HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.0 DD Staff Report 04.13.2011Red Barn ADU/GH April 13, 2011 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACRES ZONING I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Administrative
Review -Land Use Change Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit Old Red Barn LLC 56444 County Rd. 100, Carbondale, CO 81623, Located approximately 4 miles northeast of Carbondale. A Parcel
of Land Situated in Lot 7 and the SE1/4 of Section 19, T7S, R87W, County of Garfield also known as Assessor's Parcel No. 2391-194-00-200. Approximately 37.7 acres Rural The Applicant
is requesting approval for an accessory dwelling unit on their 37.7 acre lot. The Applicant plans to build the unit within the existing horse barn structure/footprint. The unit is planned
to be approximately 900 sq.ft. in size and will likely house a caretaker -employee for the owners of the horse facility. It is proposed to be a two bedroom, one bath dwelling unit. Improvements
on the property include a single family residence (approx. 3200 sq.ft.) a horse barn facility (approx. 66,000 sq.ft.) and a variety of other support structures. The Applicant has provided
a copy of the well permit that currently serves the existing home and horse facility. It will also serve the ADU in accordance with the Colorado Division of Water Resources Well Permit
(Permit #176510). Wastewater for the horse barn and the proposed ADU is accommodated on site by an existing ISDS system that was constructed and sized to serve the horse barn and a two
bedroom residence (in anticipation of the current ADU proposal). The existing single family residence is served by a separate ISDS. A well test has previously been completed for the
water well with production represented to have exceeded 15 gpm. Access and parking for the ADU will be via the existing driveway off of County Rd. 100 and existing circulation and parking
areas for the horse arena. The existing horse barn has previously received a building permit from the County and the Applicant has received a certificate of occupancy for the building.
The Applicant has represented that the accessory dwelling unit will be built in compliance with all applicable building code and fire code requirements.
Covenants existing on the property are represented as not having any impact on the potential creation of an ADU. The Application submittals represent and reflect that the proposed ADU
will comply with supplemental standards contained in Section 7-801 ofthe Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended for Accessory Dwelling Units, and other applicable zoning provisions
including but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage, building height. II. AUTHORITY -APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. The Land Use Tables contained in Section 3-501 ofthe ULUR, designate Accessory
Dwelling Units within the Rural Zone District as requiring Administrative Review. B. Section 4-104 of the ULUR sets forth the Administrative Review Procedures. All requirements have
been met, including the notice requirement to adjacent property owners within 200 ft. The Applicant has provided proof of mailing by submitting certified return receipts for the notice.
C. Section 7-801 of the ULUR sets forth Additional Standards Applicable to an Accessory Dwelling Unit as shown below: SECTION 7-801 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT. A. Maximum Floor Area. The gross floor area for residential occupancy shall not exceed 1500 square feet. B. Compliance with Covenants and HOA Approval Requirements. The Accessory
Dwelling Unit shall be allowed by Covenants or approved by the Home Owner's Association, as applicable. C. Ownership Restriction. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be restricted to leasehold
interest in the dwelling unit and shall be for residential use only. D. Compliance with Building Code. Construction shall comply with the standards set forth in this Code and with Building
Code requirements. E. Minimum Lot Area. 2 acres or twice the minimum lot size for zone districts with a minimum lot size less than two (2) acres. F. Entrance to Dwelling Unit. A separate
entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall be required. 2
Figure 1: Excerpt from Red Barn LLC Site Plan Submittal _.-t:~· (Not to scale) D. Article 7 Standards of the ULUR contains other generally applicable standards for General Administrative
Permit review including provision of adequate water, waste water systems, and other standards including but not limited to hazard mitigation/avoidance and drainage and storm water run-off.
