A • "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals" NM • "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". NM • "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". NM X6: Wildlife Resources • "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration". N/A • "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". All additional disturbances will be concentrated in the approved envelopes. • "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of best management practices will be utilized • "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". All additional disturbances will be concentrated in the approved envelopes. • "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Wildlife-proof refuse containment receptacles are currently required throughout Eagle County. • "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". NM • "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". NM • "Minimize site disturbance during construction". This proposal seeks to utilize a previously disturbed area for development. • "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". NM • "Require wildlife proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". Wildlife-proof refuse containment will be required on-site. 15 02/12/2013 X7: Sensitive Lands • "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use" N/A • "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". N/A • "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification". NM • Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". NM • "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". NM. • "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual,historic, and archeological value during the decision making process': The subject property is previously developed parcel. X8: Environmental Quality • "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents,second home owners and visitors': NM • "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". N/A • "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting". NM • "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary re-vegetation of stockpiles and permanent re-vegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". NM • "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points" These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. • "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". N/A • "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees': NM. • "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". N/A • "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". NM • "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". NM • Implement energy efficiency guidelines. NM • Implement energy saving techniques. N/A • X9: Future Land Use Map Designation The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Unrecognized. The subject property has been used historically for Agriculture as well recent residential development. Standard: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D2]Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. The general character of the area is rural in nature and consists of mostly residential and agricultural/open space parcels. The majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned either Resource(R)or Agricultural Resource(AR)with the exception parcels to the west that are zoned Rural Residential(RR). The parcel is located in the early portions of what ultimately becomes small lot residential in nature.A zone change from AR to R would have very little impact on the compatibility of the parcel with surrounding parcel. The proposed Special use would however bring the possibility of compatibility issues with regard to traffic and nuisance. The applicant has attempted to address these concerns by limiting hours of operation as well as the number of vehicles on the property. Standard:Public Benefit.Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. 16 02/12/2013 If approved,the proposed use could provide opportunities for local residents and visitors to experience the unique nature of the property as well as take part in experiences that may otherwise not be available to them. Additionally, a zone change from AR to R would preclude any further subdivision of the parcel which would ensure the preservation of the agricultural land contained on the parcel. Standard: Change of Circumstances. Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Staff is not aware of any measureable change in the circumstances within the area of the proposed Zone change. Standard:Adequate Infrastructure. Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? The basic infrastructure needed to access this property currently exists. B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering/Road&Bridge-Please refer to the attached Eagle County Engineering memos dated April 30th, as well as the follow up dated June 5th and Feb 5th. Eagle County Healthy Communities-Please refer to the email. Basalt Rural Fire District-Please refer to letter dated April 20th 2012 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing. • Eagle County:Attorney's Office, Surveyor, Sherriff's Office, Attorney, CSU Extension • Other: CDOW, Basalt Water Conservation District, Mid Valley Trails, RAFTA, CenturyTel, Ambulance District. • Homeowners Associations: Mountain Meadow Ranch, Aspen Mesa Estates, Fox Run Meadows, Red Table Acres, Sopris Mesa and Blue Lake C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: At their regularly scheduled meeting on September 6th 2012 the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the application for the Dragonfly Ranch Zone Change and Special Use Permit. The motion to recommend denial read; `I motion deny the Special Use Permit