No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/20/2001 PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item is an Executive Session. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the following: 1) The transfer of CDOT Parcel 15BR to Habitat for Humanity 2) Receive legal advice regarding Tree Farm mining claims litigation 3) Receive legal advice regarding procedural issues in Champions Grill liquor licensing hearing. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 08:57 a.m. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 09:16 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item is the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of February 19,2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for February 22, 2001, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for February 6,2001 D) Agreement between Eagle County and Bill Hames Shows, Inc., concerning carnival services at the County Fair & Rodeo E) Resolution 2001-026, Final Release of Collateral and termination of the warranty period for Eby Creek Mesa Subdivision, Phase I F) Resolution 2001-027, disposing of four transit coaches G) Resolution 2001-028, conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 817-8801 in the amount of $354,447.00 for the account of Dotsero Ranch LLC, drawn on 1 st Bank of Avon, Letter of Credit will expire February 26, 2001 H) Alpine Area Agency on Aging, notification of grant award I) Justice Center Detention Locking System replacement. Chairman Stone stated they would need to pull Item D, being the agreement between Eagle I 02-20-2001 County and Bill Hames Shows, Inc. He stated he did not know the reason for being asked to pull. Robert Loeffler, Assistant County Attorney stated he believes Mr. Hames is choosing not to enter into the contract. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the consent agenda as presented except for Item D. Commissioner Menconi seconded them motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, stated there are no plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration today. Adam's Rib Ranch Metropolitan District No.1 & No.2 Robert Loeffler stated the next item was to set the public hearing date for Adams Rib Ranch Metropolitan District No.1 & No.2 Service Plan, however, it needs to be withdrawn until consideration has been given to the plan by Planning & Zoning. Resolution 2001-029, Landing Fees at the Eagle County Airport Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, presented Resolution 2001-029, establishing landing fees for 2001 at the Eagle County Regional Airport. He explained the breakdown of the costs associated with running the airport. They then do a calculation against the landings by the airlines. He explained the amortization of improvements and those becoming part of the schedule for the life span of the improvement. He stated they have been stable at $3.50 for a number of years. The denominator has shifted so the calculation goes to $3.25. Chairman Stone spoke to the effective date being January 1,2001. He asked how do you collect retroactively. Mr. Elwood stated they will do an adjustment back to the airlines. The airlines were notified of the change back in November. Commissioner Gallagher asked about this paying for capital acquisition. Mr. Elwood stated a theoretical way would be to place it in land use fees. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the purchase of property. Mr. Elwood stated as long as it relates to airport management. Mr. Elwood stated this sits in the County Airport portion of the business. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the weight adjustment. Mr. Elwood explained they ask the airlines to give them the number of pounds of landed weight. They then add those numbers together to reach the total cost of managing the airport. It went down slightly with America West. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the cost had been compensated for. Mr. Elwood stated if the landed weight slips they need to collect a little more. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-029, establishing landing fees for 200 I at the Eagle County Regional Airport. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-030, Amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations Keith Montag presented Resolution 2001-030, amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, 1982, as amended, Section 1-140C3 with respect to issuing grading permits prior to final plat. He stated in January the Board adopted a 30 day temporary permit for use on public lands acquired. 2 02-20-2001 Today's purpose is to amend the temporary regulation to a total time of six months taking it to August 19,2001. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they would want to include other parcels, say Berry Creek 5th on this. Chairman Stone asked for background. Mr. Montag stated the purpose of this specific regulation was to allow for grading of ball fields on the Tree Farm. He stated these are typically done on a case by case basis. The last time it was done on Two Rivers. He stated they are usually looked at on a case by case basis and this is specifically for the Tree Farm property. Chairman Stone suggested there are a lot of issues with Berry Creek and if they were more aware of the time frame it might be of value. Chairman Stone asked if there was any public comment on this item. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2001-030, amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, 1982, as amended, Section 1-140C3 with respect to issuing grading permit prior to final plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Marko's Pizzeria of Edwards, Inc. dbaIMarko's Pizzeria This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located along the Access Road in Edwards, same complex as Fiesta's. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Eagle Springs Golf Club This is a renewal of a private hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Bella Mia, Inc. dbalBella Mia This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located along Highway 82, on the opposite side of the street as City Market. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for February 20, 2001 as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Tramonti at the Charter Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant license for J.S. & Nikko, Inc., dba/Tramonti at the Charter. She stated this application is in order and all fees have been paid. The applicants are reported to be of good moral character. She stated Jerry Weiss, owner, was present today. 3 02-20-2001 Chairman Stone asked for questions. Commissioner Menconi asked if this is the same company that owns the other restaurant at the Charter. Mr. Weiss replied it is not. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this is a restaurant. Mr. Weiss stated it is a dinner only restaurant but that they usually close by 11 :00 to 12:00 in the evemng. Commissioner Gallagher asked about liquor consumption after the restaurant is closed. Mr. Weiss stated that is dictated by business. If there are patrons who wish to continue drinking, they will remain open. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant license for J. S. & Nikko, Inc., dbaJTramonti at the Charter. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0034, Land Use Regulation Amendment Keith Montag presented file number LUR-0034, Land Use Regulation Amendment. He stated the Eagle County Planning Commission on February 7, 2001, recommended approval of LUR-0034. On February 8, 2001, the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission recommended approval of LUR- 0034. Eagle County is revising the Land Use Regulations: (1) to modify the Subdivision Exemption Process (Section 5-270.A.l.) allowing for certain lot line adjustments to be accomplished with the Exemption process, and (2) to create an exception from the merger regulations (Section 6-120.B.2.) Lot Line Adjustments: Currently, the Land Use Regulations do not provide for lot line adjustments outside of platted subdivisions. The proposed language in Section 5-270 will allow for lot line adjustments to correct boundary errors, align boundaries with topographic features, or straighten boundaries for areas not within platted subdivisions. This will be accomplished through the Subdivision Exemption process. Chairman Stone asked for an example. Mr. Montag stated it created for lots that are side by side and this would allow for a lot line adjustment to occur on exemption lots. One specific example where that occurs is on the Nelson Access Road Community east of Eagle. He explained how applications were approved through one exemption plat mylar. Because the two parcels were approved on one mylar, and this happened three times, there is confusion relative to the standings of those parcels. The County has taken the position there is merger when the parcels are owned by one entity. The land use doesn't change at all. Criteria is included in the proposed language which allows the Board to make a final decision on these adjustments. Such criteria looks at the land area ofthe exchange, lot configurations, and nonconformity issues. Merger Exception: The purpose of the merger exception is to allow an area entitled the "Nelson Access Road Community" (see attached) located between Eagle and Gypsum north ofHwy 6 and South ofthe Eagle River to be recognized as being comprised of separate parcels which are not subject to the "merger provision" in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The "Community" consists of parcels that were recognized through the County Exemption process in the early 1990's. At that time, three Exemption applications from three different landowners 4 02-20-2001 were submitted and approved by the County. Each application contained two exempted parcels which were simultaneously approved with one exemption plat mylar. Because of the fact two parcels were approved with one mylar (which occurred three times given the three landowners) through a process which must have seemed appropriately efficient but did not strictly conform to the regulations, confusion and misunderstanding has ensued regarding the status of the exempted parcels. The landowners assumed and felt they had separate subdivided parcels to which the "merger" regulation would not apply. However, the County has taken the position that the parcels under single ownership do merge since they did not obtain subdivision approval - only exemption approval. Weare recognizing the confusion created by not strictly conforming to the regulations when the exemptions were approved and attempting to remedy the situation by excepting this area, which we feel is an anomaly, out ofthe merger regulations. The land use is not changing. The application was referred to the Towns of Eagle and Gypsum, the County Engineer, the County Assessor, Colorado Department of Local Affairs. No responses were received at the time of this writing. One letter from the public was received and is attached to staff report. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate referral agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Hearing of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments SOLELY AMEND THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D. Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. (c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. He stated on the lot line adjustments, it could occur on any type of a parcel that is outside of a subdivision. Anytime that someone owns two contiguous parcels and they would like to adjust the lot line, this can do that. Chairman Stone stated they are changing two portions of the regulations. He asked if he understood correctly that the lot line adjustment would cover parcels now and in the future. He asked if the merger portion is for just the Nelson parcel. Mr. Montag stated that is correct and the map is attached. He stated the purpose of the specific Nelson Area Community Road was because of some parcels that went through the exemption process in the early 1990's. There was confusion as to whether the parcels were merged or not. Chairman Stone spoke to a letter from Mr. Faulkenberg. He asked for public input. David Faulkenberg stated he made some comments on this regulation because since it came out there has been confusion. He stated there was a time period from 1994 to 1999 that created the confusion. He stated he supports this amendment but would take it one step further to make it county wide. He stated it is confusing to the property owner to believe they have separate lots and now they do not. He asked if they might use the TDR system to get credits if the properties are together. He asked the Board to take a close look at that issue and perhaps revise it. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated he is in favor of this amendment. He explained the 5 02-20-2001 exemption procedure was a catch all before subdivision came into place. As time passes, people have been caught in regulation changes. He spoke to the discussion with the Planning Commission but as they agreed, they don't feel it went far enough to research further. He stated it was minor subdivision beforehand, but the exemption was used to cover all the extraneous situations. Chairman Stone closed public comment. He asked Mr. Montag what the attempt or theory was behind this process. Mr. Montag stated the attempt was to bring non-conforming lots based on lot size and zoning into conformance. The purpose was to combine lots that were under single ownership so that the aggregate of the combined lots would come closer to or meet the minimum lot size. The intent was to reduce or eliminate non-conforming lots. Chairman Stone asked in his opinion if there is a better way to have written the regulation or does he think it served the intent of the Board of County Commissioners and what they were trying to achieve. Mr. Montag stated they spent time with the Board, the Attorney's office and Planning and Zoning and this was the best approach they could come up with. A lot of the discussion revolved around mining claims and how best to address them. This applies to the mining claims as well so they will more closely conform to minimum lot size. Chairman Stone stated he understands Mr. Faulkenberg's concern with land takings. He suggested any kind of zoning could be considered takings but the US Supreme Court has found there has to be some kind of reasonable understanding of the purpose. He does not believe that this is takings. Mr. Montag stated the discussion with the Eagle County Planning Commission addressed other properties and there might be a mechanism through GIS to identify other parcels. Commissioner Gallagher stated he tends to agree in principle to Mr. Faulkenberg's concern. He spoke to the mining claims on Battle Mountain and this makes sense. He is wondering if they are going to go to this extent to accommodate non-conforming lots, why are they going to such an extent. He suggested he would like to have staff come up with pros and cons for maintaining this position. Chairman Stone stated as far as these are concerned specifically, he is in favor. He appreciates staff having worked on this to come up with a viable solution. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. LUR- 0034 incorporating the Staff Findings in the minutes as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0034 & SSA-0012, Colorado River Ranch PDP-00018, ZC-00042, Colorado River Ranch Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00018 and ZC-00042, Colorado River Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change. Topics discussed by the Eagle County Planning Commission included the following: Consideration of well water vs. surface water as a source. Reasons for central wastewater treatment vs. individual septic systems. Need for two lift stations; adequacy of back-up systems. Proposed use of water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir; consumptive use. Length of lease for Wolford Mountain Reservoir water. Impact of Wolford Mountain Reservoir lease on current uses of water on the site. Desirability of dedication of a fishing parcel vs. public play on the golf course. How preservation of agricultural use on Parcel is to be achieved. The site for the proposed Colorado River Ranch consists of 1,045 acres located approximately 10.5 miles northeast of Dotsero, along and on either side of the Colorado River. Willow Creek flows through the property and into the Colorado River. In addition to the Colorado River, the property is 6 02-20-2001 bisected by Union Pacific railroad tracks and Colorado River Road. What is proposed is: I) A club facility that would consist of: 18 hole golf course; Clubhouse facility with a pro shop, cart storage, restaurant and 16 overnight rooms; 25 small ranch homesteads, most with building envelopes of l:i: acres, and a few with building envelopes of 6:i: acres, the latter allowing for horses; A Children's pavilion; Maintenance facility with an employee dorm; Pool(s), tennis court(s), sporting clays, etc.; and Related facilities including comfort stations, range building, pump-houses. 2. Fire station with two bays and an employee unit housing up to 4 employees. 3. Agricultural uses (a ranch operation) and open space, covering approximately 872 acres. Access would be via three access points on Colorado River Road. The main access to the site would include a separated grade crossing over the railroad tracks. Wastewater treatment for most purposes would be by a central collection and treatment facility. Treatment of wastewater from golf course comfort stations would be by individual septic systems. Water, both potable and non-potable, was originally proposed to be from new and/or existing wells and surface water diversions. However, subsequent to the initial application, the Applicant has proposed to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. As an alternative to limited public play on the golf course, the Applicant proposed to the Planning Commission to develop and dedicate to an appropriate public entity a fishing parcel at the south end of the property, providing parking and fly fishing opportunity to the public and access to adjacent BLM land. The Chronology for this property is as follows: June 1998 - Cordillera submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for an 18 hole golf course and related support services on this parcel. The application was subsequently withdrawn prior to action by the Board of County Commissioners. August 2000 - Board of County Commissioners approved the PUD Sketch Plan for this development. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Traffic on all internal roads justifies a functional classification assignment of Rural Residential Internal. Additional design detail is required for bridge design. Design is required for pedestrian bridge over Colorado River. Drainage report is incomplete. Recommended geotechnical mitigation measures such as flood and debris retention basins, channel improvements, deflection structures, and direct building site protection against potential geotechnical hazards need to be incorporated into the site plan. A grading plan showing preliminary level of detail should be provided. Preliminary plan level of detail is missing for sewage treatment, water treatment, water tank, and water intake plans, as well as water distribution, sanitary sewer, shallow utility, and detention pond plans. Other technical comments (see attached) Additional response dated November 27,2000: Technical comments (copy attached) Additional response dated December 13,2000: 7 02-20-2001 Has reviewed preliminary and all outstanding issues have been addressed For the pedestrian bridges across the Colorado River, Engineering prefers a free span design rather than a design that puts piers in the River. [Note: Engineering Staff has subsequently met with the Applicant and agreed on a design with no more than two piers in the Colorado River.] Additional response dated February 5, 2001: Applicant has requested a deviation from certain road standards to increase the grade for a portion of Willow Creek Road to 10%. The deviation is consistent with the applicable section of the Land Use Regulations. Eagle County Housing Department Comments regarding: Impact of distance from existing population, housing or job center on ability to attract employees Adequacy and appropriateness of "bunkhouse rooms" for much of staff Employee needs to support resort activities other than golf Need to complete employee housing prior to opening of resort Other related employee housing issues Recommendations regarding housing should be provided for more than 20 % of employees At 20 % mitigation, Applicant should provide 16 rather than 14 employee units Applicant should consider alternatives to bunkhouse rooms for employee housing All employee housing should be completed prior to opening of resort PUD Guide should permit single family residence for ranch manager as a permitted use, and establish number of bedrooms in the employee bunkhouse Employee shuttles up valley should be provided for employees Employee car pooling program should be created, facilitated and promoted Provisions should be provided for on-site housing of construction workers Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) A permanent access easement for Big McClosky Road should be documented on the final plat. A dedicated trails easement 15 feet wide should be provided on the west side of the Colorado River Road to accommodate the possible future construction of a separated trail along the roadway. Additional response dated November 14,2000: Recommends a 25 foot trail easement on the east side of Colorado River Road. Eagle County Address Coordinator Proposed street names Willow Creek Road and Trail Gulch Road duplicate existing streets elsewhere in Eagle County and alternatives should be provided. Eagle County School District (RE50J) District will accept the cash in lieu of land payment estimated to be $4,505. The fee should be recalculated at the time of approval of the final plat. Requests that the Commissioners consider updating the land values so the School District does not continue to lose value. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Issues of concern in the general areas of wastewater treatment and monitoring, impacts to in- stream water quality form non-point sources, and impacts to wetland and other setback recommendations. It appears that the site location and management for the proposed wastewater treatment facility is appropriate for the proposed development. NWCCOG will contact the applicant's representative to request additional information and additional monitoring. Most ofNWCCOG's concerns regarding stormwater runoff have been addressed through the preliminary drainage study. The Golf Course Management Plan is lacking in several areas and NWCCOG is concerned with potential water quality impacts associated with fertilizer and pesticide applications during periods of 8 02-20-2001 flooding during seasonal high flow periods of the Colorado River and Willow Creek. It does not appear that this Preliminary Plan is providing soil disturbance setbacks from wetlands, flood plains, or riparian areas. Colorado Geological Survey Initial response dated October 4,2000: The recommendations and observations stated in the CGS response to the Sketch Plan are still applicable. CGS questions Applicant's statement that recommended debris flow mitigation measures are being evaluated, and either Flood and Debris Retention Basins or Deflections Structures will be used. In fact, no site specific designs have been included in the Preliminary Plan, and some of the homes shown on the Willow Creek alluvial fan have been located even closer to the existing channel compared to the locations shown in the sketch plan. The County should review all alluvial fan flooding and debris flow hazard reports and mitigation designs prior to final plan approval. CGS questions Applicant's statement that soil piping areas have been avoided entirely. Many of the residential sites shown now have been grouped along the banks of the Colorado River in areas that HP Geotech has mapped as soil piping areas. Many of these building locations are more problematic than those originally shown on the sketch plan. CGS