No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR81-35 Adam's Rib Recreational Area PUD Sketch Plan Approval.a s RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0. 81-,~Jr IN RE THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ADAM'S RIB RECREATIONAL AREA FOR P.U.D. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL OF ADAM'S RIB RESORT, FILE NO.PD-138-80-S - FINDINGS AND ORDER PROCEEDINGS Adam's Rib Recreational Area, a totally owned subsidiary of the Hospital Building Equipment Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri, ("HBE" or "Applicant") has submitted an application requesting Sketch Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development ("P.U.D.") referred to as the Adam's Rib Resort, File No. PD-138-80-S, pursuant to Section 3.11 et seq, of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, and Section 4.01 et seq. of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, 1972, as amended. The project area is presently zoned R/Resource, is located approximately fourteen air miles south of Eagle, Colorado, in the Brush Creek Drainage both above and below the confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries, and is generally described as follows to be referred to as the "project area" or the "subject project". A parcel of land located within the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, lying in Tracts 74, 75 and 76 of Section 24, Tract 79 of Section 25, Tract 80 of Sections 25 and 26, Tract 81 of Section 26, and Tracts 85 and 86 of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; WZ SW4 of Section 7, Section 16 excepting therefrom U.S. Government lands, N 2 NW 4 of Section 18 , Section 21 excepting 1 ,, therefrom U.S. Government lands and Section 22 excepting therefrom U.S. Government lands, Township 6 South, Range 83 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; and NE4 SE4 of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. On December 27, 1973, the applicant made an initial application for a Special Use Permit to the U.S. Forest Service for development of downhill skiing on all or a portion of approximately 6,800 acres of National Forest Service lands commonly referred to as the Adam Mountain Area. On May 3, 1976, the applicant submitted to Eagle County its original application for P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval of the project area in File No. Ssp-67-76. (Exhibit No. 1). The Eagle County Planning Commission reviewed said application on July 21, 1976, and recommended approval with conditions. (Exhibit No. 2) . In order to synchronize the review and decision-making processes of the County, the Forest Service and other . governmental entities relative to the project area, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, the applicant, the U.S. Forest Service, and the State of Colorado, on August 26, 1976, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the purpose to jointly undertake a detailed and thorough multi-governmental review of the project area, and to establish a Joint Review Committee under the guidance of the Manual for the Colorado Review Process, Colorado Review Process, Colorado Winter Resource Management Plan, August, 1976. (Exhibit No. 2). On January 26, 1977, two additional agreements were entered into by the above-named parties entitled "Eagle County, Colorado, Review Process Agreement" and "Eagle County, Colorado, Eagle-Aspen Planning Unit Cooperative Agreement" which further defined the respective roles of the parties to the joint review process of the project area, and which required, among other things, the withdrawal of the applicant's sketch -2- plan and resubmittal thereof at a later date in accordance with such agreements, and the cooperation of all parties in the formulation of the Eagle-Aspen Planning Unit Land Use Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement relative thereto by the Forest Service. (Exhibit No. 4). On or about March, 1978, the State of Colorado withdrew from the foregoing joint reveiw process and, thus, all agree- meats relative thereto were terminated. Subsequently, the Forest Service commenced its joint review process and on January 29, 1980, a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant thereto was entered into between the County, the State of Colorado, the Forest Service and the applicant in which the parties agreed to further study the Adam's Rib Recreational Site Proposal by performing a Site Specific Study and, as part thereof, a Site Specific Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, said Memorandum established a time schedule pertaining to the various actions or decisions required of the parties involved in the assessment and review process of the project area. (Exhibit Nos. 32 and 33). On March 28, 1980, the applicant resubmitted its revised application for P.U.D. Sketch Plan approval of the project area in File No. PD-138-80-S. (Exhib it No. 14). On May 22, 1980, the Eagle County Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan application and recommended denial for the following reasons: 1) the timing was inappropriate; 2) the lack of an environmental impact study; 3) the plan was premised on a land swap not yet complete; and 4) there was no proof that the project: could be justified economically; would not overload streets outside the area; was consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan; and that the area around the development could be planned in substantial harmony with the P.U.D. (Exhibit No. 38). On August 5, 1981, the draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Forest Service relative to the project area was released. (Exhibit No. 18). On September 21, 1981, the Eagle County Department of Community Development -3- ,. released its recommendations for approval with conditions of the P.U.D. Sketch Plan application of the project area as revised August 1980, and September, 1981. (Exhibit No. 43). See Exhibits Nos. 15 and 16 for sketch plan revisions. The revised P.U.D Sketch Plan application was scheduled for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on September 28, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., and hearings were held on September 28, September 29, September 30, and October 1, respectively, 1981. Notice of the public hearing was duly published. (Exhibit No. 41). The Board of County Commissioners received oral evidence in the form of testimony or unsworn informational statements, and written evidence in the form of letters, statements, comments, recommendations, reports, studies, and other documentation. Such evidence was submitted by the applicant; County planning staff members;various groups and governmental entities such as the Forest Service, the Division of Wildlife, the Town of Gypsum, the Town of Eagle, the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the Concerned Citizens for Upper Brush Creek and Eagle County; and members of the general public including residents of surrounding communities, ranchers, businessmen, professionals, developers, and environmentalists. Two hundred and thirty exhibits were tendered, all of which were admitted at the conclusion of the hearing into the record. The evidence was weighed accordingly based upon the probative value placed thereon by the Board of County Commissioners, and the following findings are based on the record as a whole. References to the record are for convenience only and do not necessarily compile all portions of the record on which the findings are based. -4- p~npncoT The proposed Adam's Rib Resort consists of a four season resort on 2,271 acres of land which incluc~s 4,295 dwelling units consisting of condominiums, single family homes, duplex homes, and apartments, some of which would be afforuu~le housing for employees of the resort; hotels; retail and commercial facilities; a convention center; a fine arts center; athletic and health facilities; a mass transit system; public services; service maintenance support centers; and recreational facilities to include two golf courses, indoor skating arena, cultural center, and development of 58 miles of downhill winter skiing, a major portion of which is located on National Forest Service lands. The revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application was based upon the assumption that the Forest Service would issue a Special Use Permit to develop a ski area capable of accomodating 9,800 skiers-at-one-time although the draft EIS prepared by the Forest Service proposed a preliminary figure of 9,000 skiers-at-one-time. The project area would entail one major center of activity with two other areas in support. The major community center referred to as the Transit Served Community would be located primarily in Vassar Meadow, and would contain a series of residential clusters, lin~:ed by a mass transit system, and centered on a very dense commercial core. At the confluence of East and West Brush Creek would be the Service Support Area which would contain no residential, recreational or commercial activities but, rather, would provide an area for maintenance shops, equipment storage and an interceptor parking facility for skiers. The second Support Activity Area would be the Golf Course and Employee Community Site which would be located 52 miles south of the Town of Eagle and would consist of two golf courses and affordable housing. -5- DISCUSSION Section 3.11.04 of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado (Exhibit No. 66), requires the Board of County Commissioners to make a determination that a P.U.D. Sketch Plan application is in accordance with the following requirements prior to its approval thereof: (1) there are special physical conditions or objectives of development which the proposal will satisfy to warrant a departure from the standard regulation requirements; (2) resulting development will not be inconsistent with the Master Plan objectives; (3) the area around the development can be planned to be in substantial harmony with the proposed PUD; (4) the adjacent and nearby communities will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed PUD; (5) the PUD can be completed within a reason- able period of time, which shall be deter- mined prior to final approval of the PUD; (6) any proposed commercial or industrial development can be justified economically; (7) the streets are adequate to support the anticipated traffic and the development will not overload the streets outside the planned area; (8) proposed utility and drainage facilities are adequate for population densities and type of development proposed. Based upon the evidence received during the hearing process in conjunction with the foregoing sketch plan review requirements, the