3
III. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Referral comments have been received from the Colorado Division of Water Resources (see attached). Their comments confirm the allowance for the ADU to be served
by the existing well, but identify potential/future concerns related to commercial activity on the property. B. The Garfield County Road and Bridge Department has provided comments (see
attached) which recommend that a driveway permit be obtained and that the driveway be brought up to current standards including paving of the access apron where it connects with the
paved surface of the County Road. C. Referral Comments from Jim Rada, Environmental Health Manager were received and indicated no issues with the application. Jim's comments did include
additional information on non-community public water system standards. D. Extensive comments have been received from adjacent and neighboring property owners (see attached). Comments
include but are not limited to concerns about the existing barn/arena building, compatibility ofthe existing uses, lighting impacts, commercial activities, well permits, water usage,
and impacts on ground water resources in the Missouri Heights area. E. In regard to adequacy of the physical water supply serving the ADU, the Applicant has provided copies of a 4 hour
pump test and a standard bacteriological water test from 2009. A 24 hour pump test has been ordered by the Applicants. Results from the 2009 tests reflect a production of over 17 gpm
based on the 4 hour test with recovery to the original well water level within 10 minutes. The Bacteriological Test indicated Coli form Bacterial was absent. F. The Applicants have provided
general information on the property indicating a lack of any hazardous or unique conditions that would impact the ability to construct the additional ADU within the existing building
footprint of the bam/arena building. G. The property owner has received notice of a zoning violation associated with existing temporary housing in a travel trailer on the site. Correction
of the violation should be required prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. H. Chapter 2, of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, Future Land Use, includes the notation
that accessory dwelling units be included in the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations. The Red Barn property is designated Residential Medium -RM (6 to < 10 Acres/DU) as further
described in the Comprehensive Plan except below. The two units proposed on the property are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendation. 4
LAND U SE DESIGNATION Reside ntia l M edium (RM) DESCRIPTION COMPATIBLE ZONING Sma ll farms, estates, and cluste re d residentia l Rural (R) s ubdivision; de ns ity determined by d egree
of clustering and land preserved in o p en condition: 0% open la nd -1 du per <10 acres Plan ned Unit D evelopment (PUD ) 50% open land -1 elu per 8 acres 70% open land -1 du pe r 6
acres Density of residential uses: 1 du per 6 to < 10 acres Example: I. The Applicant's proposal is to locate the accessory dwelling unit within the existing building. All building code
requirements shall be complied with in this multi-use mixed occupancy building. (see attached photographs) IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a finding that the
ADU is in compliance with Article III, and Sections 4-104, 4-501 , 7-801 , and Article VII Divisions 1 & 2, as applicable, of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008,
subject to the following conditions: 1. All representation of the Applicant contained in the application shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically modified by the
Director Decision. 2. Compliance with all Additional Standards for an Accessory Dwelling Unit contained in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, Section 7-801 . 3.
The Applicant shall provide a 24 hour pump text and water quality test in accordance with Article 7, Section 7-104 of the ULUR prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. The
reports and water quality tests shall confirm the adequacy of the well to serve the proposed use. 3. All new construction on the property shall be required to meet all Garfield County
Building Code Requirements. 4. The current zoning code violation associated with temporary housing on the site shall be resolved/removed to the satisfaction of the Director prior to
the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit. 5
5. The Applicant shall provide a survey of the property for noxious weeds and provide a weed management plan in accordance with County Regulations and referral comments from Steve Anthony,
Vegetation Manager. 6
Site Photographs (Inside existing building -location of proposed ADU) (Outside existing building -location of proposed ADU) 7
(South elevation facing the location of the proposed ADU) 8
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: Adams, Karlyn [Karlyn.Adams@state.co.usj Tuesday, April 12, 20118:18 AM To: Cc: Subject: Glen, Glenn Hartmann Martellaro, Alan; Blakeslee, Bill Old Red Barn
ADU Comments We have completed a preliminary review of the Old Red barn Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Permit Application, however per the March 11, 2011 Memorandum to All County Land
Use Planning Directors concerning the State Engineer's Recommendation for Certain Land Use Actions, a physical adequacy review has not been completed. The applicant is requesting approval
of an ADU on their property of approximately 37 acres. The applicant proposes to use an existing well, operating under well permit no. 176510, to supply water to the ADU. Permit no.
176510 was issued, pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), on March 2, 1994. The uses of the well are limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside three single family
dwellings, the irrigation of not more than one acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. This well permit does not allow for uses at a commercial business.