questions Applicant's statement that collapsible soils have been avoided. Most of the homes and cabin facilities are located on alluvial fan deposits where collapsible soils (and piping soils) commonly occur. CGS questions whether the applicant has retained a consultant to assist in locating building footprints, foundations, water management practices, and debris flow/alluvial fan flooding recommendations. In conversations with HP Geotech, CGS has learned that HP Geotech had not been retained to review revisions in the Preliminary Plan. Storm, water, and sanitation details are not included in the preliminary plan. Such studies must also be completed before final plat approval. A supplemental response (dated November 3, 2000) includes the following: CGS has discussed with the Applicant certain changes in the Preliminary Plan that have addressed concerns addressed by CGS. The geologic hazards previously noted have either been avoided or addressed, including: Lack of review of the preliminary plan by a geotechnic consultant - HP Geotech will be consulted regarding siting of structures and other geotechnical aspects of the development plan. Alluvial fan flooding - All residential development and the water storage tank will be moved from the vicinity of Willow Creek and the associated alluvial fan. Placement of all residential lots on the east side of the Colorado River - some problems may exist in the vicinity of certain piping areas, and additional avoidance or mitigation will be required. Site specific investigations and excavation inspections will be required for all residential structures. Sinkholes - Applicant and his civil engineer have assured CGS that the water treatment tank will be relocated, thus avoiding the sinkhole hazard. Assurances by the developer concerning site specificity of investigations should be included in plat notes. CGS should be allowed to review final plans for thoroughness concerning the hazards when it is presented for approval. Colorado Division of Water Resources An amended augmentation plan was filed with the water court on September 11, 2000. There is no indication that the plan has been approved. Due to a lack of a water court approved augmentation plan for the development, the State Engineer finds that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is 9 02-20-2001 inadequate. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service No comments. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Surveyor, Eagle County Road and Bridge, Eagle County Sheriff, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, Water Conservation Board, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Western Eagle County Ambulance District. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant demonstrated that the entire site was owned in fee simple by Falcon Realty, LLC. Since the initial application, the Applicant has advised that Falcon Realty, LLC, has transferred its interests in the subject real property to three Colorado corporations, White Hawk Investments, Inc., White Hawk Company, Inc., and White Hawk Properties, Inc. All three corporations are now parties to the application. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS owned or controlled by one (l) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized Proposed uses in the PUD include: An 18 hole golf course, along with a clubhouse facility with a pro shop and cart storage; Pool(s), tennis court(s), and sporting clays; Trails for hiking, biking, nature study, equestrian use and multi-use; Recreation uses, including hunting, fishing, equestrian and camping; Restaurant; 16 over night rooms; 25 small ranch homesteads; Children's pavilion; Maintenance facility with an employee dorm; Related facilities including comfort stations, a range building, pump-houses; Fire station with housing for 4 employees; and Ranch operation. The site is zoned Resource (R). Of these, uses by right in the R zone district include only the ranch operation. The 25 small ranch homesteads are not permitted. All other proposed uses are uses permitted by Special Review. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, of the Land Use Regulations, provides that variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. Those purposes include [1] obtaining desired design qualities, [2] avoiding environmental resources and natural hazards, [3] providing incentives for water augmentation, [4] 10 02-20-2001 providing incentives for improvements to the Eagle County trails system, [5] providing incentives to assure long term affordable housing, or [6] providing incentives to develop public facilities. It appears that the first purpose noted above, i.e., to obtain desired design qualities, would be satisfied by allowing the uses otherwise not allowed in these zone districts. Under this purpose, a variation is allowed which permits the integration of mixed uses. The uses not otherwise allowed in these zone districts are consistent with the overall proposed development. Consequently, Staff makes a qualified favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations of these use designations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations': for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Certain dimensional limitations are proposed in the PUD Guide. It appears that some variations will be required. As noted above, variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. The proposed dimensional limitations appear to be necessary to achieve the purpose if obtaining desired design qualities. With the variations pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, of the Land Use Regulations, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3 .f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Offstreet parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Information regarding parking which was provided in the Sketch Plan was determined to be less than complete. Consequently, a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan was that the Applicant provide an adequate parking plan in the Preliminary Plan based on detailed documentation and rationale for the parking spaces necessary to accommodate all of the proposed uses in the development, along with comprehensive information depicting adequate parking for all users of the development, induding 11 02-20-2001 locations, numbers, and dimensions. That information has been provided in a quantitative format and also depicted graphically in the Landscape Improvements Plan submitted as part of the application. The proposed parking appears to be reasonable for the uses proposed. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The Applicant has provided a Conceptual Landscape Plan and asserted that design of the development has not progressed enough to permit the Detailed Landscape Plan required in Section 4- 220.C. of the Land Use Regulations. Such a detailed Landscape Plan is required, in part, to permit collateralization of the landscape improvements. As a condition of approval, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, should be provided, prior to approval of each final plat, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 ofthe Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted and other commitments made by the Applicant. [Condition # 1] [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (5)] With the recommended condition, landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The provisions for signs within the PUD are reflected in the proposed PUD Guide as Section 1.10, Signs. The PUD will rely in large part on the provisions of Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. However, the sign provisions of the PUD Guide, along with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations, constitute a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that IS suitable for the PUD and DOES provide the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Planfor PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] Potable water supvlv. - The development is proposed to be served by both potable and non- potable water. Potable water will be treated in a central treatment facility. A 1041 permit is required 12 02-20-2001 and an application is pending. The Applicant maintains that a sufficient legal water supply exists to support the proposed water uses. In addition, an augmentation plan has been filed with the water court which would provide for additional rights for the development at new and existing structures. However, the Colorado Division of Water Resources notes that while an application for an amended augmentation plan is pending with the Water Court, there is no record that the plan has been approved. As an alternative to providing a water court approved amended augmentation plan, the Applicant has opted to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. The County Attorney has agreed that an appropriate contract for leased water, fully executed prior to approval of this Preliminary Plan, will satisfy this Standard. The Applicant has stated its intent to continue to pursue water court approved amended augmentation plan. As a condition of approval, an adequate water supply, by means of a contract for sufficient water from an adjudicated supply or some other means, should be demonstrated. [Condition # 19] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sewa5?e disvosal. - Sewage disposal is proposed to be accomplished by means of a central wastewater collection and treatment facility, with individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for certain golf course comfort stations. A 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. The ISDSs will be required to meet the regulatory requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. However, as a condition of approval, a restrictive note should be required on each final plat for this development requiring that all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, as recommended by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study (dated January 17,2000). [Condition # 2] As an additional condition of approval, and consistent with a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan, the PUD Guide should be revised to provide that all ISDS components be outside the 100 year flood plain, and a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands, streams and rivers (high water mark). [Condition # 15] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Solid waste disvosal. - It appears that solid waste disposal services will be available to the site. [+] Electrical suvvlv. - The Applicant has provided a letter from Holy Cross Energy indicating that it has adequate resources to provide electric power to the development, subject to completion of appropriate contractual agreements. [+] Fire vrotection. - The conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan for this PUD included the following: Install adequate fire sprinkler systems in all habitable structures or provide an alternative type offire protection acceptable to the Gypsum Fire District. (10) Provide in the Preliminary Plan a detailed fire protection plan, with input from the Gypsum Fire Protection District, which [1 J demonstrates that the Gypsum Fire Protection District has the ability and willingness to provide fire protection services for the development, [2J demonstrates the ability to adequately fight fires at any location within the development, especially at all of the habitable structures, [3 J incorporates all of the suggested wildfire protection measures of the Colorado State Forest Service (Referral response dated June 12, 2000), and [4J identifies the means available to enhance the ability of personnel on-site to respond immediately to fire emergencies until Gypsum Fire Protection District crews arrive. (11) It was not clear initially how the application is responsive to those portions ofthese conditions requiring response from the Gypsum Fire Protection District. Most obviously missing is any response or input regarding fire protection systems in habitable buildings, and its ability to provide fire protection services to all areas of the development. 