Board of County Commissioners determined that a number of the issues raised had been adequately addressed by the applicant or the applicable governmental entity; or were more appropriately the subject for review during the preliminary plan process at which time detailed studies would be required and mitigation measures would have to be addressed. Issues to be adequately addressed and -6- resolved prior to preliminary plan approval included the submittal of the proposed location and alignment of the primary access road to the project area along with a detailed construction plan and schedule relative thereto; issuance of all necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers relative to wetlands; detailed information on the proposed 1,000 acre feet of water storage along with a detailed water quality maintenance program to insure minimum stream degradation both during and after construction; detailed mitigation measures addressing the specif is concerns of the Division of Wildlife; the issuance of applicable Eagle County H.B. 1041 permits; conditions imposed upon the issuance of the Special Use Permit by the Forest Service; and a detailed plan for providing temporary housing for the project area's total construction workforce. The following is a brief discussion of those major areas of concern which were properly the subject of the P.U.D. sketch plan review process, and which were at issue during the hearing. ACCESS. The primary access to the project area would consist of a road commencing at a point on State Highway No. 6, continuing through or adjacent to the Town of Eagle, and continuing to the project area by using an alignment similiar to the alignment of the present County road commonly referred to as the Brush Creek Road. The Brush Creek Road as it presently exists is inadequate to serve the anticipated volumes. of traffic which would be generated by the project area. Based upon a study performed by Centennial Engineerins~, Inc. in 1977 entitled "Brush Creek Access Study" (Exhibit No. 17), the applicant in its revised sketch plan application proposed to pay 100 percent of the construction cost to redevelop the Brush Creek Road to the following standards: -U.S. 6 to Intersection of East and West Brush Creek: 24' paved surface, 6' gravel shoulders, 22" bituminous asphalt -7- for paved surfaces, 10" granular sub-base, and necessary drainage structures; - Intersection of East and West Brush Creek to Yeoman Park Access: 24' paved surface, 4' gravel shoulders where practical, 24" bituminous asphalt for paved surfaces, 10" granular sub-base, 8" granular base for shoulders, and necessary drainage structures. The applicant further agreed to donate the appropriate rights-of-way for those segments of the road that adjoin its property. (Exhibit No. 16, Page 40). During the hearing, the applicant modified its proposal and agreed to pay the total cost of construction of the following described road including the cost of acquiring a 70 foot right-of-way for the entire road: -Highway No. 6 to a point 3 miles north of the confluence: 2 paved 12 foot lanes plus 6 foot shoulders; -Point 3 miles north of confluence to the confluence; 2 paved 12 foot lanes plus 6 foot shoulders for 80% of the above road segment with appropriate guard rails where such shoulders are not practicable; -Confluence to the north boundary of Yeoman Park: 2 paved 11 foot lanes with 6 foot shoulders where practicable, with appropriate guard rails, where such shoulders are not practicable. (Exhibit No. 230). David Grounds of the engineering firm of Mountain Engineering & Land Surveying Company, under contract with Eagle County, reviewed the Centennial Engineering Brush Creek Access Road Study, the Forest Service Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the revised sketch plan application for the purpose of determining what improvements should be made to the Brush Creek Road to accomodate the project area. It was his opinion that a four lane road would eventually be warranted and, by reason thereof, recommended that initially a two-lane roadway (twelve-foot lanes and six-foot paved shoulders) be constructed with an additional two lanes being constructed when future traffic conditions warranted the same. -8- Mr. Grounds further recommended that a minimum 100 feet of right-of-way be purchased with the initial construction stage and, in cases where the terrain was not relatively flat, additional right-of-way be purchased to allow for cut and fill slopes to remain within the purchased right-of- way. (Ex?.i:.it Nos. 42 and 227). The County Department of Community Development concurred with Mr. Ground's recom- mendations in its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibit No. 43). The applicant opposed Mr. Grounds' recommendations on the basis that it was economically infeasible, and visually and construction-wise impracticable. EMPLOYEE HOUSING. The applicant in its revised sketch plan application proposed to located the majority of employee housing in the Golf Course and Employee Community Site Area (Salt Creek area) with 250 employee beds located in the Transit Served Community. (Exhibit No. 16,•Page 10). The County Department of Community Development found the applicant's proposal unacceptable and, as an alternative, recommended that a portion of the Adam's Rib Main Headquarters Ranch,which is