No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/26/13 PUBLIC HEARING March 26, 2013 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Sara Fisher Commissioner Jill Ryan Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Rachel Oys Assistant County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: 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 March 25, 2013 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance B. Approval of Payroll for April 4,2013 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meetings for Feb. 26 and March 12,2013 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder D. Third Amendment between Eagle County and Meadow Mountain Plumbing and Heating,Inc. for On-call Services Ron Siebert, Facilities E. Third Amendment between Eagle County and Skyline Mechanical, Inc. for On-call HVAC Services Ron Siebert, Facilities F. Third Amendment between Eagle County and Encore Electric,Inc. for On-call Services Ron Siebert,Facilities G. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Events,Inc. for Professional Marketing and Promotions Services for the Fair and Rodeo and Fairgrounds Facility Tanya Dahlseid, Facilities Management H. Resolution 2013-026 Approving the Amendment of Resolution No. 2013-001: Annual Appointments Resolution Administration I. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Campbell-Hill Aviation Group,LLC. for Air Service Development Consulting Services Greg Phillips,Airport J. Extension and Amendment of Cable Television Agreement between Eagle County and CenturyTel Televideo,Inc. Kris Friel, Communications 1 03/26/2013 Greg Phillips spoke about item I,the contract between Eagle County and Campbell-Hill Aviation Group. They received 10 solid bids and Campbell-Hill was selected because they had a great reputation and came from an airline background. They would be holding a kickoff meeting with the local community on May 6. He looked forward to working with the group to identify potential opportunities and moving air service development aggressively forward. Commissioner Fisher was excited about the partnerships that were continuing to form. Mr. Phillips encouraged the community to use the service. They were doing everything possible to bring prices down and find schedules that worked for everyone. Kris Friel spoke about item J,the cable television agreement. Rachel Oys,Assistant County Manager recognized Tanya Dahlseid for all the work she did with the Fair and Rodeo. Laurie Asmussen,Eagle Valley Events spoke. She appreciated the opportunity to work on the 2013 Fair and Rodeo again this year. Ms. Oys anticipated coming back to the board with a revised resolution for the Fair and Rodeo advisory council and recognized the team members and the board members that had been working on the Fair and Rodeo for the last 73 years. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda for March 26,2013 as presented. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Dragonfly Ranch Site Visit 0069 Vista High Drive Carbondale, Colorado Planning Files ZS-3642, ZC-3643 Dragonfly Ranch El Jebel Community Center Sean Hanagan,Planning 20 Eagle County Drive Greg Scheder,Engineering El Jebel, Colorado Doug Pratte,Applicant's Representative Alex and Laura Kim,Applicants NOTE: Tabled from 2/12/13 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 REFERENCE: Staff Report in 2/12/13 Minutes DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stavney introduced the application 2 03/26/2013 Beth Ayres-Oliver,Eagle County Attorney's office representative provided some opening comments. The applicant would only have to apply for one special use permit. The home business permit was considered, and the proposed uses had not changed. The proposed uses fit under Resort Recreational Facility. The intended facilities had been determined to fit within this zone category. The facility would be similar to a Dude Ranch. Limitations included no more than 148 beds.There could be up to 36 events per year. It was the opinion of the Attorney's office that the proposed activities would fall into the Resort Recreational Facility definition. One issue raised was related to subdivision of the property barring approval of the Special Use. It is the opinion of the attorney's office that subdivision would not be possible. There could be plat notes on the final plat stating that no lot could be further subdivided. If there were an issue about water in the future, it would be handled by the water courts. Gary Wright,Bob Noone and Doug Pratt were present on behalf of the applicants. Doug Pratt,planner for the applicant presented some information related to the file. This was a re-zoning request. These types of facilities were not permitted in urban areas, but were allowed on rural parcels of 35 acres or more. The Land Use Regulations require that these types of facilities be placed on parcels such as the Kim's parcel. The preservation of rural character would be accomplished through this type of use. Resort Recreational Facility had a basic definition. The applicant believed their application was in compliance with the surrounding neighborhood and the Mid Valley Comprehensive Plan. There was a facility on Missouri Heights that had events and advertised for these events. There were folks present who were on the board of the organization conducting these events. This was an example of how this type of facility could work and be successful and supported by Missouri Height's residents. They had not