13 02-20-2001 However, the Applicant has provided a letter from Lance Badger dated November 14,2000, regarding "Colorado River Ranch Fire Protection" which details a response to Staff concerns included in the Staff Report. Staff has confirmed by telephone conversation with Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Chief, that he is in agreement with all of the information provided by the Applicant. The requirements of this Section have been satisfied. [+] Roads. - The Applicant has indicated that all roads will be designed in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In addition, the Applicant has demonstrated that the Union Pacific Railroad expects to be able to enter into an agreement for the proposed railroad crossings once the Preliminary Plan is approved. A condition of Sketch Plan approval was demonstration that all necessary permits have been obtained for the construction and re-construction of the bridges across the Colorado River. However, such permits will not be issued until by the Corps of Engineers until a Preliminary Plan is approved. With a condition of approval that prior to approval of the initial final plat for this PUD that the Applicant demonstrate that all necessary permits have been obtained for the construction and re-construction of the bridges across the Colorado River, Staff makes a favorable finding. [Condition #5] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] Proximitv to Schools - The Applicant has demonstrated that the children living in the proposed development will be conveniently transported to and from schools. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services.- Law enforcement will be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff. In addition, the Applicant will maintain an on-site public safety staff trained in public safety, roving patrol and first responder capabilities. Fire protection services are proposed to be provided by the Gypsum Fire Protection District (GFPD). Based on testimony by the Chief of the Gypsum Fire Protection District, it appears that the site is in reasonable proximity of fire protection services. Emergency medical services would be provided by the Western Eagle County Ambulance District (WECAD). As noted above, the Applicant will maintain an on-site public safety staff trained in public safety, roving patrol and first responder capabilities. With respect to proximity to emergency services, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, and roads, and HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and 14 02-20-2001 convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages offsite. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstreet parking areas. [+] Safe, Efficient Access - The internal road system appears to provide access to all areas with habitable structures. The Applicant has committed to design and build internal roads and the access from Colorado River Road in conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, with the following exception: The grade for Willow Creek Road from Station 10+00 to Station 19+00 may exceed the County Standard of 8% to a proposed maximum grade of 10%. The County Engineer has determined that this deviation from the improvement standards is consistent with Section 5-240.F.3.e (8), Improvements, of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Internal Pathways - A graphic trails plan has been provided which includes, in addition to trails around the valley floor portion of the development, trails up Willow Creek to the west, and along McClosky Road to the east and beyond to BLM land. However, the detail provided regarding trails is limited. Nonetheless, in the absence of one or more variances from site development standards, the trails will be required to be constructed in accordance with applicable sections of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has indicated no intent to seek such variances from the applicable site development standards. The application includes a commitment to provide a proposed public access easement along Big McClosky Road to the BLM property line, as recommended by the Eagle County Trails Coordinator at Sketch Plan Review. A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant dedicate a sufficient public trails easement along the entire length of Colorado River Road as it crosses this site. The condition of approval initially recommended, at the encouragement ofECa, was that a 15 foot dedicated trails easement should be required along the west side of the Colorado River Road right-of-way to accommodate the possible future construction of a separated trail along the roadway. Discussions between the Applicant and the ECO Trails Coordinator have resulted in an alternative whereby a 25 foot dedicated trails easement would be granted on the east side of Colorado River Road. Staff concurs and the recommended condition of approval has been changed accordingly. [Condition # 3] As a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that any trail in the vicinity of Willow Creek will not directly, or indirectly through use by residents and visitors, materially harm the Willow Creek system. The Applicant has committed to improve and not materially harm the Willow Creek system. With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Emergency Vehicles - A condition of approval of Sketch Plan is that the Applicant, with input from appropriate emergency service providers, make adequate provisions to accommodate emergency vehicles within the development, specifically addressing the suggestions of the Colorado 15 02-20-2001 State Forest Service (Referral response dated June 12,2000). The County Engineer has determined that roadways have been designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units, and that an access easement will be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. The Gypsum Fire Chief has verbally confirmed to Staff that the vehicles of the Fire Protection District will be provided with adequate access. This Standard also requires that certain access easements be granted for emergency and utility vehicles. It is not clear that such easement(s) are proposed. As a condition of approval, one or more access easements should be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services should be reflected on all final plats. [Condition # 4] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] Principal Access Points - The access road to the main portion of the development will require crossings of the Union Pacific (UPRR) railroad tracks. Evidence has been provided from UPRR that necessary permits may be granted. As a condition of approval, evidence of final approval by the Union Pacific Railroad of improvements to the railroad crossings should be provided prior to approval ofthe first final plat for this development. [Condition # 5] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Snow Storage - The requirements of this provision must be satisfied in the final engineering drawings and with building permit applications for non residential buildings. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] With the recommended conditions, it HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposedfor the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is primarily agricultural and residential, and public lands (Bureau of Land Management). In addition to continuing existing agricultural and residential uses, new uses will include the golf course; other recreation (swimming pool, tennis, fishing, etc.); the clubhouse, restaurant and temporary lodging; and employee housing. Given the size of the proposed development (1,024 acres) and the nature of the proposed uses, the increased intensity of uses is not troublesome. Certain commitments have been made to avoid unauthorized use of public lands and potential conflicts with uses which may occur on adjacent public lands.. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal 16 02-20-2001 moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN EnvironmentalOualitv. It appears that the proposed development would protect, maintain, and enhance critical wildlife areas; and preserve and enhance surface and ground water quality/quantity. Oven Svace / Recreation. The proposed development represents a beneficial means of preserving land as open space. Develovment. The proposed development encourages diversity of the economic base; fosters balance between environmental protection and economic development; and improves the balance between winter and summer activities. Affordable Housing. The proposed development locates affordable (in this instance, employee) housing close to jobs. Transvortation. The proposed development would not promote or expand public transportation, but does tend to preserve rural road character. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The FLUM indicates a Rural land use designation for this site, and identifies zone districts which may fit these uses as Resource (R), Resource Limited (RL), and Agricultrual Residential (AR). PUD zoning is not contemplated in this area. However, the Master Plan does contemplate, in areas designated "Rural", relatively low density single family residential uses on larger lots, or small concentrations of homes surrounded by relatively large tracts of undeveloped land. Development in these areas is expected to occur at densities of one unit per 35 or more acres. The overall density of the permanent residential units within the proposed PUD is about one per 40 acres (1,045 acres / 25 home sites + I ranch house). The Master Plan encourages continuation of the existing small recreation areas which are scattered throughout the County, such as State Bridge, Anderson Camp, Rancho Del Rio and Piney Lake. These are compatible with the County's recreational and rural character and are enjoyed by both residents of and visitors to Eagle County. Establishment of new small recreation areas of this type are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering suitability ofthe land for development, whether necessary services can be provided to the development and whether the development is in character with surrounding rural land. Staff has determined that the proposed Colorado River Ranch is consistent with these criteria, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x 17 02-20-2001 x x Oven Svace Provision. The proposed development includes some improvements (such as trails, fishing, and other recreation) in areas along Willow Creek and the Colorado River. The Applicant proposes to improve these areas by stabilizing banks, eliminating cattle grazing in riparian corridors, and re-establishing and re-vegetating degraded areas along the creeks and channels. Develovment Patterns. A stated policy is "to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in outlying areas." However, the Master Plan also recognizes that small recreation areas which are scattered throughout the County are compatible with the County's recreational and rural character, and encourages continuation of such existing small recreation areas and the establishment of new small recreation areas of this type when appropriate, considering suitability of the land for development, whether necessary services can be provided to the development, and whether the development is in character with surrounding rural land. Staff has determined that the proposal is in conformance. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN The Eagle River Watershed Plan is not directly applicable to the proposed Colorado River Ranch since the development is in the Colorado River watershed, and lies outside the geographic scope of the Plan. However, the following represent comments based on the principles established in the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Water Quantitv. The Applicant has proposed to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. Water Quality. The Applicant proposes to utilize practices that will not adversely impact water quality in and downstream of the proposed development. Wildlife. The Applicant proposes to maintain and improve aquatic and riparian habitat. Recreation. As proposed, the development will provide a limited amount of improvement of public access for recreation, primarily in access to BLM lands to the east of the site. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There 18 02-20-2001 should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM I YES I NO I N/A , 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers I I. I I 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue I. I Seasonal Housing (5). Housing is proposed for up to 22 employees. Housing for Local Residents (6). Of the 25 residences proposed on the site, none is proposed for local residents, outside of managers of the development. Staff finds that the proposal is in sufficient conformance with the Master Plan to make a 19 02-20-2001 favorable finding. However, the Board of County Commissioners may independently determine that the proposed development does not conform to the Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The pun IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. All public improvements will be collateralized prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. The detailed list of public improvements, along with cost estimates, satisfactory to the County Engineer, which are to be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement will required at that time. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A sufficient phasing plan HAS been provided for this development. All public improvements will be collateralized prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number ofresidents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.fways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUn. (2) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (3) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (4) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be 20 02-20-2001 established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Sufficient detail and commitments have been provided in the application. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; ( c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. A condition of Sketch Plan approval is that the Applicant provide an adequate identification of the proposed wetland impacts and mitigation and demonstrate how disturbance of wetlands and riparian areas will be minimized. Prior to action by the Planning Commission, additional information was provided indicating impacts and mitigation to wetlands and riparian areas. Certain permits are required from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding impacts and required mitigation. As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated, by permits from the Army Corps of Engineers or otherwise, prior to approval of the first final plat for this PUD that all impacts to wetlands and riparian areas will be satisfactorily mitigated. [Condition # 8] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above under Consistency with Master Plan [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts It appears that the proposed development may be consistent with the zone district standards, once appropriate variations and variances have been approved. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Provisions have been demonstrated for adequate parking within the development. Staff makes a favorable finding. 21 02-20-2001 [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The Applicant has provided a Landscape Plan in sufficient detail for this Preliminary Plan.:~~ Defensible space provisions around habitable structures have been incorporated. The provisions of this Section will be required to be followed throughout the development of this site. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Adequate provisions regarding the regulation of signs has been provided. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been submitted with the application. As a condition of approval, the Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan submitted with the application should be binding and recorded as an attachment to the Board Resolution approving this Preliminary Plan. [Condition # 16] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant incorporate in the Preliminary Plan all of the suggestions and recommendations of the Geologic Site Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., submitted with the Sketch Plan application), and the Colorado Geological Survey (Referral response dated June 12,2000) with respect to geologic hazards and their mitigation, and to provide the additional information requested by the Eagle County Engineer (Referral response dated May 8,2000). The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. CGS has subsequently indicated that its concerns have now been addressed, but does recommend that it be allowed to review final plans with respect to civil engineering changes, re-locations, and mitigation designs. As a condition of approval, the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Survey (letter dated November 3,2000) should be satisfied, and final plans for the PUD be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey for additional review and comment, prior to approval of any final plat. [Condition # 6] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that adequate fire sprinkler systems, or alternative type of fire protection acceptable to the Gypsum Fire District, be installed in all habitable structures. The application itself does not indicate what systems will be acceptable by the Gypsum Fire Protection District. However, based on information provided by the Applicant and confirmed by the Gypsum Fire Chief (as noted above), this condition has been satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Applicant proposes that the use of all wood burning devices conform to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [nla] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located in an area identified for protection on the Ridgeline Protection Map referred to in the Land Use Regulations. Consequently, this Section is not applicable to this application. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The required components of the Environmental Impact Report for this application are found in separate sections throughout the application. Staff finds that, taken together, the components of the Environmental Impact Report provide the information required in the Land Use Regulations, and makes a favorable finding. [nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) There are no significant commercial or industrial operation on the proposed site which would subject this application to the provisions of this Division. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The Applicant has committed to design the roadway 22 02-20-2001 system within the development in conformance with the Land Use Regulations, with a few exceptions noted in the application. A Variance from Improvement Standards is to be submitted prior to approval. No application has been received. Absent the approval of specific variances or variations, the entire roadway system will be required to conform with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - All trails will be required to be built in conformance with applicable provisions ofthe Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant incorporate in the Preliminary Plan the suggestions and recommendations noted in the Colorado Geological Survey (Referral response dated June 12,2000) regarding retention of a geotechnic consultant in locating precise building footprints and for additional studies, adequate water management provisions, and hydrology for certain drainage ways. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. Based on another CGS letter of November 3,2000, certain changes and assurances by the Applicant have satisfied CGS regarding its earlier concerns. Based on additional information provided by the Applicant and the referral response by the Colorado Geological Survey, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The County Engineer has indicated that the drainage report submitted by the Applicant satisfies the standards of this Section. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant has committed to complete all grading and erosion control in conformance with the standards of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Applicant will be required to meet the standards of this Section. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - As initially proposed, the development would rely primarily on surface water diversions for potable water. As discussed above, the Colorado Division of Water Resources notes that while an application for an amended augmentation plan is pending with the Water Court, there is no record that the plan has been approved. As noted above under Adequate Facilities, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)], the Applicant is now proposing to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a lease for adjudicated water from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. In any event, a central water treatment facility is proposed. A 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. Based on the additional information and subject to approval of a 1041 permit, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sewage disposal is proposed to be accomplished by means of a central wastewater collection and treatment facility, with individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for certain golf course comfort stations. As discussed above, a 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. In addition, as a condition of approval, a restrictive note should be required on each final plat for this development requiring that all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, as recommended by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study (dated January 17,2000). [Condition # 2] Subject to approval of a 1041 permit and with the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4- 7) The Applicant proposes to pay cash in lieu of a land dedication as the more practical alternative. The Eagle County School District (RES OJ) agrees. In addition, an off-site road impact fee in an amount determined by the Board of County 23 02-20-2001 Commissioners, is customary. It has been noted in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission that this off-site road impact fee would be required and the requirement was not questioned or discussed. To make explicit the requirement, Staff has added a condition of approval to those approved by the Planning Commission to require payment of an off-site road impact fee, in an amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners, prior to approval of the first final plat. [Condition #13] Staff makes a favorable finding. Other Standards in the Land Use Regulations Other Standards - It appears that all other standards of the Land Use Regulations will be met, except as discussed elsewhere in this Staff Report. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all ofthe standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eafle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. It appears that the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided and sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area. Limited off-site road improvements appear to be necessary . Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Most of that portion of the site on which development is to occur is relatively flat. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study indicated that those portions of the site where development is proposed are buildable and that individual sewage disposal systems, where proposed, appear to be feasible. Sources of potable and non-potable water appear to be available. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. However, based on another CGS letter of November 3,2000, certain changes and assurances by the Applicant have satisfied CGS regarding its earlier concerns. Based on additional information provided by the Applicant and the referral response by the Colorado Geological Survey, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] 24 02-20-2001 The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The area surrounding the proposed development is primarily agricultural and residential, and public lands (Bureau of Land Management). In addition to continuing existing agricultural and residential uses, new uses will include the golf course; other recreation (swimming pool, tennis, fishing, etc.); the clubhouse, restaurant and temporary lodging; and employee housing. Given the size of the proposed development (1,024 acres) and the nature of the proposed uses, the increased intensity of uses is not troublesome. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft Planned Unit Development Guide is provided as Section 8 of the application. Staff makes a favorable finding in this regard. The PUD Guide provides certain procedures for making modifications to the PUD Guide and the Preliminary Plan which appear to be virtually identical with procedures in the Cordillera PUD. These procedures are primarily intended to abbreviate the process of changing building envelopes, making minor modifications that may not warrant a complete PUD amendment, and so on. However, the County Attorney's office has become concerned with what has the potential of becoming a proliferation of procedures for modifying PUD Guides and Preliminary Plan which differ from those in the Land Use Regulations and from each other. Staff is now recommending that, while abbreviated means to amend the PUD Guide and the Preliminary are not in and of themselves problematic, the procedures to be used should be those already incorporated in the Land Use Regulations. For example, the simpler procedure associated with a Minor B Subdivision might be used in a PUD for building envelope adjustments, rather than the procedure for an Amended Final Plat. While an amended final plat would be required, the processing of the plat would follow the simpler procedure of a Minor B Subdivision. As another example, minor modifications, generally as defined in the proposed PUD Guide, might be processed as a Limited Review, as provided in the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has agreed to modify the PUD Guide in response to Staff comments, including changes with respect to procedures to modify the Preliminary Plan which utilize procedures set forth in the Land Use Regulations, such as PUD Amendment, Limited Review and Minor B Subdivision for what the PUD refers to as Major Modifications, Minor Modifications and Building Envelope Adjustments, respectively. Certain other technical changes will also be made. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be revised to reflect the use of existing procedures in the Land Use Regulations for all modifications for which abbreviated procedures are being sought. [Condition # 17] Throughout the draft PUD Guide, references are made to Sections of the Land Use Regulations which appear to be obsolete. As a condition of approval, all references in the PUD Guide to the Land Use Regulations should be current and correct. [Condition # 18] As approved in the Sketch Plan, the PUD Guide initially submitted included certain provisions 25 02-20-2001 for limited public play on the golf course. As an alternative to limited public play on the golf course, the Applicant proposed to the Planning Commission to develop and dedicate to an appropriate public entity a fishing parcel at the south end of the property, providing parking and fly fishing opportunity to the public and access to adjacent BLM land. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the fishing proposal in lieu of required public play on the golf course. With the Applicant's agreement to these changes and the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that satisfies the requirements of this Section. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D, Standards for the review of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: The Land Use Regulations provide that the wisdom of amending. . . the Official Zone District Map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. In determining whether to adopt, adopt with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendment, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider certain Standards. Staff offers the following proposed Findings for the Board's consideration: (1) [+] Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it IS an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity; (4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) [+] Community need It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, and MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and (7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Lance Badger, representing Cordillera, explained their proposal. He stated there have been some changes since this was first submitted. The first was to remove the cabins on the West side of the river and moved them to the East side of the river. The second was to incorporate a central water plan to provide better water quality and fire service. He explained the storage station. He stated the third change was to incorporate a central waste water system. He stated with the cabins being so close to the river they could impact the river. The ISDS systems would probably encroach the riparian. All of that has been avoided by concentrating the system in one location reducing the potential for polluting the river. Because this system will be monitored they will be able to control it from one point source. Those changes came about through the referral responses and from working closely with staff. The Ranch is 1045 acres surrounded on the west and east by BLM lands and the north and south by small ranchers. He stated within the property, one would enter through the Ranch compound driving over the ridge. What you see as a dominant feature is the old ranch. He explained there are architectural guidelines 26 02-20-2001 describing the materials. Within the compound there is a fire station with two bays and living quarters for four individuals. He stated there is potential for them to place ambulance service in there as well. There is a maintenance home, a single family home for the golf professional and for the ranch manager. He stated there will also be a bunkhouse. This is not Cordillera as an applicant, but it is made up of many of the Cordillera owners. Chairman Stone stated he wants this file to stand on its own and not be tied to Cordillera. He suggested though they have a good track record, he would like this to stand on its own merits. Mr. Badger stated the bunkhouse would house ten people. He spoke to the barn and maintenance facility. He stated crossing over the railroad and into what is the club area, the cabins are limited in size and have architectural limitations. There will be a guest bunkhouse and the chain of buildings one will drive by and hardly see. For the most part the visual will be the agricultural area and the sloping side of the development. To the north of the property is the ranch headquarters. He stated there is an existing single family home that is for the ranch manager. He stated the agricultural components will be maintained. To the south ofthe property is a 14 acre parcel they will dedicate to Eagle County or another entity determined by Eagle County for a fly fishing park. He spoke to the white water and the healthy fish habitat. They would construct a parking area for four cars and a trail system to the river. He stated they would construct the required pedestrian underpass per the Union Pacific requirements. He explained the structure. He stated there is an existing tressel that will accommodate a pick up truck at this time. He spoke to discussions with Union Pacific. That would be a requirement at the time of final plat. He stated the golf course is an 18 hole Jack Nicolas course. He spoke to the water and the fish habitat. He spoke to the meetings with the Division of Wildlife who he stated have been supportive. He spoke to the degradation by the cattle operation and problems with erosion and degradation to the riparian corridor. This would be an attempt to restore that area and to help the drainage and enhance fish habitat. He stated he could address topics discussed at sketch plan. Chairman Stone suggest they go back to discussing the 1041 and then return to the preliminary plan approval. He stated the public will have two chances to comment following Mr. Merry's presentation and before approval of the preliminary plan and the zone change. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented file numbers 1041-0034 and SSA-0012, Colorado River Ranch. He stated this was a 1041 application for site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects. The Colorado River Ranch PUD is essentially a guest ranch which incorporates golf, fishing, equestrian and other recreation and leisure activities in the setting of the former Nottingham Ranch. The development proposal includes 25 cabins, 2 guest bunkhouses one ranch manager residence and a maintenance facility with housing for 10 employees. The clubhouse associated with the golf course has a 75 seat restaurant and a bar and grill. Water will be diverted from the Colorado River via an infiltration gallery with a capacity of 120gpm. Water is then delivered to a pond for potable and nonpotable uses. Domestic water will be filtered and discharged into the chlorine contact tame The water treatment system will be capable of treating 20,000gpd with a peak output of 50,000gpd. Treated water will then be pumped up to a 200,000-gallon capacity water holding tank for eventual distribution throughout the site. The water distribution system for the Colorado River Ranch is designed in accordance with the Town of Gypsum's Public Works Manual (dated May, 1998). All water lines are 8" ductile iron pipe. Wastewater will be collected via 4" laterals from each cabin and the clubhouse facilities to the sanitary lines. The system consists of two force mains, two lift stations, and gravity sewer, all connected to a central sewage treatment plant. The wastewater will be treated at the package treatment plant using an activated sludge-extended aeration treatment system. Effluent will be discharged into two absorption fields. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineer: 27 02-20-2001 No comments at this time. USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service: No comments. Water Quality Control Division: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: The potable water system will be classified as a "public water system" under the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Plans and specifications for the proposed system must be submitted for review and approval. The development is subject to the Regulations for the Site Application Process. The applicant must obtain approval ofthe wastewater treatment works. The applicant may be required to obtain CDPSINPDES stormwater discharge permits for various proposed activities that disturb more that 5 acres. (Comments Attached) Colorado Geological Survey: The Geologic Hazard Review found concerns with sinkholes, collapsible soils and hydrocompactive soils that if adversely wetted can collapse and rupture lines. The developer has assured the Colorado Geological Survey that site specific investigations will be performed by a geotechnical engineer (HP Geotech) prior to locating infrastructure and the wastewater treatment plant. (Comments Attached) NWCCOG: The NWCCOG's review found concern in the following general areas: Wastewater Management and Siting Issues: It appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. NWCCOG will request that up and down-gradient groundwater monitoring wells and a monitoring program be established as part of the site application approval. Impacts to Instream Water Quality from Nonpoint Sources: It appears that most ofNWCCOG's concerns regarding stormwater runoff have been addressed through the preliminary drainage study. NWCCOG's notes that the hydrology that is being planned for includes the 2, 10,25,50 and 100 year events. NWCCOG's water quality protection standards detention criteria include 40-hour detention of the 0.5 inch in 24-hour event with no more than 50% of the stored volume being