Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.02.2003I. • 0 Exhibits for Okanela Ranch SUP Public Hearing held on September 2, 2003 Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Application Staff Memorandum F 1 G Letter from the County Road and Bridge Department to the B&P Dept. 8/2/03 Additional Exhibits to be added to the record ,1 H Letter to the BOCC from Joyce and Tom Clark dated 8/29.03 A I Letter to the BOCC from Pam Szedelyi dated 8/27/03 N J Letter to the BOCC from Carol Turtle received on 8/29/03 K L • • • 1.,100 Flo t' ,,t -Se ✓ v 7 4/41-, " ?i".fit - -✓rt1 . BOCC i 9/02/03 FAJ PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Special Use Permit request for a "Resort" APPLICANT: Peter Knobel represented by Michael English LOCATION: The Okanela Ranch on CR 137 Canyon Creek Road. SITE DATA: 536 acres ACCESS: County Road 137 ("Canyon Creek Road") WATER: Individual Wells SEWER: ISDS EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD I. PROPERTY BACKGROUND The subject property, the Okanela Ranch, is formerly known as the Okanela Lodge. The Lodge operated as a guest ranch (or resort as defined in the current zoning resolution) for many years and included the main lodge building and up to 5 separate lodging cabins for guests to the property seeking typical western Colorado recreational opportunities (hunting / fishing / horseback riding) found on the property. Since the Lodge and its operation existed prior to zoning, the uses on the property were deemed legal non -conforming uses with respect to the current zoning in that the activities and units would have required a Special Use Permit (hereinafter "SUP) for a Resort to comply with zoning. The Applicant, a new owner of the property within the last several years, has removed all but one of the structures that contributed to the property's legal non -conforming status. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant requests approval of a SUP for a "Resort" for the Okanela Ranch located on County Road 137 (Canyon Creek Road). More specifically, the Applicant requests the ability to designate the top floor of a three level barn (currently under construction) into living space to include: a kitchen, 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, library, and an open living / dining room. The use of this living space would be to house friends / guests on the ranch. The lower floor would contain two employee studio units for employees working on the ranch. In addition, the Applicant proposes to construct a 2,200 to 2,500 square feet Guest Cabin for the Applicant's children. As a result, this type of proposal fits most closely with the definition of "Resort" in the County's Zoning Resolution pursuant to Section 2.02.448 which is: 1 • Resort: Dude ranch or guest ranch; hunting or fishing camp, cross-country or trail skiing lodge (any of which shall not exceed twelve (12) dwelling units or forty-eight (48) beds or visitor capacity), land used for the purpose of recreation, which provides lodging, recreational activities, dining facilities, commissary and other needs operated on the site for guests or members. As noted above, the definition contemplates a wide variety of activities provided to guests or memberes which could include a(mooerciat)component where guests or members pay for services. That is not the case of the present proposal. The end result, as requested by the Applicant, would include the following structures and associated uses on the property to be known as the Okanela Ranch for the benefit and use of the Applicant's friends guests to the property which may be best described as a(provate)family compound. The structures and their visitor capacity / bed count is proposed as follows: 1) A new main single-family dwelling to replace the former main house to contain 6 bedrooms for approximately 12 people; 2) A new 3 -story barn to contain uses ancillary to the operations of the ranch, 2 employee housing units on the bottom level, and the third story to contain a kitchen, 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, library, and an open living / dining room to house approximately 10 friends / guests on the ranch; 3) A small existing 240 square foot cabin (from the lodge operations) to be used as a guest cabin to house a maximum of 2 guests; 4) A new Guest Cabin of approximately 2,200 to 2,500 square feet for the Applicant's children to contain 2 bedrooms to house a maximum of 4 guests; and 5) A small "pump -house" building to contain the mechanical controls for the irrigation and security systems to be esed on the property. Because the definition of a resort quantifies the number of dwelling units and visitor capacity / beds, Staff has quantified the proposed uses associated with the request to include a total of 30 visitor capacity in 4 dwelling units which includes the main single-family dwelling as well as the two employees of the property. As mentioned above, the "resort" definition would allow up to 48 visitor capacity or 12 dwelling units. • III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. Special Use Permits are subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. B. Zoning Resolution: A resort designation is defined as a special use in