gotten together with the neighbors,but they had listened to the public input. They had not ignored the input. Consensus has not been reached,but refinements related to parking,music, number of events etc. has been incorporated into the plan. They conducted a noise study and as was discovered during the board's site visit, noise would not negatively affect the neighbors. They had worked with the Eagle County Engineering and the Road and Bridge Department. Commissioner Fisher asked about the schoolhouse on Missouri Heights. Someone in the crowd indicated that the property was not in Eagle County. Ms. Ayres—Oliver stated that only approved uses would be permitted. Chairman Stavney spoke about material changes to the neighborhood. Ms. Ayres—Oliver spoke about the standards for approval of a zone change. No change in zoning could be allowed unless the advantages of the use requested substantially outweighed the disadvantages to the county and neighboring lands. The five standards must be taken into account. The board, in analyzing whether to approve the zone change,must balance these standards. Mr. Wright stated that courts gave wide discretion to the board of county commissioners. Ms. Ayres—Oliver spoke about spot zoning. The request for re-zoning would not be spot zoning. One could argue that re-zoning would be compatible with the master plan. Commissioner Ryan stated that the music was turned up loud from inside the garage and the commissioners walked and drove around the property. During this tour it was evident that the sound amplified out and to the west and was not easily heard driving away, and if one really concentrated on hearing music you could hear a little, but there were also dogs barking and traffic noise. She wondered if the Kims would have more information about activities that would take place on the lawn area. Laura Kim stated that the lawn area would be for ceremonies and possibly string quarts type of ensembles. She did not see much activity out front. There would be no bands. Chairman Stavney wondered if these conditions could be added to the permit. Mr. Pratt spoke about the applicant's willingness to work through these types of conditions. Chairman Stavney spoke about these being material representations by the applicant at this time. Commissioner Fisher stated that the building was intriguing and the views spectacular. She was challenged with the neighborhood compatibility. The fact that the home was one of the newest structures made it a challenge for her. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Tim Whitsitt spoke to the board. He had six people who wished to speak. Related to the preservation of agricultural use,they were dealing with an approval to the property. The next people down the line may not be as capable nor as honorable as the Kims. For this reason, it was important to consider future possibilities. The purposes and effects of the proposal had not been entirely forthcoming. In the widest stretch of the imagination was this agro-tourism. This was a subdivided residential lot that had a hay field. The hay field had nothing to do 3 03/26/2013 with this application. They were not going to be serving principally produce grown on the property. It was important to understand that if the application were approved it would have no effect on the agricultural operation. If they were turned down for the special use,the hay would continue to be grown and sold as long as it was a profitable operation. To hold the agricultural operation hostage was a bit misleading and inappropriate. Barring voiding of the plat notes the property could not be subdivided. He believed the Kims knew when they purchased the lot that it was not sub-dividable. He did not agree with the attorney's definition of Resort Recreational Facility. The proposal was not a Dude Ranch or anything like that. It was an event center. He spoke about the character of the neighborhood. The major mechanism was the zone change. If the zone was not changed,the special use could not be granted. All of the five requirements or standards must be considered. The board should look at each of them. There had been no material change in the neighborhood. The code stated that it had to be based on a beneficial change to the neighborhood. Zone changes were made to keep properties in line with the rest of the neighborhood. He did not believe there was any basis for the zone change. Tom Kenny,water rights attorney addressed the water rights issue. The conditional water rights application would be filed in the water courts to continue the rights and make them temporary or absolute. The current legal water supply was inadequate for the proposed use, special events and commercial kitchen. With big events and drinks being brought in there would need to be wastewater management. These would be diversions from the Dragon Fly well. Under strict drought calls,the use would not be for operation of the wastewater treatment plants not being served by the commercial kitchen. The local water commissioners could curtail diversions from the well for those events whenever there was a call on the system. A change of use could be added to the decree, and this review could take a year or two and maybe longer. Mr. Kenny believed Mr.Noone had argued that under the contemplated draft for trans-mountain diversions, if there were changes in use in Southeast Colorado,the diversion losses would be the same. He closed with his belief that according to the water court's decree