So long as the uses of this well continue to be limited to the uses described on permit no. 176510 and are within the scope of CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A), residential uses on a farm
or ranch, this office has no objection to this permit application. If water from this well is used in association with a commercial equestrian boarding facility, including animal watering
and/or use in dwellings associated with the propagation of a commercia I enterprise, this well permit will no longer be sufficient. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Please contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, Karlyn Adams Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver,
CO 80203 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fox Please complete our new DWR User Experience Survey on our DWR Homepage to express your opinions of our service. Your complete satisfaction
is important to us! 1
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: Romig, Brian [Brian.Romig@state.co.us] Thursday, April 21,2011 9:14 AM To: Cc: Romig, Brian; Ziska Childs; Glenn Hartmann; halliday@sopris.net; cure@sopris.net
Adams, Karlyn; Rubin, Edward Subject: RE: Wight barn To all concerned, After inspecting the barn and talking to managers and their engineer, it appears they are currently in compliance
with the well permit. The managers told me that they currently own 37 horses that are all the owners and that they are not running a commercial business. They also have Needham water
that they irrigate with and that the well is only used for irrigating around the house. A domestic well on 35+ acres allows the owner to water livestock on a farm or ranch, with no specified
limit on the number of animals allowed as long as the livestock belongs to the owners. As the water season rolls along, I will continue to inspect the property to make sure it remains
in compliance with the well permit. If there are any questions, please let me know. Brian **************************** Brian Romig Water Commissioner, District 38 5tate of Colorado Department
of Natural Resources Division of Water Resources P.O. Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 816e2 97e-355-4787 **************************** 1
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen, Michael Prehm Wednesday, April 06, 2011 3:55 PM Glenn Hartmann Old Red Barn LLC -Accessory Dwelling Unit Road & Bridge requests a driveway
permit be obtained, and the driveway be brought up to current R&B standards. Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman I Glenwood District Office (970) 945-1223 Fax. (970) 945-1318
Cell (970) 618-7109 mprehm@garfield-county.com
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Glenn, Jim Rada Friday, March 25, 2011 4:46 PM Glenn Hartmann GAPA -6724 Old Red Barn LLC ADU I have no issues with this application. Although
this a very large facility, there is no mention in the application as to whether this facility is a commercial or shared private boarding and/or riding facility. Should this facility
provide potable drinking water to 25 or more of the same or different people for 60 days or more per year, it could be classified as a non-community public water system that would fall
under the regulatory authority of CDPHE and the owner would need to meet all applicable regulations for such a system. Thanks for the opportunity to review this application. Jim Rada
Environmental Health Manager Garfield County Public Health 185 W. 14th Street Rifle. CO 81650 Phone· 870·625·5200 x8113 Fax· 870·625-8304 Cell -870-318-1578 irada@garfield-county.com
www.garfield·county.com 1
MEMORANDUM To: Glenn Hartmann From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Old Red Bam Accessory Dwelling Unit (File #-GAPA 6724) Date: April 13, 2011 Staff requests that the applicant survey
the property for the noxious weeds: Absinth wonnwood and Plumeless thistle. If located on site, please provide a weed management plan. Staff can assist in weed identification if necessary
and the county does offer a weed~cost share program that offers a partial financial reimbursement for the treatment of county-listed noxious weeds.
Garfield County April 26, 2011 BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Courtesy Notice -Old Red Barn LLC General Administrative Land Use Change Permit (File GAPA-6724) Reconsideration Request
The County's Files regarding this request for a General Administrative Land Use Change Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, reflect that you have previously submitted comments for
the County's consideration or are an interested party to the Application. On April 13, 2011 the Director of the Building and Planning Department issued a decision of approval with conditions
on the Old Red Barn LLC Accessory Dwelling Unit Application. Comment letters received by the County included the request that a public hearing on the Application be held by the Board
of County Commissioners. Such a hearing would be for the purposes of Reconsideration of the Director's Decision. That request is being processed in accordance with Section 4-104(B)(1)
of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. On Monday, May 2, 2011, at 1 :00 p.m. the Board of County Commissioners, at their next regularly scheduled meeting
will consider the Adjoining Property Owners Reconsideration Request and deliberate on whether a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is warranted. This courtesy notice
is provided so that you may be able to attend the meeting. Please note that the May 2nd meeting of the Board of County Commissioners has previously been scheduled to be held at the Sheriffs
Annex Building, located at 106, County Road 333A, Rifle, Colorado 81650. Please contact me at the Building and Planning Offices (945-8212) if you have any questions regarding the reconsideration
process and if you need directions to the meeting location. Sincerely, /?~iJ----Glenn Hartmann Senior Planner 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212·
(970) 285-7972' Fat.' (970) 384-3470
Copies to: Jake and Carolyn Stoner 5600 100 Road Carbondale, CO 81623 cure@sopris,net Laura Maine 67 County Road 162 Carbondale, CO 81623 Imainegb@gmail,com Jay Halliday 5763 County
Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 halliday@sopris,net Ziska Childs ziska@ziskachilds,com ziska@aspenvalleyfilm,com Karen Kean-Hines 500 County Road 102 Carbondale, CO 81623 khines@cololradomtn,edu
Smiling A LLLP 5372 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Susy Ellison and Marty Schlein 4474 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 sellison@sopirs,net
Garfield County MEMORANDUM BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners Fred Jarman, Director Building and Planning Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner
April 27, 2011 Reconsideration of Director Determination Old Red Barn LLC, Accessory Dwelling Unit (File GAPA-6724) On April 13, 2011 the Director of the Building and Planning Department
issued a Director's Determination of approval with conditions regarding the Old Red Barn LLC General Administrative Permit application for a Land Use Change Permit for an Accessory Dwelling
Unit. Comment letters received by .the County from neighboring property owners included requests that a public hearing on the Application be held by the Board of County Commissioners.