released in 12 hours. NWCCOG recommends that this detention criteria be applied to the detention ponds proposed for the ranch. The NWCCOG expressed concerns regarding the Colorado River flooding of the golf course and potential water quality impacts associated with fertilizer and pesticide applications. NWCCOG would appreciate more substantial water quality protection than the statement that "the operators will take into consideration the seasonal high flow periods which occur on the Colorado River and Willow Creek, when deciding to apply various chemicals to the golf course turf." This issue should be thoroughly examined and resolved in the Golf Course Management Plan which is currently notably lacking. NWCCOG commends the applicant's commitments to developing an Integrated Golf Course Management Plan and the adherence to agricultural "best management practices." NWCCOG has reviewed the Golf Course Management Plan and although it is a start, significant work on the plan is needed to provide adequate water quality protection from golf course management practices. Policy 5, Chemical Management, of the 208 Plan addresses the need to provide adequate planning regarding the use and handling of fertilizers, pesticides, and hazardous chemicals to protect water quality. Impact to Wetlands and Aquatic Resources: It does not appear that the Colorado River Ranch 1041 Application is providing soil disturbance setbacks from wetlands, floodplains, or riparian areas. The Planning Commission wanted a better understanding of the logic that drove the project toward centralized systems, especially the more sophisticated wastewater treatment system that required private operation and maintenance of lift stations. The Planning Commission's discussion of the water 28 02-20-2001 and sewer infrastructure for the project ranged from consideration of alternatives, long term operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater treatment plants to a discussion of the practicality of a centralized wastewater treatment system that requires 2 lift stations. The long-term operation ofthe water and wastewater treatment plants was a concern ofthe Commission since the project and associated infrastructure is privately owned. Normally the types of systems associated with this project are operated by districts. The applicant suggested that the homeowners association manage the systems but staff objected due to the complexity of the systems. The Commission agreed that some kind of financing mechanism should be required to insure the long- term operation of the systems. Staff explained to the Commission that under the direction of the Attorney's office it is possible to recommend approval, pending receipt of an executed Water Supply Contract, findings regarding adequate water supply and non-injury to downstream users. The applicant appears to have more than ample water rights to satisfy the supply needs of the development, but since the augmentation plan is pending in district court the applicant has purchased adjudicated water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir. The Department of Community Development received a copy of the executed Water Supply Agreement on February 6, 2001. The applicant stated that they intend to continue pursuit of the augmentation plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the 1041, a permanent program for the operation, maintenance and replacement of the water treatment facility and the sewage treatment facility be in place and be presented for approval by staff. 2. The contract for adjudicated water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir be executed and provided to the Staff and the Permit Authority prior to adoption of final findings. Efficient Utilization The agricultural (irrigation) water uses for this project such as, the golf course, hay meadows and alfalfa production, are not subject to the efficient utilization requirements of this 1041 application but the applicant's water conservation techniques for this project are worthy of note. The applicant's plan for integrating golf course irrigation with lands historically irrigated with the ranch operations represents an efficient utilization of non-potable water. In addition, the applicant has committed to a computerized and radio controlled irrigation system that will be connected to a weather station that will feed weather data, such as evapotranspiration rates, to the system 24 hours a day. The applicant has represented that this system will include landscaping that is not part of the golf course. Staff would like to see the "efficient utilization" portion of the 1041 application bolstered to include grass seed specifications and a plant palette that includes primarily drought resistant native species. Environmental Management The NWCCOG's description of the Golf Course Management Plan as "a start" raises concern of staff considering pesticide application to the golf course and the proximity of the golf course to the Colorado River and flood plain. Staff would also like for the applicant to address, for the record, concerns raised by the NWCCOG regarding stormwater detention, pesticide application, and impacts to riparian areas. Staff has developed conditions of approval to address this issue. Long Term Operation and Maintenance Staff is concerned that the wastewater collection and treatment system requires 2 lift stations. Lift stations represent a continuous risk and expense that could be avoided if the wastewater treatment plant were located to accept all raw sewage via gravity flow. Staff would recommend additional evidence be provided to address long term operation and maintenance. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: In accordance with Section 6.03.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Colorado River Ranch Water and Sewage 29 02-20-2001 Treatment Systems: a) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the development area and source development area; (+)Finding: There are no existing water or wastewater treatment systems on or near the development capable of providing wastewater or potable water service. The new domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the development area and source development area. b) The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan; (+)Finding: The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granted sketch plan approval for the PUD on July 31, 2000. In addition, the NWCCOG stated that it appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. c) The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; (+ )Finding: The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. d) Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; (+ )Finding: Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs. e) Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area. l) Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing sewage treatment systems servicing the area. g) The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing water or sewer services in the area. h) Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing water or sewer services in the area. i) Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; (+ )Finding: The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granting sketch plan approval for the PUD indicates that development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. j) Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing facilities in the area. 30 02-20-2001 k) Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; (+)Finding: The appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs of the infrastructure proposed. The proposed private water distribution ans wastewater collection systems will be placed within utility easements of road rights-of-way to be created by the owner as appropriate. I) The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; (+)Finding: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. The agricultural enterprise associated with the ranch is not economically viable. The PUD proposes to keep the agricultural character of the area by continuing some of the agricultural uses and incorporating recreation and leisure activities. m) The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; (+)Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted. n) The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards; (+)Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards. 0) The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance; (+)Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. p) The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; (+)Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors q) The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; (+)Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not 31 02-20-2001 create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result. r) The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection 6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid. (NA)Finding: This approval criteria is not applicable. No salinity offset plan for this project is required. The wastewater treated in the plant will be returned to the land and ground via absorption fields. s) The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. (+)Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area t) The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown. (+ )Finding: The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from geologic hazards which could cause a system operational breakdown. The Colorado Geological Survey's Geologic Hazard Review found concerns with sinkholes, collapsible soils and hydrocompactive soils that if adversely wetted can collapse and rupture lines. In accordance with Section 6.05.15 (Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Colorado River Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems: a) The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; (+ )Finding: The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granting sketch plan approval for the PUD indicates that development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. There are no existing water or wastewater treatment systems available in the area capable of serving the project. b) Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with federal, state, regional and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources; (+ )Finding: The proposed PUD will maintain the agricultural character of the current zoning of the area. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granted sketch plan approval for the PUD on July 31, 2000. The NWCCOG stated that it appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. c) Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas; (+ )Finding: Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. 