there was no legal water supply for these special events and cooking classes. Commissioner Ryan spoke about the decree. Mr. Wright stated that changing water rights in advance of board approval would not be advisable. Mr.Noone stated that the key value of the decree was a placeholder in the priority system. The water decree established uppermost limits on use and depletions. The maximum peak demand was 3500 gallons per day. As decreed,they could divert up to 4200 gallons per day. By the same token,the annual diversions were authorized at 4.7 acre feet. The Kim's program would use only 2.5 acre feet. This granted them the right to go back to water court to refine the authorization they already have. Consumptive use was covered by the augmentation plan. They were well within the judicially established rights. The mix could and would change at Crown Mountain and on the Kim's property. Mr. Kenny added that nowhere in the decree did it say that the uses could be changed. Leslie Ramisle, resident of the neighborhood for 37 years commented on the Missouri Heights School House. Anita Witt started trying to preserve it in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They averaged one event per year. She spoke about the standards for zone change and how they applied to the Comprehensive Plan of 2005. The attributes that supported quality of life unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations. The application went against that. Growth should be balanced between quality of life and preservation of the environment. The main objective of the comprehensive plan was to support and accommodate a reasonable level of growth, only if the growth was compatible with adjacent land uses. This application was not compatible. There were no other places in the area doing the same thing. Local communities should establish unique venue operations. A positive sense of place involved communities and people. This would take away from rather than enhance the community character. Commercial or retail development should occur in areas compatible with those uses. These uses should be located within towns and community centers. Commercial developments should be limited to those serving needs of the local population. Policy B, Environmental quality spoke about lighted events for 130 people,which would require lighting for safe exit. Noise should be minimized to meet the highest standards. The study they had done did not tell the whole story. It did not take into consideration the different ways that sound traveled. She spoke about the three properties of sound;refraction, reflection and diffraction. She ended by saying she had attended all of the hearings now and in 2005. In 2005,the commissioners stated the same concerns with code enforcement. Several residents have filed complaints that had gone nowhere. The Chair of the then board of county commissioners stated"Homeowners could rest assured that there would be peace in Mountain Meadows". Jo Johnston, 17-year resident of Caballo spoke. She submitted a letter from Hoagland and Associates, a wildlife specialist. She referred to section 3.8 relating to wildfire hazard. She read from the master plan about the 4 03/26/2013 nature of the environment in Missouri Heights. Some ranchers had recently not grown hay in consideration of the water used to grow this crop and the lack of water available due to the drought. There were areas of high extreme fire hazard rating. The Basalt and Rural Fire Department had signed off on the Dragonfly ranch request for re- zoning. Bill Harding, Fire Marshall,stated that the Fire Department could service the requests of a down-zone. He was concerned that Eagle County was not looking at the entire picture. If Dragonfly was having up to 130 guests and even if there was designated smoking area,who would regulate and enforce this? A guest could throw a cigarette butt down on a windy day. More people and activity could generate more the potential for fire. If the access road was used for evacuations, it could be a problem. There were certain regions with the potential to cause damage to life and property. Standards were intended to reduce and minimize these hazards. She reminded everyone of the Panorama Fire of 2002 and the loss of 4 homes. She could see flames from the Aspen Business Center and was not allowed into her home. Dragonfly had compared themselves to other similar format lodges. They were not the same as Dragonfly because it would be located within a residential neighborhood. She read a few excerpts from Art Hoagland's letter. He expressed concern about future wildfires. It was likely that a wildfire in the area could spread to the west. She spoke about support vehicles and employees needed to put on an event with 130 people. Her husband was also a caterer. For such size events,in a buffet style service,they would need three to four employees in advance of the event, 13 employees the day of the event, maid service for the bed and breakfast, party planners, and one to four band or choral members. As far as vehicles,travelling up and down the road there would be food and beverage trucks too. She wondered which road would be used for these large dinners. Chairman Stavney indicated that the traffic study indicated that there was plenty of capacity. He acknowledged that having guests not understanding the significance of a drought could add danger to the area. Lois Evans spoke. She lived above the ranch and spoke specifically about zoning. She showed the site map