Such a hearing would be for the purposes of Reconsideration of the Director's Decision. That request is being processed in accordance with Section 4-104(B)(1) of the Garfield County
Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. In accordance with this code section, we have scheduled a public meeting on the next available Board of County Commissioners agenda, Monday,
May 2, 2011 , at 1 :00 p.m. for consideration of the neighboring property owner's request. This agenda item will be for the Board of County Commissioner's deliberation on whether a public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is warranted. Included in the Board's packet is the following information: • Comment Letters from Neighboring Property Owners • Applicant
response to Director's Determination and Conditions of Approval • Applicant response to Neighboring property owners concerns • Director's Determination Letter • Staff Report including
background information on the Application • Referral Comment Letters Building and Planning Department Staff and the County Attorney's Office will be available at the public meeting to
answer any questions regarding the Application, Determination, and Reconsideration Process and Request. The Applicant and the neighboring property owners have been advised of the public
meeting. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401' Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212· (970) 285-7972' Fax. (970) 384-3470
April 12, 2011 VIA E-MAIL TO: Garfield County Building & Planning Glen Hartman & Fred Jarman Jake & Carolyn Stoner 5600100 Rd., Carbondale, Co. 81623 To whom it may concern: We are writing
this letter in response to the Public Notice of the land use changes requested by the Red Barn, LLC for an accessory dwelling unit at 5644 County Road 100, Carbondale, Co., 81623. Mter
reviewing the applications and building permits we have several objections to this additional dwelling unit. 1. The application is for a ADU in an existing Agriculture Barn/Arena on
the property. The validity of the notice is in question as the existing building is very specifically NOT an agriculture barn. Find Garfield County Planning/Zoning definition of Agricultural
Buildings Defined (Section R202a.IRC (Resolution 2004·86&2004·101). The permit issued 11/24/09 by the Garfield County Building Department for the Use of the existing Building is identified
as (Accessory to existing residence on lot· Private arena /Barn use only·not for public use. 2. The property owners and their attorneys have circumvented processes outlined by County
Commissioners for development of the property. For example, when this permit lost the identity and use of an agriculture barn on ARRD zoning this permit should have had, at the minimum,
a limited review and at the most a public hearing. 3. The current use of the water of the existing structure and now another 900 sq. ft. unit will put excessive load on the well and
groundwater and puts all of the surrounding properties wells at risk. We need documentation from the Division of Water Resources
that this property owner's well permit is in compliance with the current use of the existing building prior to any more building use. 4. The additional ADD unit will put more impact
on the County Road 100. This would mean more cars on the road to say the least. How many cars parked at this building on a full time basis using the additional unit.? We already have
a huge impact on car traffic and have had cars backed up in the morning trying to enter a electronic gate placed on at the entrance to property. 5. Additional lighting on a full time
basis. We are direct neighbors to the large facility which the property owner wishes to add more square footage to. We have, as well as the neighbors complained numerous times about
the rows of lighting emitting from the existing facility and arena, left on at night past a reasonable time or all night disturbing the neighbors right to sleep and enjoy our night sky.