visually removed from the Bursh Creek Road,be developed as employee housing. The County Planning Staff further recommended that a greater proportion of the employee housing be located in the Upper Village for that transient segment of the labor force required to operate the proposed resort with the down valley site being oriented towards the permanent residents and families. Although the Adam's Rib Main Headquarters Ranch was not a part of the revised sketch plan application, the applicant stated that it was willing to include the same for employee housing if, in conjunction therewith, it could also include in its revised -9- sketch plan application additional lands in the Bellyache Area for development of additional building sites. The applicant stated at the hearing that it was opposed to any further development of employee housing in the Transit Served Community than what it had p_trosed in its revised sketch plan application. The Town of Eagle was opposed to the location of employee housing at either the Golf Course and Employee Community Site Area or the Adam's Rib Main Headquarters Ranch. It was of the opinion that "the location of employee housing should be dispersed among the existing community centers of the Towns of Eagle and Gypsum, and the "new" community center established by the base facility." (Exhibit No. 107). FINDINGS Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the public hearing, THE BOARD DOTH FINDS AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.11.04(e)(2) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, the Board of County Commissioners is required to make a determination, before allowing the applicant to proceed to Preliminary Plan appli- cation, that "resulting development will not be inconsistent with the Master Plan objectives." 2. The applicable provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan adopted April 1, 1981, (Exhib it No. 65) are set forth in Article IV entitled "Goals, Objectives, and Policies for Eagle County", to wit: a. Relative to Development, Section B(1)(a) entitled "Goal" provides, in part, that: "A finite amount of development for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes is accept- able providing the various land uses are in harmony with the natural environment, the social environment, and adjacent land uses." -10- s b. Two of objectives for Development as set forth in Section B(1) (b) , are: "2. To reduce development density outside of community centers in a way which minimizes visual and physical impacts on the scenic and agricultural lands that characterize Eagle County. 3. To prevent strip development along highway corridors." c. The policies for Development are set forth in Section B(1)(c) which provides, in part, that: "5. New development should pay for a fair share of the capital costs associate with its demands on the community." and, in addition, that: "8. New communities with community centers may be developed only if they meet the following requirements: c. They should demonstrate by environmental assessment to have minimized any negative effects on the social and natural environ- ment." d. Relative to the Environment, one of the policies as set forth in Section B(4)(c) is that: "5. New developments should be designed to be compatible with the natural physical constraints of the land." e. Relative to Transportation, two of the objectives as set forth in Section B(7)(b) are: "l. To develop safe and efficient circulation systems for pedestrians and vehicles. 3. To minimize automobile congestion and hazardous conditions on public streets and highways." 3. The Board of County Commissioners finds, determines and declares that the revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application submitted by HBE for the project area is inconsistent with the foregoing Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Eagle County Master Plan for the following reasons: a. The location of the majority of employee housing in an area not a part of the major community center -11- located at the base of the ski area would result in substantial development outside of a community center which would encourage strip development along the highway corridor to the major project area, and which would significantly and detrimentally impact the visual and physical features of the agricultural and scenic lands that presently characterize the Brush Creek Valley. b. The development of employee housing a signif icant distance from the major community center located at the base of the ski area is contrary to the intent of the Eagle County Master Plan that new community centers be self-contained. c. In order to develop a safe and efficient circulation system for vehicular traffic from Interstate 70 to the project area, and to minimize automobile congestion and hazardous conditions on such a circulation system, a four-lane primary access road to the project area will eventually be necessary and warranted. The primary access road proposed by the applicant (Exhibit No. 230) is insufficient and unacceptable in that it fails to satisfactorily address the issues of safety, adequacy and efficiency of such a proposed circulation system. In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate, in conjunction with its proposed development, that a four-lane primary access road will not eventually be needed nor warranted. d. Based