prepared by Sean Hanagan. She made an identical map for the site using the Eagle County zoning map. According to the site map,Dragonfly was surrounded by agricultural/residential. She referred to article 5 of the land use regulations, section 5-23 related to compatibility with surrounding uses. She spoke about harmonious with the physical character of the surrounding uses of the subject property. She spoke about concern for their community. She was trying to prove that according to the proposal it was stated that in reality the Dragonfly ranch was separated from the valley floor. As far as resource zoning it was on a strict hillside. Resource zoning to the west was also unusable. The main area of Missouri Heights was a residential area. In reality there was not a lot of green resource zoning. There were 95 homes within a half-mile radius that would be impacted by the proposal. Chairman Stavney spoke about the noise issue and that during the site visit it was evident that the noise did not travel far distances, but there was bowl effect when you got closer. It was also clear that there was a lot of noise in the neighborhood. Ms. Evans spoke about compatibility with existing uses and felt that the proposal did not meet this standard. There were presently no home businesses approved by the county but there were artists,photographers etc. in Missouri Heights. She showed an aerial photo of Garfield County. In 1882,James Noonan homesteaded the Strange property. Agricultural properties could be sustained through agricultural uses alone. Garfield County's zoning maps were different than Eagle County. These agricultural properties do not bring hundreds of people in on a weekly basis. She spoke about the number of people, and guests on the premises. With the events and the rooms it would not be a small operation. A proposed development as a result of a zone change was not compatible. Larry Alimony,resident in the neighborhood provided an update on the petition signatures. At the last meeting there had been 476 signatures,and there were now 503. 415 of these were from Eagle County. Over 90% of the currently occupied homes in the neighborhood opposed the proposal. From 2005 to 2012,the Dragonfly Ranch owners made no attempt to engage the surrounding homeowners.This was an extremely emotional issue for all residents of Missouri Heights, including the Kims. He spoke about the fact that the area was not intended to be a commercial operation. The Mid Valley plan did not accommodate this use. The Kims knew the zoning prohibited their desired use. The majority of people in the neighborhood opposed the proposal. The rights of over 500 people should not be subordinate to 2. They do not have the right to change the land use zoning. The Farm to Fork required an actual working farm. This was expensive and complicated. The Dragonfly structure more fittingly represented an event center than a working farm. The unanimous residents of Missouri Heights made their positions known. Sandy Carp spoke. He has lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years. He felt the neighbors were being honest and not driven by self- interest. He attended the Planning and Zoning commission meetings. The one person who spoke in favor had a professional relationship with the Kims related to the Hay operation. He did not believe there would be any public support at this hearing. They have not seen a significant change in the neighborhood in 5 03/26/2013 the last 20 years. There were no resorts, commercial operations or liquor establishments on Missouri Heights at this time. Harvie Branscomb spoke to the group. He thanked the commissioners for coming to El Jebel. He stated that the people in the group were ready to be represented. He hoped the decision would be made tonight. The people here were speaking with a unified voice. He knew the system was such that the applicant spoke after the people spoke. He hoped the board would vote with those opposed.. Chairman Stavney wondered if the applicant wanted to speak. Mr. Wright spoke on behalf of the applicant. He has been an attorney for 33 years and has seen many adversarial land use planning files. He was sad. Staff had found that the application was in compliance with the master plan. Water,noise,traffic issues all had been addressed. A Resort Recreational Facility includes a broad definition. The re-zoning issue has been addressed several times and he felt this was not spot zoning. The board had wide discretion. If the board chose not to approve the request it was also their right. The board was challenged with distinguishing compatibility with the neighborhood and the fact that the application was unpopular. This did not make it incompatible, it made it unpopular and they were different. He thought the theme in the comments were exaggerated impacts. He did not think the impacts were going to be overly onerous such that the proposal should be denied. Agro-tourism was a broad concept and the proposal fits well within the definition. He was disappointed in the misrepresentation of the parameters of the application. The Kims had not stated what their alternative might be. He asked the board to consider the application,not future possibilities. He believed there was a good legal argument that the subdivision provision had been removed. He felt Eagle County should encourage reasonable economic development. The recitations of what happened in 2005 were not appropriate. The professionals with no opinion of whether this