and Zone Change on the basis that the application will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare and the proposed use is not in tune with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan." At the time of the vote the outstanding issues were; Traffic impacts to El Jebel/Upper Cattle Creek Road, impacts to the intersection of Valley Road and Highway 82, noise concerns as well as impacts to groundwater levels in the area. At the time, both Temple Glassier and Ken Ransford stated that they would be able to support a similar use in a smaller less impactful version. Members of the commission recommended the applicant and the neighbors work together to modify the application prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearings. Dragonfly Ranch drew a large amount of public comment during the process and in light of this level of interest staff included all correspondence from the public in the staff report. The correspondence has been segregated into those letters and emails written to the Planning Commission and those written to the BoCC. Please be aware that some of these letters and emails are duplicates and may appear in both distinct sets of correspondence. Summary Analysis: This proposal for the Dragonfly Resort Recreation Facility on this property may: 17 02/12/2013 1. Provide a unique Agricultural experience for the public 2. Help to preserve the agricultural nature of the property through downzoning from Agricultural Residential (AR)to Resource(R) and recognizing current building envelopes. 3. Provide local economic benefits as well as additional tax revenue to Eagle County. This proposal for the Dragonfly Resort Recreation Facility on this property will create the following concerns: 1. Bring additional traffic to the lower portion of Upper Cattle Creek Road. 2. Create a possible nuisance D. Board of County Commissioners OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ZONE CHANGE] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ZONE CHANGE] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ZONE CHANGE] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT/ZONE CHANGE] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). E. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. This Special Use Permit shall be valid for a period of not more than three (3) years prior to actual implementation of the permitted use. Upon implementation of the approved use, such the permit shall remain valid, in perpetuity, and shall run with the land thereafter unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Eagle County's Road&Bridge department shall monitor the condition of Vista Hi Drive, and shall submit an annual invoice to the applicant to cover the costs for applying additional surface treatments such as magnesium chloride, and other necessary additional maintenance tasks as required for the increase in traffic and road maintenance from the Vista Hi Drive/Upper Cattle Creek intersection to the applicant's entrance, a distance of approximately 375 feet. 4. The applicant shall monitor the condition of tree branches and other vegetative material that may obstruct the clear sight distance to the north at the Upper Cattle Creek Road/Vista Hi Drive intersection.The applicant shall arrange for removal of this material if it obstructs sight distance. 18 02/12/2013 5. The applicant shall provide a traffic study to document the proposed use for a two year period.. The traffic study will contain all requested data outlined in the Eagle County Engineering memo dated April 30th 2012 DISCUSSION: Ms. Ayres-Oliver provided some backup information about what the board would be considering. She explained that it was not about how many people wanted or did not want the proposal,but whether the zoning change was appropriate based on Land Use Regulations. The board would look at whether the proposed use satisfied certain requirements and some conditions and requirements would overlap. The decision should be based on the standards and regulations. She asked that all be respectful of each other. Chairman Stavney made some opening statements and disclosed that he had seen the property and had a campaign event at the property last fall. Mr. Hanagan stated that there were two files being considered. He provided a vicinity map of the property. He spoke about the history of plat 34. He spoke about minimum lot size for Agriculture. The summary was a Resort Recreational facility. The applicant was asking for a special use permit. "Resort Recreational facility" zoning allowed for a Dude Ranch,Educational facility,base camp,hunting or fishing camp and other like uses. There were limited standards and some limitations capping the number of beds. The proposal was well below the maximum allowed. He showed some drawings of the proposed building. Greg Schroeder spoke about traffic mitigation. The applicant would cap at 12 events per year utilizing shuttle services and staggering arrival times. The applicant would stay below the threshold requiring a right turn lane. He provided information about traffic counts. He looked at road capacity and used the Highway Performance Monitoring System(HPMS)Manual. This calculation calculated about 875 passenger cars per hour. This took into consideration road grades,no passing zones,truck and large vehicle traffic. The overall capacity of the road was 8750 trips per day. He talked about the existing conditions. He showed comparable county Road Vehicle Trip data. He compared the proposed Dragonfly Ranch potential trips and came up with an average daily trip number of 3-4 trips. Mr. Hanagan spoke about the granting of special use permits and their potential time limits to mitigate the future traffic issues. The