6. The use for this ADD unit would be for barn help and not immediate family, without the owner residing at this property. This unit could house numerous people, added cars on the property,
added impact at night with lights, noise, etc., to the neighbors. Here I might add, I thought these requests were for additional housing at the main residence not an accessory dwelling
with another ADD attached to it. 7. There is an ongoing drainage issue on this property causing harm to the neighbors property and the ADD unit would be directly affected in problem
as an addition to the existing building. This request for an ADD should not be allowed until major issues are resolved. There should not be any further building permits issued to this
project until public hearings can be held to address impacts on our community at this facility. We have visited and had telephone conversations with Planning/Zoning and Building Departments
and still have not gotten a direct answer as to what this building really is by Garfield Co. Code. It seems it gets a new identity as it progresses and P/Z-Building Dept. comes in the
back door and names it without any change in the permit. We are asking that this building permit be presented before BOCC for a review and public hearing. Jake & Carolyn Stoner
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Gale Carmoney Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11 :36 AM Fred Jarman; Andy Schwaller Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Old red barn IIc FYI Gale Carmoney GARCO
Bldg & Planning 970-948-8212 From: Laura Maine [mailto:lmainegb@gmail.eoml Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 201110:14 AM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson; Becky
Wheelersburg Subject: Fwd: Old red barn lie Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Laura Maine <lmainegb@gmaiLcom> Date: April 7, 20112:57:31 PM MDT To: "Imainegb@gmaiLcom"
<lmainegb@gmaiLcom> Subject: Old red barn IIc Dear Garfield County Commissioners, When is an agricultural building not an agricultural building? When it is an indoor riding arena with
47 horse stalls. This may sound rhetorical but I must bring this to your attention in regard to the recent application to build an ADU on this property. I live one property over from
this barn/arena. I generally feel that people should be able to put what they want on their property but I also feel that everyone needs to play by the same rules. How was this indoor
arena ever considered an agricultural building, which by your definition is "constructed to house farm implements, hay, grain, poultry, livestock or other horticultural products", additionally
"nor shall the place be used by the public". "excluded from the definition of agricultural building are structures enclosing an indoor riding arena with an occupancy load of 10 or more".
I think there can be no doubt that a single family will not utilize such a huge structure and keep 47 personal horses there. That being said, my concern with this ADU application is
that it will establish the building as an "existing agricultural barn/arena building", therefor making it as such on record. This arena is already way too big for the property and adding
any more square footage will further scar the neighborhood. Not to mention where the water will come from? .. ". Respectfully submitted, 1
Laura Maine 67 county road 162 Sent from my iPad 2
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: April 12, 2011 Jay F. Halliday 5763 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Jay F. Halliday [halliday@sopris.net] Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:15 PM
Glenn Hartmann April 12 Old Red Barn ADU.doc Garfield County Building & Planning Glen Hartmann(ghartmann@garfield-county.com)/Fred Jarmen 108 Eight Street Suite 401 Glenwood Springs,
CO 8160 I Glen: I am submitting this letter as a follow up to our meeting yesterday regarding the application by the Old Red Barn for an ADU in their agriculture barn/arena. I have many
concerns about the operation that is taking place across the street from me and feel that no additional permits should be issued until these concerns are addressed. The quiet enjoyment
of my property in this rural setting has certainly been effected by the large scale equestrian operation that is running across the road from my property. I don't understand how permits
were issued for what is currently built without public review of what was proposed to be built. What follows is a list of my concerns at this time. I) The water usage at this operation
will have a huge effect on my water table. With more than 7 bathrooms currently in the structure, horse washing and watering facilities and irrigation of future landscaping the added
bathrooms of the ADU just add to the burden on the water table. You said you would follow up with the Water Resources Department as to whether the existing well permit allowed the watering
of boarded horses. I know that the planting of numerous trees is planned for this property and the irrigation water for this property does not run all surnrher so I expect water will
be coming out of their well to keep these trees alive. 2) The classification of this building seems to change to fit whatever the owners want it to be. The original building and septic
permit list it as accessory building to an existing residence as a private arenalbam. As I understand the owners wanted to build without a permit as they were claiming it was an agriculture
building. Per the definition of an agriculture structure no human habitation is allowed therefore no ADU should be allowed in the building. 3) Per Garfield County zoning restrictions