the A/R/RD zone district pursuant to Section 3.02.03 of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. The application must address the Special Use Permit requirements in Section 5.03 which are listed below in bold italics followed by a Staff response: General Special Use Permit Requirements (Section 5.03) 2 • • • 1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Staff Finding Regarding water, the property has two existing wells that have served the Okanela Lodge and its operations for many years: one well serving the main house (Main House Well) and one serving the old guest cabin (Ranch Manager Cabin Well). As proposed, these two wells will continue to serve the new main house and the old guest cabin. The Applicant recently received a new well permit (#251012 on June 12, 2003) to specifically serve the new barn (Barn Well) and has also received a new well permit (#252420 on August 18, 2003) to serve the new guest cabin for the children (Guest Cabin Well). Because of the age of the two existing wells, the Applicant applied to the Division of Water Resources for "permits to use an existing well" for those two existing wells. He has received a permit for the Main House Well (#252419) and is waiting to receive a permit for the Ranch Manager Cabin Well (which is the only building left over from the old Okanela Lodge operation) If the Applicant has not received a well permit for the Ranch Manager Cabin Well by the time the Board of County Commissioners reviews this application, Staff acknowledges the fact that the Barn Well is approved to serve up to three (3) single-family dwellings and could serve as a legal and adequate water source for the Ranch Manager Cabin Well. The Applicant proposes to handle wastewater by installing an engineered designed septic system for all three structures (the barn, main house, and guest cabin). This is done at the time of building permits. 2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Finding The current road that serves the ranch is County Road 137 also called Canyon Creek Road. The ranch, as it currently operates, maintains two entrance points onto the property from County Road 137; one for the barn area on the lower portion of the property and a second entrance for the main house located on the upper portion of the property. The Applicant proposes to maintain the current entrances as adequate to serve the resort status. Moreover, the County Road and Bridge Department have granted the driveway permits to the Applicants (See Exhibit G ). In addition, the Applicant was granted a temporary road access permit for a lower portion of the property which was required to be terminated in the end of July, 2003. As of yet, the Applicant has not terminated this entrance and remains in violation of that temporary permit. This entrance will be eliminated as a condition of approval to be consistent with the temporary status of its permit. 3 • • A recent traffic study conducted by Garfield County during the summer of 2002 revealing the average daily trips (ADT) on CR 137 was 309. It should be noted; CR 137 was not assessed as part of the Comprehensive Plan road mapping, and is not located within a traffic study area of the County. The road itself consists of a chip / seal surface from State Highway 6 & 24 to the main entrance of the ranch then it turns into a gravel road. The road is posted at 25 miles an hour. Because of the newly proposed use, the visitor capacity and associated traffic / trips will be significantly reduced from the former Okanela Lodge (a commercial operation open to the public) to the proposed private family nature of the Okanela Ranch. It should be noted, it appears several blue spruce trees recently planted along the outside of the fence may be located in the county ROW of CR 137. The Road and Bridge Department informed the contractor planting the trees along CR 137 that certain areas needed to be avoided to stay out of the right-of-way so that future road conflicts (including line of sight and snow plowing) could be avoided. Even with this direction from the Road and Bridge Department, it remains apparent, the contractor still placed trees in the wrong locations. (See Exhibit 6). At present, the Applicant is having a survey completed to determine where their property line is located in relation to the road to really see just where the trees are currently located. 3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Finding The Applicant indicates that the neighborhood character has been substantially improved by the removal of non -conforming buildings and the planting of over 1,500 spruce trees that have been planted to screen the property from CR 137 as shown in the photo to the right. The structures that will be visible from the road will include the new barn as well as the new main house. The other structures discussed here will not be visible form CR 137. Further access points will be "modestly" lit at two entry gates with no signage other than address markers. Staff shall require, as a condition of approval that all new exterior lighting will be directed inward and shall be downcast. Lastly, while the barn currently under construction will contain three levels, the lower level will be sub -grade. IV. OTHER ISSUES The Board should also be aware that the County Zoning Enforcement Officer has found the Applicant to be in violation of the County's zoning code regarding the fence which runs along CR 137. It is approximatekly 8 feet tall and may be taller in other places. The zoning code only allows for a fence to be 3 feet tall in the 25 foot front yard setback. The Applicant is aware of this issue and is currently discussing options with the County as to an appropriate way to address the the issue. More specifically, it appears there are several options for the Applicant to address the fence issue: 4 • 1) Relocate the fence to be outside of the 25 foot setback or simply reduce its size in its current location to be no taller than three feet; 2) Apply for a variance from the Board of Adjustment to keep the fence at its current height (representing a 5 foot variance) and apply for a building permit for any fence taller than six feet; or 3) Apply for a text amendment to modify the language addressing fences in the front yard setback so that the Applicant's fence is allowed as constructed and apply for a building permit for any fence taller than six feet. At present, the Applicant has requested to amend the land use code by applying for a text amendment, although no application has been received to date. It should be noted, the fence is an issue to be discussed as part of the SUP because the Applicant represents a fence on their site plan, and all fences as well as other structures shall comply with the current zoning requirements. Staff shall require that is conform to the requirements as outlined in the Zoning Resolution. As a side note, Staff did contact the Division of Wildlife (DOW) who was familiar with the property as well as the subject of the fence. While Staff has not received any official opinion regarding the fence from the DOW, the DOW did indicate that 1) a similar fence existed in its place prior to the newly erected fence because the property owner raised Elk on the property and did not want the wild Elk to mix with domestic Elk raised on the property, and 2) DOW agrees with fencing of that type to fence out wildlife around specific areas completely dedicated to commercial crop production, but does not nessisarily endorse fencing large areas that are not totally focussed on crop / agriculturally related production activities. The Applicant proposes to grow herbs / spices on a very small portion of the fenced area. The total fenced area is approximately 120-130 acres. Again, this is not endorsed by the DOW. Staff reccomends the Board of County Commissioners condition any approval for the SUP for the resort upon the Applicant's ability to reach a resolution by one of the options provided above for the fence as well as resolve any issue for removing any trees, fencing, or other obstruction placed in the county right-of-way for County Road 137 (Canyon Creek Road). V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 5 1978, as amended. • VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL, with the following condition: • 1. All representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. This permit granted is for this specific use only as presently described. No commercial operations related to the resort such as charging guests to stay on the property or for recreational activities at the property shall be permitted unless the Applicant requests a new SUP from the Board of County Commissioners to include a commercial component. In the event any representations made in the application for which this permit is granted change and are no longer consistent with the representations in this application, the applicant shall be required to submit a new permit application to the county addressing the changes. 3. This Special Use Permit for a Resort is granted specifically and only for the proposed uses above which include a visitor capacity / beds for 30 people in 4 dwelling units which includes the main single-family dwelling. More specifically, the number of units and visitor capacity are approved as follows: A) The designation of the top floor of the three level barn to include: a kitchen, 5 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, library, and an open living / dining room. The use of this living space would for a maximum visitor capacity of 10; B) The bottom floor of the barn shall contain 2 (two) employee studio units for employees working on the ranch. C) A small existing 240 square foot cabin (Ranch Manager Cabin) to be used as a guest cabin for a maximum visitor capacity of 2; D) A new Guest Cabin (approximately 2,200 to 2,500 sq. ft. in size) for the Applicant's children to contain 2 bedrooms for a maximum visitor capacity of 4; and E) The Main House may contain up to 6 bedrooms for a maximum visitor capacity of 12. 4. No Special Use Permit shall be granted until the temporary entrance as permitted by the County Road and Bridge Department is eliminated and fenced closed to be consistent with the temporary status of its permit. The Applicant shall contact the Road and Bridge Department for a site visit to confirm this entrance has been eliminated. 