proposal may help to preserve agricultural values of the property. It may provide local economic benefits and tax revenues. It may provide a unique agricultural experience for the public. The concerns included additional traffic and a possible sound nuisance. He reviewed the suggested conditions. He stated that there were two separate files being heard. The first file being heard was the zone change and the second was the special use permit. Doug Pratt,planner for the Land Studio spoke to the board. He presented some information. He characterized it as a big picture view of the proposal including goals,history and progress. The goal was to establish a resort recreational facility creating a unique and diversified guest ranch experience. The property was approximately 47 acres in size, and 40 acres was certified weed free. The owners also ran a catering business from the property. Agricultural tourism was an up and coming industry. Agriculture had been a big part of Colorado and a staple of the economy. The applicant had reduced the number of events throughout the year and reduced the number of guests per event. They proposed 12 large and 24 smaller events throughout the year. There would be up to 8 guest rooms. The property was currently zoned agricultural and residential. About 39%was contiguous to Resource zoning with the remaining contiguous to Agricultural zoning. There were many residences on Missouri Heights and the property in question was one of the largest parcels. There was very little irrigated land on:Missouri Heights. The best thing that could be done was to continue to irrigate which would help to replenish ground water supplies. Water rights would continue to be used on the property. They had a meeting with Missouri Heights' neighbors. Issues included consistency with the comprehensive plan, compatibility and minimization of impacts. Dragonfly ranch had been part of the neighborhood for 12 years. There was no Conservation Easement on the property. Home occupation commercial kitchens were legal and inspected. Commissioner Fisher asked about the history of the building envelopes and the remaining property. Mr. Wright explained that the building envelope was moved in 2001 to get further from the high power lines and to preserve as much as the land for agriculture purposes as possible. Commissioner Fisher stated that the previous owner wanted to keep the property agricultural. Chairman Stavney stated that current zoning would allow up to 4-10 acre parcels. It would also require a plat change and a subdivision. 19 02/12/2013 Mr. Pratt explained that the owners were trying to keep the property in agriculture. Agro Tourism was a growing concept. The traffic study indicated that the proposal would create less traffic than subdividing into 4 parcels. They tried to address concerns in the recent refinements. He presented areas in which the proposal was consistent with the Master and Comprehensive Plans. The proposal met most minimum standards. Chairman Stavney spoke about the fact that the owner has the rights and the two points in question were compatibility with the Master Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. Mr.Pratt spoke about public benefit. Re-zoning eliminated the potential for subdivision of the property. He spoke about Rural Character being the guiding theme in the Mid Valley Master Plans. Agricultural was part of rural character. There was an opportunity for Dragonfly not to exceed reasonable noise limits. 50 Decibels was the equivalent of a residential refrigerator. They would commit to not exceeding this level. He spoke about water. The proposed uses would reduce the water used. The decree was 6600 gallons per day for maximum peak day water use, and the estimate was 3500 per day for the proposed use. The 3500 was based on use on an event day. Irrigation was separate. He spoke about the existing wastewater system along with a second engineered system once the guest building is completed. Mr. Pratt summarized and asked for support from the board. Laura Kim read a letter for the record about what they were proposing. Her husband was a gifted chef and they intended to create a first class experience for guests. They cared about their neighbors and quality of life in the area. She spoke about opposing letters. The uproar had been spearheaded by a few to create an atmosphere of conflict and fear. She took the opportunity to address some of the statements. They conducted their lives and business with integrity and operated within the rules. They did not sue neighbors to get out of the Homeowner's Association. The previous owner was supportive of past changes to the property. They had not violated current provisions. They had a current legal home business. They proposed a small, diversified and sustainable business model. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Tim Whitsitt spoke first. He represented the Homeowner's Association. The dominant physical feature was the amphitheater configuration. There were 20 or 25 houses visible from the ranch and in essence put the ranch at their front door. There were two separate issues to consider. The zone change should be considered first and then the special use permit. There were five standards by which these requests should be judged. A beneficial change in circumstances needed to have occurred to justify the change in zoning. Over the course of 30 years,the area had developed into a solid residential neighborhood. Chairman Stavney stated that the change in circumstance was regarding the application and the land in question. Mr.Whitsitt stated he believed it was related to the neighborhood. The Land Use Code stated that the neighborhood must have changed to justify