3-301 J 1-4 as an accessory building I feel the existing building is not in compliance therefore no additional permits should be issued until these issues are complied with. The existing
accessory building does not maintain the agriculture use of the existing property, the traffic operation on Road 100 is effected by the increased usage, the building does affect the
natural lighting and visual corridor of the surrounding properties and at times the traffic is affected by the backing up of vehicles at the gate. You have assured me that the county
will enforce its zoning codes and that this operation is to be private and not for public use. Currently there is a trailer onsite that is being lived in and I see no enforcement about
its usage. I know what is going to take place across the road from me with future camps and horse shows and have no confidence that the county will have the backbone to deal with the
lawyers that will allow the owners to do 1
whatever they wish without regard to any of the neighbors or county regulations. If it looks like a pig-if it smells like a pig-it probably is a pig. No more permits should be issued
to this operation until public hearings can be held to address all the impacts that this equestrian operation has on Missouri Heights. Jay F. Halliday Resident of Missouri Heights for
27 years Cc: Glen Hartmann ( ghartmann@garfield-county.com) Fred Jarmen 2
Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To Glenn Hartmann Ziska Childs [ziska@ziskachilds.com} Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:12 PM Glenn Hartmann brian.romig@state.co.us Wight barn
Senior Planner Suite 4el Glenwood Springs, Co 816el Dear Mr, Hartmann, In regards to the neighboring Wight Ranch property on County Road lee applying to add residential units to their
property, Why isn't there a public hearing on this? This "barn" is certainly big enough and visible enough to be a concern to all Missouri Heights, When I was first notified ,prior to
the Wight's purchase, of the " barn" permit this was supposed to be for an agrarian building and the meadow was supposed to be left open for horses. Things changed drastically once construction
started. I've been told this was build with 7 bathrooms and already prepped and plumbed for residences prior to the current request for residential units? In a barn? For agriculture?
Isn't the original use still binding no matter how this has changed it's stripes over time? That wasn't what was "okay'd" by the neighbors the first time through. In fact I didn't even
get to "okay" that since the gate to the driveway for that meeting was shut when I arrived for the "preview" and no one answered my phone calls. They even pulled up my fence without
asking. I used to be able to enjoy the sunset from my deck-now I have the view of rusty metal and a lot of dust and noise. The topsoil has been ripped off the meadow (half of it has
blown into my house). It's been a year of heavy equipment noise and vibration. The quiet agrarian place I moved to in 1996 has been torn to shreds by these "neighbors". I used to joke
that I lived with the "Discovery" channel outside my window. Now I live with endless reruns of "monster trucks". I had hopes that the noise and the dust would settle-obviously I was
wrong. 1. Increased traffic (there was a traffic jam the other day when their automatic gate didn't work) 2. Increased light pollution. It's pretty bad now-this won't help. It disrupts
my quiet enjoyment, that of my neighbors and the local wildlife. 3. Disruption-continued construction blows topsoil into my house and has put cracks in my antique victorian stained glass
windows. One year I've lived with construction blowing in under the door and rattling the shelves ENOUGH. 4. Continued overuse-4e -lee horses in little plastic paddocks means the meadow
will never be rehabilitated. This will remain a dustbowl checkerboard for horses which will never have the opportunity to gallop except under the sodium vapor glare of the 8e,eee sq
foot riding area .. 5. Bait and Switch on the original "agricultural" intent. 1
When will they stop? At what point does this amount of development become visible to the County? Why didn't you approve a strip mall instead? Same difference, without the coffee. The
Wights could have purchased a property where all of their development would have been out of the sight of their neighbors and not have disrupted our lives-instead they chose to erect
a "Wallmart" sized assembly hall/apartment complex/club house/equestrian center which takes up almost half the usable pasture and to rip the topsoil off the rest of it. I've tried to
be neighborly and all I've gotten is another bulldozer wake up call. This "neighbor" gives a resounding NO. Sincerely, Ziska Childs http://www.aspenvalleyfilm.com ziska@aspenvalleyfilm.com
twitter @ZiskaC facebook Ziska Childs 978-963-3651 978-948-8658 cel 2
RECEIVED 4/4/11 APR 0 5 2011 To: Fred Jarmon GARFIELD COUNTY I would like to direct this email to Fred Jarmon, director of Building :end Planning forl3~~L~~~~ & PLANNING County: (SC>A'?j'I"'-'<
{'( j)/t:, "'>1. o r..,5(; Y -{<.n'-lf-(j I understand a new neighbor in Missouri Heights (residing on the corner of Catherine Store Road and County Road 102 is now requesting permission
to put in an ADU. While my property does not directly abut their property, I live at the next site over on County Road 102 and share the limited water resources that Missouri Heights