was denied or approved have said this would not increase the fire danger or risk. Mr. Pratt stated that the 130 cap includes employees such as chefs,valets,and total people. Mr. Wright continued that Ms. Evan's information was factual and interesting. Another example of exaggerated impacts included many commercial activities going on in the neighborhood. He was troubled by the "what ifs". There was no history of the Kims not following the existing regulations. In such an adversarial situation,they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. He was troubled by the petition. Chairman Stavney stated that the petition and the map were simply information, and not part of the official evidence. Mr. Wright stated that the petition was inflammatory and bordering on slander. He thought this was a tiny application and it had been blown into an exaggerated problem. He respectfully disagreed that self-interest was involved. He was concerned that the board won't be able to do its job, relying on the professionals,factoring out all those with a self interest in the outcome. This had been reviewed by county staff and professionals with no vested interest in either side. He asked for approval for the applicant. Chairman Stavney summarized that staff had reviewed the application,made findings meeting minimum standards. This went to the Planning and Zoning Commission where it was unanimously turned down. This was the third hearing. What was being considered were two things; a zone change to Resource Zoning and a subsequent Special Use Permit for Resource Recreational Facility. He summarized the request details. He spoke about the five different findings related to zone changes; compliance with the Master Plan, surrounding use compatibility,public benefit,change of circumstance and that there was adequate infrastructure in terms of capacity. Commissioner Ryan stated that she appreciated everyone participating in the public process. She thought agro-tourism was a good concept. She knew that the question was whether the proposal in front of the board now met the agro-tourism model in the neighborhood of Missouri Heights. The Mid Valley Plan attempts to preserve rural character of the Mid Valley. She heard from the Kims that they thought they were maintaining that character, but the neighbors disagree. Regarding resource zoning, of the Kim's property, only 39%was contiguous with that type of zoning. The compatibility issue was a difficult one. Today's site visit helped in consideration of potential impacts. She wasn't as concerned about the noise and traffic after the visit. She compared the proposal with other single family homes and thought the Kims had tried to minimize the impacts. The neighbors did not think so. Public benefit was not addressed very significantly. Staff wrote that the proposed use could provide opportunities for visitors to participate in activities not available to them. Public benefit would be lessened by the discord of the neighbors. Change of circumstance was a hard argument to support. In terms of adequate infrastructure the findings were inconclusive. The advantages needed to substantially outweigh the disadvantages. She recommended denying zoning. Chairman Stavney felt that he would concur with the other commissioners. He stated that there has been no evidence of non-compliance with the home business permit. He did not think it was primarily an agricultural community. It was primarily a residential neighborhood. The overwhelming issue for residents was the special use 6 03/26/2013 permit. His concerns were based on compatibility. The idea of this becoming a destination was not compatible with the neighborhood. He believed in the day to day operations the concerns of the neighborhood could be proven to be minimal. He did not think it met the standards and was not sure it was compatible with the Master Plan. A compelling argument had not been made for public benefit. The only of the five findings that the proposal flat out met was the adequate infrastructure. He wondered whether the applicant would prefer a vote that would deny them on the zoning change, or if the applicants wanted to withdraw their application. Ms. Ayers—Oliver clarified that if the vote for the zoning permit was opposed,the Special Use Permit would not go forward. If the zone change was approved and the special use permit was not,then perhaps the board should ask the applicant if they would want a zone change without the special use permit. Commissioner Stavney spoke about withdrawal allowing the applicant to bring it back to the board without restriction. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the responsibility of the board to vote on the proposal. Mr. Wright stated that if the application were withdrawn there was no possibility of a lawsuit. Commissioner Stavney clarified that if the applicant withdrew,there would be no opportunity to sue. Mr. Wright concurred. Commissioner Fisher felt that a vote was the best approach. Ms.Ayers—Oliver felt that the discussion of withdrawal was related to the difference in the zone change versus the Special Use Permit. Commissioner Ryan wondered what the benefits were on either side of the possibilities Mr. Wright stated that the owners wished to withdraw. Chairman Stavney stated that it was not the public's file, it was the applicant's file and they could withdraw. There being no further business before a the meeti _ .djourned u •.pril 2,2013. Attest: per to the Boar. o Chai r an 7 03/26/2013