the change in zoning. There must also be compatibility with surrounding uses. The neighborhood believed the use was not compatible. Traffic may be a problem,which would create a nuisance. Conformance with plans was also out of sync. It did not conform with the rural residential character of Missouri Heights. There were no other commercial uses. The new Master Plan called for only community serving commercial in a residential neighborhood. He felt it did not conform to the Master Plan. There was a representation,but he had no idea of how some of the representations could be accomplished. He believed that consistency with plans and compatibility with neighboring uses was important. There was also inadequate service by public facilities. He believed the Resort Recreational Facility definition was not similar to any of the activities listed. Chairman Stavney stated that lodging and dining were listed under Recreational Facilities. Mr. Whitsitt felt the application was absent on the recreational facility component. The second special use was for the home business. The application asked for outdoor events that violated the terms of the special use permit. The Kims did a noise study and determined that noise would not be an issue. Chairman Stavney wondered about two special use permits and whether this was a required delineation. Mr. Hanagan spoke about home business and home occupation. The difference was that a home occupation was a right and the home business must be specially approved and provide for employees. The definition of Resort Recreational Facilities allowed some discretion. Commissioner Ryan stated that if the special use was approved for the Resort Recreational Facility would it allow the home business. 20 02/12/2013 Mr. Hanagan stated that the special use permit would allow home business activities. Commissioner Fisher asked for further clarification between home occupation and home business. She wondered about delivery trucks and other people coming and going. The Kims stated that the deliveries would still be once or twice per week. Commissioner Fisher wondered about other types of deliveries such as special equipment, chairs,tables etc. Lesley Rameil spoke about the Kim residence and the fact that the ranch was in view from her home. She spoke about compatibility with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. She tried to go from the staff report to the applicant's report. The staff report did not refer to anything under zone change. The staff report referred to the application as a Planned Unit Development. Chairman Stavney stated that some of the references in the staff report were boiler plate. He stated that the economic benefit was not germane to the application at hand. Ms. Rameil spoke about the core values in the plan. Part of the compatibility was related to the Mid-Valley Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations should be considered. She appreciated the desire to continue growing hay. Chairman Stavney asked about anyone having an issue with the agricultural aspect of the property. Ms.Rameil referred to the Mid Valley Master Plan. Game mitigation and wildlife could be negatively affected. She felt the road was not safe without the shuttles. She believed that people were independent and would not like the shuttle requirement. In the evenings,there would be increased traffic and at these times, it could be a problem. She spoke about the home business aspect. The number of events and people were too extreme. The majority of the events would likely be in the summer and outdoors. Commissioner Ryan stated that there had already been parties at the Kim's home and wondered if events could be heard by neighbors. Ms. Rameil stated that there has been noise. There was a lot of outdoor lighting. She could hear the noise inside her house with windows open. Dan Hilson spoke to the board. He and his wife were property owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property. He was not concerned about agriculture. He and his wife were concerned about noise,impact and surrounding neighbor impacts. He did not believe the proposed use was compatible with comprehensive or long range plans. He spoke about the possibility of wildfire hazard. The area was already an area at risk. There was the possibility of camping within the Special Use Permit definitions. There were eight wells on the property. The local water table had been dropping in the last 10 years. A commercial retail facility would drain the existing water table for the entire neighborhood. The application had not accurately estimated the expected water usage according to the hydrologist he hired. The burden of proof was on the applicant for the zoning change. Granting the zoning change would be contrary to the land use regulations. He spoke about specific provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Two different Planning and Zoning Commissions say the proposed use was not consistent with Master Plans. He spoke about case law. There may have been a changed condition,but it predated the applicant's ownership. Commissioner Ryan asked about noise,view shed, and illumination. Mr. Hilson stated that none of these had affected him at his home. Gary Auerbach spoke to the board. He owned property on Missouri Heights. He spoke about monitoring and enforcement of conditions that might be applied. He heard about complaints to the county in the past that had not been addressed. Conditions that could not be enforced made it more reasonable to deny the application. Chairman Stavney spoke about complaints. Mr.Hanagan stated that there had been no violations reported that had credence in relation to the property. Chairman Stavney shared his concerns with