taps into. In fact my well is probably less than Y, mile from theirs. I realize this is supposed to not be a water issue. I am told that water use is a state not county issue although
water is a very real concern for all who live up on the Heights and the new people at this property are already in the planning/actual early usage stages of using quite a bit of that
valuable commodity. Therefore I am a bit appalled that your department is not considering this aspect as well before granting approvals. That said though, I do want to be among the many
voices requesting that their ADU permit be denied. I feel that it is important to request a public hearing so that all the people impacted by this grand scale development can have their
opinions stated. Again, I am assuming/hoping that your office is taking those voices into consideration as well before making decisions that potentially impact so many people. I understand
that the immediate neighbors have raised concerns with you from the very beginning back before the massive barn/indoor arena was started but their arguments were not heard. The barn
that has been built under the "pretense" of being an agriculture barn is alarmingly big and not really true "agricultural". As a veterinarian I have always understood the term "agriculture"
to imply ranching needs not that of a 45 stall barn with a gigantic indoor arena and 5 bathrooms. What concerns me the most is that I lived in Aspen while my husband was alive back in
the 80's and 90's and saw people with money push through whatever they wanted -i.e. the "garage" would turn out to be a 3,000 square foot home. I hope that is not the case here. The
drought of 2002 was very scary up in Missouri Heights. Working with the water people during the pipeline laying of irrigation water made me very much aware that the water issue should
always be foremost in people's minds when developing this part of the valley. I would love to hear if there will be a public forum that I would be invited to attend so that my voice
too can be heard, I am at 500 County Road 102, Carbondale. My cell phone number is 970.-379-3395. Thank you vre:"'~je b 1,/,1 Karen Kean.-Hines DVM Professor Veterinary Technology Colorado
Mountain College Office: 970.-947.-8210 Fax: 970-947.-8146 khines@coloradomtn.edu "As you grow older you will discover that you have two hands. One for helping yourself, the other for
helping others." Audrey Hepburn
April 12, 2011 Fred Jarman, Director Glen Hartmann, Building Dept. Garfield County Smiling A LLLP 5372 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Ref.: Comments to Public Notice by Old Red
Barn LLC for a Land Use Change to allow and Accessory Dwelling Unit. Dear Fred & Glen, We have reviewed the documents that have been made available to us by Garfield County related to
this reqliest for a Land Use change to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit as well as the packet from the County related to the initial permit application. We remain confused by the intended
use of this property and the permitting of the accessory structure, and what the implications are of the language being used. It appears that the initial permit application indicated
it would be an "accessory to existing residence on lot -private arena/barn use only -not for the public." What constitutes private and what constitutes public use? The plans and consequent
certificate of occupancy indicate an A-4 Assembly code which would indicate an Assembly occupancy, the group used for indoor sporting events that have spectator seating, (arenas, pools,
tennis courts, skating rinks, indoor soccer fields etc), mixed with storage and agricultural. In Garfield County's unified land use code this would require at the minimum a Limited Impact
Review as an Equestrian Center or a Major Impact Review as Indoor Recreation. Garfield County's own 2004 definition of Agricultural Buildings is "A structure designed and constructed
to house farm implements, hay, grain, poultry, livestock or other horticultural products. This structure shall not be a place of employment where agricultural products are processed,
treated or packaged, nor shall it be a place used by the public. The sole purpose of the building must be agricultural. Excluded from the definition of agricultural building are structures
enclosing an indoor riding arena with an occupancy load of 10 or more." So according to Garfield County's definition a building that isn't solely agricultural is no longer agricultural
and it is an indoor riding arena with an occupancy load of 10 or more. If it is not an agricultural building and it is an assembly building there would have been a review. The application
for the ADU indicates "the addition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit approx. 900 sq. feet in size within an existing agricultural barn/arena building on their property." Are Accessory Dwelling
units permitted on Agricultural Buildings?, Are they permitted on Assembly buildings? The use and the classification seem to change with the whim of the most current application. What
is this building and what is the use as defined by Garfield County's Unified Land Use Code, definitions, and CR.s 39-1-102 (1.6)(a)(IV)subsections (3.5) (13.5)? Until the accessory structure
is clearly defined and understood and has gone through the proper review we would discourage your allowance of an Accessory Dwelling Unit that has no limits on the number of dwellers.
Additionally, we are very concerned that intended water usage has not been reviewed with the Division of Water Resources. The water consumption will affect every neighbor in this drainage.