5. The Applicant shall apply for a text amendment addressing the ability to have fencing taller than 3 feet in the front yard setback. No Special Use Permit shall be approved for 6 • the Applicant until a determination has been reached regarding the fence located in the front yard setback. 6. All fencing and trees shall be removed if found to be located in the County right-of- way of County Road 137. The Applicant shall provide a letter to the Building and Planning Department that indicates a site visit has been conducted by the County Road and Bridge Department indicating there are not trees or fencing in the ROW based on a determination by the County Surveyor. 7. The Applicant shall apply for a building permit for any new fence on the property taller than six feet. 8. All new exterior lighting associated with the Special Use Permit will be directed inward and shall be downcast. VII. RECOMMENDED MOTION "I move to approve the Special Use Permit request for a "Resort" for a property located at 2518 County Road 137 with conditions." 7 Garfield County Road and Bridge, District 1 7300 Hwy 82, Gknwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-1223 ph, 945-1318 Ga 08-20-03 EXHIBIT a G3 On March 26, 2003 Cleve Kingen and 1 met with Richard Webb, at 2518 CR 137 Glenwood Springs CO 81601, regarding driveway permits for the same address. At that time two permits were drafted. The first was for the main entrance to the property and a secondary entrance to a maintenance "barn". The second permit was issued as a temporary construction access. In accordance with the draft this driveway was to be removed no later that 07-31-03. The area was to be re-established to as good or better condition to include sloping, compacting and re -seeding. During the meeting with Mr. Webb he expressed a desire to plant trees along the roadside and asked if we would walk the area with him.. Upon doing so, Cleve and I expressed to Mr. Webb that the trees would need to be planted so as to not encroach upon the road right of way. At one specific area, near the lower end of the property, he was advised to maintain the tree line at a then existing ditch line. In addition there are two boulders adjacent to the road. It was expressed that the trees should not obstruct the view of the boulders. Immediately following the boulders is a right hand turn in the road. It was expressed that the trees should be kept well back from the radius of the turn for the visibility of on coming traffic. Along the following strait a way there are existing trees, Mr. Webb was to keep his trees w line with the existing. Further up the road Mr. Webb had locations marked where he intended to plant. Mr. Webb was advised on which locations would be acceptable and which would not. On 08-19-03, Cleve Kingen and I again met with Mr. Webb regarding the placement of the trees. Mr. Webb was advised that some of the trees s were too close and were not properly placed. Mr. Webb stated that he was aware of that and that he intended to remove those trees. Bobby Branham. Dist. 1 Road and Bridge • • • • August 29, 2003 Mrs. Tresi Houpt Mr. John Martin Mr. Larry McCown Dear Commissioners: From the information shared with us, it would appear that a wanton disregard for regulations exists in development at the former Okanela Lodge property. We have personally observed muddying of the water in Canyon Creek from creek diversion above us. EXHIBIT rr Another personal observation is traffic impact. Most morning I walk the half mile from home to the mail box. Sunday morning is the only morning that dozens of vehicles, including semis and heavy equipment, as well as personal vehicles, do not go up the road. This situation has existed only since the present owners of the aforementioned property came to the area. In view of the considerations presented, in what appears to be careful research by others, we suggest a cautious approach in decision making on the part of the commissioners. Respectfully, Joyce and Tom Clark 570 County Road 137 • 1-25-1997 8:39AM FROM PAM SZEDELYI 9709451398 August 27, 2003 Mrs. Tresi I-loupt Mr. John Martin Mr. Larry McCown Dear Commissioners, r cc -a c z 2 C • Pam Szedelyi 1512 County Road 137 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970/945-1398 1 am respectfully requesting that you delay your decision on the Request for Special Use Permit for Okanela Ranch which will come before you on September 2, 2003. The Applicant is requesting a designation of "resort" for this property. It has been difficult to ascertain what the intent is for this property in our neighborhood, but one thing has become apparent: Mr. Knobel, the new owner and Applicant, seems to be asking forgiveness rather than permission for his plans. Construction and building have already begun without a permit; this, of course, is his prerogative. However, the following violations (as cited in the Staff Report on this Special Use Permit Request) indicate a disregard for zoning and guidelines that give me concern for the future: • The Applicant is currently in violation of the County's zoning code with fencing that he has already installed around the entire property which is at least five feet taller than allowed. To remedy this situation, he is petitioning to amend the land use code by applying for a text amendment, which will allow his violation to stand. The Department of Wildlife has indicated that it does not endorse this type of fencing unless it is totally focused on crop/agricultural production, which is not the case here. • The Applicant appears to be in violation of the County Right of Way after having planted blue spruce trees along the road, in direct opposition to advise and guidance provided by the Road and Bridge Department regarding their proper location. A survey is currently being conducted to determine who is right. • The Applicant is in violation of an existing temporary permit for an additional entrance to the property. It should have been eliminated by the end of July 2003. 