the conditions,which are very difficult to enforce. Jay Leavitt agreed with previous statements made by those opposed to the approval. Lois Evans spoke to the board. She lived about 200 yards from the Kim's property. She felt strongly about the character of the peaceful environment and character of the Missouri Height's area. The applicant was still planning on having amplified music outside no later than 8 p.m. She had never heard a big party at the Kim's residence. She did hear flute music from their residence. She believed the proposed activities were simply parties, rather than agricultural tourism. She was also concerned about the traffic. She was concerned about the shuttle location and how busy that small stretch of road already was. Cathleen Krahe spoke about the proposal. She recently toured the property and had not seen any agriculture besides some herbs and the weed free hay. Scott Dewind spoke to the board. He lived right behind the property to the north. They were concerned with noise. He was worried about the adverse effect from Magnesium Chloride to maintain the road base. He 21 02/12/2013 believed the property values would go down if this application were approved. He showed the history of the plats. He did not believe it was right for the applicants to profit on the sacrifice of the neighborhood. Sandy Karp spoke. He had lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. He could not see how a motel or lodge was compatible with anything that currently existed on Missouri Heights.He was also concerned about noise. He also spoke about the joggers,walkers and bikers on the road. Barbara Brett spoke to the board and was also a resident of Missouri Heights. She had not heard anyone mention the precedent that this proposal could create. She was worried about the potential snowball effect. She asked for scrutiny of the proposal, as it would affect many residents significantly. She believed that moving the proposal forward was a mistake. Chairman Stavney stated that the Land Use Regulations did not speak to precedent; however, it could impact neighboring uses for future Special Use Permits. Penny Carruth spoke. She and her husband were real estate agents. She and her husband also had a similar experience in Garfield County and moved to Missouri Heights because of it. She believed it was already open space by zoning. Chairman Stavney spoke about Planning Commission Members speaking up as neighbors affected by land use applications. Joe Edwards spoke. He lived a mile and a half away and could hear parties in the summer. There were hundreds of homes that would suffer from additional intrusion if this was approved. The Master Plan talked about remote,rural and peaceful,all of which would be compromised if this was approved. He spoke about the road deficiencies for truck traffic. The property was not farm to table. Stephen Ellsperman spoke to the board. He sat on the Roaring Fork Planning Commission however was not in place when the file went through so did not comment or make any specific comments related to the file. Ms. Ayres-Oliver did not believe it was appropriate for him to speak as a member of the public or give his opinion. Mr. Ellsperman stated that he would stand by his letter that was previously submitted to the board. Molly Hunsaker spoke about the section of road in the summertime. The Missouri Heights area was a renowned training area for bikers. She feared for recreational users. Ms. George Lilly spoke to the board. She lived further up the hill,but the traffic did bother her and she was terrified using the road after living here for 30 years. Garret Reusch spoke to the board. He thanked the Kims for trying to move this forward in a responsible way. He thought the vision they had come up with was forward thinking and sustainable. He believed it could serve as a great amenity to the valley. Chairman Stavney thanked everyone for his or her comments. He would allow the applicant to respond. Mr.Wright responded to the board. He spoke about the petition and stated that it was inaccurate based on the application. The application and staff comments supported change in agriculture and it was an appropriate opportunity for re-zoning. It was over the top for anyone to say they were asking for a restaurant,hotel or party place. The noise was not coming from their property. The board had the discretion to see that this was a compatible use and impacts were very limited and the proposal complied with the 1991 Master Plan. There were a lot of commercial uses in the neighborhood. There was already a canine facility, catering companies, landscape companies,hay production, an art center, and an equestrian facility. He acknowledges that it was difficult for the board when there were battling experts. The opportunity to offer dining and lodging was absolutely part of a special use permit. The applicants were low impact and low key and he believed the application was the same. The water consultants were not using the right measures. It was within the board's discretion to decide if the use was compatible. The board has reviewed an extensive record. Many of the speakers insinuated that the owners did not desire a peaceful environment. He believed the experts in relation to the traffic experts and the fact that the impact would be minimal. The owners have had only a few parties in the last few years. No outside music was being proposed. He had not heard any expert tell him that if this application was approved property values would decline Mr. Pratt explained the shuttle proposal. The shuttle was an attempt to alleviate traffic on the road. He spoke about fire risk. The irrigated meadow was probably the best fire protection. Chairman Stavney