Does this well
permit include an occupancy load of 201 people in the assembly group and the construction and use of a 30,000 gallon water storage tank, 7 bathrooms, horse wash stalls, washing machines,
a wet bar, in addition to the items listed on the well permit? Before an additional burden is placed on the water system in Missouri Heights by permitting an Accessory Dwelling Unit
with its own toilets, showers, sinks, washing machines and dishwashers to be used by an unlimited and unspecified number of employees of Old Red Barn LLC it should be reviewed between
building and planning, zoning and the Colorado Division of Water Resources to determine overall compliance and the proper review for the intended use. Lastly per the Garfield County
Zoning restrictions 3-301 J point 1.) Said accessory structure is required to maintain the agricultural use contemplated or existing within the property. The existing accessory structure
does not maintain the agricultural use contemplated or existing as defined per C.R.S 39-1-102 (1.6)(a)(IV)subsections (3.5) (13.5). It is unfortunate that the burden of approval and
complaints against this project have been placed upon the neighbors. This process is backwards, this is and should remain the County's responsibility. The manner in which this has been
handled only fosters ill will between neighboring properties and property owners. The impact to this Missouri Heights neighborhood will be an adverse one and has already changed it from
a friendly, trusting, rural agricultural neighborhood into a contentious, mistrusting, dishonest, large scale & potentially commercial neighborhood all without any public review. We
chose to live here and hope to do so long term. The burden of the future of Garfield County and agriculture lies with the County's ability to uphold the land use code and to stick to
its definitions. The decision Garfield County makes today will affect this and neighboring properties for a lifetime. We would appreciate the County's clear explanation and directive
about what type of building they permitted and what use is allowed, following all of the county and state codes, definitions, and following the proper review. This process should incorporate
all Garfield County offices and should coordinate with the Colorado Division of Water Resources. After all points have been clarified then the affected neighboring properties could make
educated decisions about whether or not a land use change for an Accessory Dwelling Unit should or should not be allowed. Sincerely, Smiling A LLLP
April 13, 2011 SUSY ELUSON & MARTY SCHLEIN 4474 COUNTY ROAD 100 CARBONDALE, CO 81623 970-963-0463 To the Garfield County Planning Department We are writing to express our concerns about
and objections to the Public Notice of the land use changes requested by the Red Barn, LLC for an accessory dwelling unit (ADD) at 5644 County Road 100, Carbondale, Co., 81623. We feel
that this permit request should be brought up to the BOCC in a public hearing. The current 'barn' on the site has been under construction for over a year. Its size, height, and general
architecture are completely out of proportion for a building that was permitted as an 'agricultural building'. Garfield County's definition of an agricultural building is: A structure
designed and constructed to house farm implements, hay, grain, poultry, livestock or other horticultural products. This structure shall not be a place of employment where agricultural
products are processed, treated or packaged, nor shall it be a place used by the public. The sale purpose of the building must be agricultural. Excluded from the definition of agricultural
building are structures enclosing an indoor riding arena with an occupancy load of 10 or more. If you've visited the building site you might have noticed that it includes an indoor riding
arena, 40 interior horse stalls, and 7 bathrooms. That doesn't seem to fit the county's own definition. In fact, it seems to be in direct opposition to the definition of an agricultural
building. The project just seems to grow and grow, without any opportunities for public comment. The most recent request for an ADD seems to add insult to injury. There is a certain
amount of irony in considering a request for an ADD in a building that was purported to be agricultural and is so clearly in violation of the county's own permitting process. Does the
applicant have sufficient water rights to support the ADD in addition to the 'agricultural' water they will need to house, wash, and maintain their horses? The county needs to require
documentation from the Division of Water Resources that this property owner's well permit is in compliance with the current use of the existing building before adding any additional
uses. We are concerned about the veracity of this application. The original building was supposed to be agricultural. A 40-stall horse arena is not agricultural. Based on this poor track
record we wonder what the ADD will become if it is permitted. How many people will live there to manage this 'agricultural' operation. The owners appear to have little regard for their
neighbors in this venture. The proposal needs to be presented before the BOCC for public input and comment. The county needs to consider impacts of this additional use on the surrounding
neighbors. While we live 1 mile away from this monstrous facility, we still feel some of its impacts. There is increased horse trailer traffic that has the potential to more than make
up for the recession-caused decrease in local construction traffic. County Road 100 is a narrow, winding, steep road. The horse traffic associated with this 'agricultural' building has
the potential to impact us all. Sincerely, Susy Ellison & Marty Schlein