upon the density of the proposed development and the direct off-site impacts associated therewith, the applicant's fair share -12- of the capital costs for a four-lane primary access road to the project area would be the entire costs associated with the construction of the same, including rights-of-way acquisition costs relative thereto. The applicant has failed to * demonstrate that it is willing or economically capable of paying its fair share of those off-site impacts associated with the proposed development by reason of its refusal to eventually construct a four-lane primary access road to the project area. e. The need and requirement for a four-lane primary access road to the project area is in direct cor- relation with the magnitude and density of the proposed development. As such, the project area is incompatible with the natural physical constraints of the surrounding land in that any location of a four-lane primary access road through the Brush Creek Valley would result in substantial visual and physical impacts to the scenic and agricultural lands in the valley, which impacts could not be mitigated without adversely affecting the present natural environment and special characteristics of the valley. 4. The Board of County Commissioners further finds, determines and declares that the revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application submitted by HBE for the project area is incon- sistent with Section 3.11.04(e)(3) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, by reason that the area around the development has not been planned in a fashion which is in substantial harmony with the proposed P.U.D. The proposed development is not a self-contained community center located at the base of a commercial and recreational ski area but, rather, is a dispersement of land uses along the Brush Creek -13- .~ • Valley indicative of residential strip development. 5. The Board of County Commissioners further finds, declares and determines that the revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application submitted by HBE for the project area is incon- sistent with Section 3.11.04(e)(4) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, by reason that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that adjacent and nearby communities will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed location of the majority of the employee housing outside of the project area's major community center. 6. The Board of County Commissioners further finds, declares and determines that the revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application submitted by HBE for the project area is incon- sistent with Section 3.11.04(e)(6) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, by reason that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development and the impacts associated therewith, such as the four-lane primary access road, carp. be justified economically. 7. The Board of County Commissioners further finds, declares and determines that the revised P.U.D. Sketch Plan application submitted by HBE for the project area is incon- sistent with Section 3.11.04(e)(7) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, for the reasons set forth at length in Paragraph 3 of these Findings. The present primary access road to the project area is inadequate to support the anticipated traffic. Likewise, the applicant has stated its unwillingness to improve the primary access road to the standard determined by the Board to be necessary for safe and adequate access for anticipated traffic to the project area. ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, Colorado: -14- ~- ~' . THAT, based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, and the Findings of the Board of County Commissioners relative thereto as set forth in this Resolution, the Board hereby denies the application of HBE requesting sketch plan approval of a Planned Unit Development referred to as the Adam's Rib Resort, File No. PD-138-80-S. THAT, this Resolution is necessary to preserve the public welfare, health and safety. MOVED, READ AND UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, Colorado, at its regular meeting held the day of October, 1981, non rho tunc October 1, 1981. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO By and Through its ATTEST: ~~/'~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS B ;~ ~ By ~ ~ J nnette P fillips C er Da e F. Grant, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners ~~ -~-z ~ ~/ 2 Keith Troxel, Co issioner Dan Wi iams, Commissioner -15- a ~ .z 1. CERTIFIED RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, COLORADO, RELATING TO A RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL COUNTY ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 1981 .~ ,~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss . COUNTY CF EAGLE ) The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, Colorado, met in regular session at the Eagle County Courthouse Annex in Eagle, Colorado, the regular meeting place of the Board at the hour of ~ : ~Q ~.m. on Tuesday, the 22nd day of September, 1981. Present Commissioners Co unty Clerk and Recorder Dale Grant, Chairman Dan W i 11 i am s Keith Troxel Johnette Phillips Absent Thereupon Commissioner ~jj~ a~C~-~ introduced and moved the adoption of the following Resolution -2-