stated that the water issues needed further research in the process of analyzing the viability of this application. There were properties near Reudi that were rezoned. In talking about events, each event was one day. Laura Kim stated that when they did their noise study,they used a band to create the most noise possible to find out what kind of noise they were capable of,but this was the first time they had a live band in 5 years of living 22 02/12/2013 there. They did not have parties all the time. Any flute noises were not coming from their property. Their intent was to be considerate,not noisy neighbors. They had a history of compliance with the county and would be diligent with conditions if the application were approved. Their water was tested monthly and there will be annual reviews of the septic system. Commissioner Fisher wondered how long the Kims had lived in the area. Ms. Kim stated that they had been in the area for many years. Commissioner Ryan spoke about the noise study. Ms.Kim stated that the music was at a very loud level. They were not proposing loud concert venues outside. She thought that perhaps they would have a quartet or acoustical guitar,but quiet and considerate. Any bands on the property would be indoors. Alex Kim spoke about the noise study,which they had done in consideration of the neighbors. He offered to show the neighbors how quiet it was when loud music was played inside. He invited the commissioners to visit and see for themselves. He spoke about the 8 units of lodging. Owner operated Bed and Breakfast operations were extremely low impact. He stated that there was already a variety of traffic using their road. Chairman Stavney spoke about his experience with noise and the fact that they haven't been having parties Mr.Wright provided a summary. He was concerned that the members of the community had taken it upon themselves to spread lies,half-truths, and exaggerations about the applicants and application in an attempt to prevent this objectively sound application from being approved. The rhetoric, exaggerations and misstatements being made were tough to accept. He asked the board to trust the professionals. He asked for approval. Ms. Ayres Oliver stated that the noise and water issues should be further researched. Commissioner Ryan wondered about the number of proposed employees. Ms. Kim stated that there would be two full-time and possibly a few part time employees. Agriculturally they hoped to employ many. Mr. Hanagan stated that the attempt was to wp a aerything into the special use permit. Ms.Kim indicated that every event was diffl 't LQW Ntimates would be 2 to 10 for short periods of time. Jay Leavitt asked if the application had chaff '4,t " Mr. Hanagan indicated that what was beingpr9,poli4epcompassed both special uses being requested. Chairman Stavney asked if they could be rolled fdgetliei. Ms. Ayres-Oliver believed they could be rolled together. Mr. Leavitt felt it was a substantial change to the application. Chairman Stavney disagreed. Mr. Whitsitt spoke about the code definition of a special use permit for Resort Recreational Facilities. Chairman Stavney stated that more clarification was needed. Doug Pratt stated that the definition of Resort Recreational Facilities was being used at State Bridge. The definition had to be narrowed down through a hearing process with the county. The proposal fell within the code like State Bridge fell within the code. Chairman Stavney believed it was a site specific. Jo Johnston spoke about catering and employees and the fact that many would be needed. Commissioner Ryan wondered what would be raised on the farm and served. Ms.Kim stated that they would support local growers and ranchers. Their farm grew many vegetables in the past. Commissioner Ryan wondered about the zone change criteria number 4; change in circumstances. She wondered what had changed. Mr.Wright stated that an agricultural area has become more and more residential. Their re-zoning would maintain the agricultural focus on this property. Chairman Stavney stated that there are many issues that needed to be vetted. Commissioner Fisher remembered meeting the previous owner and remembers her goals. She also remembered the current owners coming in to get a building envelope change. At that time even,that was opposed. She believed the owners had shared their vision for the property at that time. She felt that 20 years later they should know the opinions of the neighbors. When the approval for the home occupation was granted the owners were still trying to do the same change. She admired the fact that this side of the county was very organized in support or opposition to issues. She objected to the fact owners knew what they wanted to do when they bought the property. Mr. Pratt appreciated the opportunity to do additional research. 23 02/12/2013 Chairman Stavney stated that he respected the residents of this side of the county and he respected the feedback. He also felt like he got what the Kims were trying to do and that the impacts would be less than what people and neighbors were imagining. He wanted to schedule a site visit, investigate the water issue,the potential for legal action,light pollution, compatibility and compliance with the master plan,changed conditions,previous plat notes and noise study Mr.Wright assumed that the seven items would be dealt with by staff and that they would be contacted with questions. Commissioner Ryan moved tabled file no. ZS-3642 and ZC-3643 Dragonfly Ranch until March 26,2013 at 5:00 p.m. with a site visit preceding the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting . adjourned unt., 'ebruary 19, 2013. Attest: -� '�C � Clerk to the Boar '* * Char coo 24 02/12/2013