1 take issue with several of the findings suggested in the Staff Report on the subject of the Applicant's planned use of the property: 1-25-1997 8-41AM FROM PAM SZEDELY I 9709451398 Page 2 of 2 • August 27, 2003 • • EXHIBIT 1. To suggest that the traffic/trips on County Road 137 associated with the proposed use of this property "will be significantly reduced" from the former Okanela Lodge is preposterous. Okanela Lodge has not been operated in a commercial capacity for at least fifteen years, and then was only used for guests in the summer months. Additionally, the operation as a commercial venture existed before zoning and was considered non -conforming. 2. To state that the proposed Special Use Permit "is in the best interest of the health, safety ... and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County" does not address the safety of the citizens that live on Country Road 137 who are already dealing with a dangerous traffic situation and will have to deal with the increased traffic associated with a "resort" use. (Numerous complaints have already been lodged with the Sheriffs Department.) While the Applicant takes every opportunity to assure the Commissioners that this permit is intended for private use for family and friends, the very nature of the plans and what is occurring on the property now (new road being punched and Possum Creek being diverted) suggests otherwise. Apparently, all the Applicant would need to convert to commercial use is another Special Use Permit. 1 would ask that the Commissioners delay approval of the Special Use until the final plans for the additional dwelling units on this property are reviewed and an updated traffic study can be conducted. I am an avid proponent of property owners' rights, and welcome the Knobels to our community. However, should they ever choose to leave our neighborhood, I am reluctant to see changes to our zoning that could be carried forward with other intentions. Respectfully, Pam Szedelp /sz 4f, • RECEIVED AU G D2 . alriissioners, CGARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING haVeVtfaiiiithe letter written by Pam Szedelyi and I agree with the points she makes in her letter and want to express some of my views. Specifically, I see a disregard by the owner for the existing regulations when building is already going on that is in violation of the county. Getting a permit or approval `after the fact" goes to intent. a EXHIBIT I have also learned the hard way that it is wise to "get everything IN WRITING". If this project is approved as a "resort" then that is what is IN WRITING and determines the use of the property. Simply being told by Fred Jarmon that the county will "keep an eye" on this project is not reassuring enough for me. If the "resort" designation is approved, then I fear we are headed down the "slippery slope" towards eventual commercial use. There will be no "teeth" for the county to enforce a family use only once it is approved as a "resort". If, in fact, the intent of the owners is for this property to be used as a family compound — then the designation that is approved should be consistent with what the true use that the property is intended. If the county currently does not have a designation that includes the various kinds of buildings that are being proposed by the owner, then my issue isn't with the buildings — it's with the "resort" designation. Due to the fact that I walk my dog on the road (over 6 hours per week), I can personally say that this narrow road with many blind curves can not handle any more traffic. I am currently talking with the Sheriff and the Road and Bridge department to curtail the serious reckless driving and speeding that is already out of control. In reference to the Staff Report - the point that they make that the traffic will be less now than it was when this property was being illegally operated as hunting lodge is flawed logic. Deal with what the issue is today, not what was going on in some other era. We have many more private residences on this road now than we did 20 years ago. There is no comparison that can be made between the predominant use of this road then and this road now. Therefore, I strongly urge you to vote NO against a "resort" and go back to the drawing board and come up with a designation that clearly restricts the use of the property to private use. If such a designation currently does not exist, then the solution would be to get creative and come up with one so the Knobels' can build what they want. Respectfully, Carol Turtle 0726 County Road 137