32 02-20-2001 d) Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; (+)Finding: The application contains provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources. e) The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; (+)Finding: The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health. t) The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; (+ )Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; g) The proposed development and the potential diversions of water from the source development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitats, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; (+ )Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. h) The salinity and advance wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsections 6.05.13(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid; (NA)Finding: This approval criteria is not applicable. No salinity offset plan for this project is required. The wastewater treated in the plant will be returned to the land and ground via absorption fields. i) The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. (+) Finding: The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Mr. Merry stated he would like to see specifically where the storage tank is going to be located. He asked for the site map submitted today. He explained the difference in the two set of findings for the 1041 permit. He stated 6.05 and conservation of water resources is probably the more important. He explained the Planning Commission showed concern about lift stations on other files and why will they work here. He spoke to finding Q and the applicant not being charged with an undue financial burden. Chairman Stone asked if a special district is being formed. He asked for an example. Mr. Merry stated most of the water services, Bellyache Ridge for example, has formed an out of district service agreement to operate and maintain their water system. He stated when there are homeowners or companies involved it can become more problematic. He spoke to a 7th condition 33 02-20-2001 regarding maintenance of the plant. The Planning Commission agreed with the movement to a centralized system and for waist water too. Being able to monitor that discharge is a plus. The planning commission placed a couple of conditions which are found on page 4 or staff's report. Staff spoke to the applicant not having a secured water source and without the approval you can't find in favor. He stated the applicant has since purchased the water required. He stated all of the findings for a 1041 permit need to be found positive for approval. He spoke to a 7th finding. Chairman Stone read the 7th condition being "Prior to the approval of a final plat for the project, the applicant shall submit a written agreement for approval by BOCC which establishes a permanent program for the development, phasing operation and maintenance of the water treatment and sewage treatment facilities serving the development." Mr. Merry stated findings should not be conditioned. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant is in agreement with Staff regarding the conditions. Mr. Badger stated they are. Mr. Merry stated if action will be taking place on the 1041 the Board will need to convene as the Board of Health. Lance Badger responded to Staff's presentation. He spoke to the comments made by Mr. Merry. He stated the central water system proposed is done for better water and fire protection. He spoke to the waste water system and the desire to provide better treatment and monitoring. He spoke to the first concern relating to condition D and explained the purchase of water from Wolford. He spoke to the contract with the Colorado Conservation District. He spoke to the concern with ongoing systems. He stated this will not create an undue financial burden to the owners. He reminded the Board this is a resort community. He explained the contract and the water supply. He stated the cost will be $500 per year to each cabin owner or less. He stated the club will pay most of that. He stated the irrigation is through a non-potable source. The developer will pay for the construction and maintenance of the systems. This will be about $150.00 per month per resident. Chairman Stone asked if this is all in writing. Mr. Badger stated he can make a copy of his presentation. Chairman Stone stated he would like to have a written rate structure before taking any action. He spoke to the Adam's Rib and Frost Creek files and in that presentation they received proposed rate structures and how that works in comparison to other structures in the valley. He stated he would like it in writing to have it be part of the record. Mr. Badger stated he can make copies or write a more formal proposal. Mr. Merry stated he will make copies. Mr. Badger stated the applicant contends this will not result in a financial burden for the applicant or the owners. He stated they don't know the final structure of the Club, which has not been constructed. They agree with condition #7. He stated the reason for this is an entity may own the Club and then be responsible for operation and maintenance. Otherwise it could be owned by multiple owners. He asked to come back with a maintenance plan at final plat. He stated the final structure of the Club may still need to be adjusted. Chairman Stone stated they can not give a conditional approval of the 1041 agreement. He questioned crossing the line. Mr. Badger stated the finding can be made positively in terms of the cost. He suggested it is something that will need to be adjusted based on the final structure of the Club. He suggested in discussion with Mr. Merry they believe it is reasonable. Richard Michgelbrink, Benchmark Engineering Services, stated as for the water, they are building a lake in the western corner of the project. He spoke to the infiltration gallery into the treatment facility. He stated at that point there is a pump station in the meadow. That will give enough pressure for fire and water service. Mr. Merry suggested for the 1041 they should label exhibits being A-I, A-2 and A-3. 34 02-20-2001 Chairman Stone asked they mark the applicant's exhibits and incorporate them. Mr. Loeffler stated the site plan will be A-I, water distribution will be A-2, the sanitation system A-3, treatment plant schematics will be A-4, and the water supply contract will be A-5 and the text of the applicants presentation will be exhibit A-6. Mr. Michgelbrink offered the exhibits into the record. Chairman Stone stated the Board will accept the exhibits into the record. Mr. Michgelbrink explained the sanitation collection system and the two pump stations. He stated they will pump from one station to the second and then go east to the Ranch center. There they will have the treatment facilities and monitoring well above and below the beds to ensure proper treatment. Chairman Stone asked about exhibit A-4, the schematic of water treatment plant layout. Mr. Michgelbrink stated the hand out gives the numbers of use and pumping. He explained they are designing for 120 gallons per minute. He stated the pumping will only be to take the water to the tank. Pump station number one is designed for 95 gallons per minute. He stated it is only handling seven houses and part of the Club facilities. He further explained the sanitation process. He explained the storage of sludge and the reduction through drying beds. Mr. Badger added these systems are tried and true and the system as designed is relatively simple in the world of engineering. This is not new technology. They concur with the conditions placed by staff and the comments made. They can address them one by one or go through the findings if suggested by the Board. Chairman Stone asked for public comment on the 1041 permit. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher asked if he correctly understood the out take pond still has to be built. Mr. Badger responded yes. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the fire flow and how it was determined. Mr. Badger stated they met numerous times with Gypsum Fire Department. Mr. Michgelbrink stated it is 1500 per two or 180,000 gallons. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the structure is at the riverside. Mr. Badger explained that is a guest bunkhouse. The idea is that if they don't want to stay in the cabin they could stay in the bunkhouse for the night. They will have eight traditional bunkhouse rooms. He stated from the exterior it will mimic an old bunk house. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the area for sprinkling. Mr. Badger read a letter from Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Chief, and the specifics of the requirements. Commissioner Gallagher stated his concern is with the required fire flow and the additional fire flow for sprinklers. He stated they could be getting close to capacity. Mr. Badger stated he is not qualified to address the requirement and that is why they worked with Dave Vroman. He spoke to the water source flowing right next to the cabins and the fire station that will be on sight. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the water source. Mr. Michgelbrink explained the feeding will be by gravity. He explained the tank is on top of the hill. Mr. Badger stated there is a pump to the tank and gravity feed from the tank. Irrigation is not coming from that tank. Chairman Stone asked about the soils and if they are of a nature that can accept this kind of water infiltration. Mr. Merry stated the referral comments addressed mostly the structures. Chairman Stone suggested they may want to know what the infiltration rate is and how that number was arrived at. Mr. Michgelbrink stated those results came from the soil studies and that HP Geotech was 35 02-20-2001 designed from their data. Chairman Stone spoke to the location of the tank and whether that is good or bad. Mr. Merry stated he would like to have the applicant point out where the tank was originally and where it was moved to. Mr. Michgelbrink stated the original tank was on the west side of the road and close to Willow Creek. He stated they have moved it completely to the other side of the site and away from all drainage. Mr. Merry asked for the actual location. Mr. Michgelbrink explained. Chairman Stone stated the concern is that the tank will be where they say it will be and that it will be sufficient. Mr. Merry spoke to the meeting with the Colorado Geological Survey and the findings in writing. Commissioner Gallagher asked what is at the old ranch site to accommodate them for water and sewer. Mr. Badger stated well and septic and the septic was replaced just last summer. Chairman Stone asked about the intended uses for the different cabins and asked ifit is germane to the discussion depending on how the cabins are utilized. He spoke to one owner verses almost a time share usage. Mr. Merry stated basically you estimate a residential type use and design the plant accordingly. Mr. Michgelbrink stated they did it with an assumption that people will live there full time. Chairman Stone spoke to the undue financial burden being placed on the owners. He suggested each cabin owner will pay $500.00 per year for the cost of the water and in addition to that you would add approximately $150.00 per month for maintenance which is about $200 per month for water and sewer service. He spoke to the cost in Gypsum. Commissioner Gallagher stated Minturn is significantly less. Mr. Badger stated you have to further divide that by the number of members of the Club. Chairman Stone stated the development company could very easily sell this and it causes concern because even though Cordillera has a good reputation, they want to be sure that any developer will do a good job. He is concerned about approving a development based upon whoever owns it. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the structure. Mr. Badger stated in terms of the cost and his estimate is on the high side. He spoke to the Club facility with the fire station, the bunkhouse, the Club, maintenance facility, etc. He stated his guess is the cost will be somewhere around $150.00 per month. This is not your typical subdivision. He stated the costs would be lower if there were more units. Part of the cost is the retention of the open space. He stated a system like this could probably serve more home sites. The intent is to keep this minimized. Chairman Stone asked what is the proposed ownership of the system. Mr. Badger stated current thinking is the Club will own those systems. Chairman Stone asked who owns the Club? He stated when they have a water and sanitation district they have a quasi-governmental entity and the people who are part of that system can influence what their water rates are. When the district is formed the rates and the regulations are governed. He suggested a group of homeowners could be at the whim of the owner of the system and they can charge whatever they want. The homeowners have no rights for influencing what the charges could be. Mr. Merry stated that is the struggle they had. Mr. Badger stated they will come back to the Board with a detailed understanding of the structure. Chairman Stone stated he believes it crosses the line for conditions of approval. Mr. Loeffler stated it is the Board's judgement if they have provided the evidence sufficient to make the condition and that there won't be an undue burden. Chairman Stone stated what would make him more comfortable is that they come back to them with a proposal and table this file until they have a more specified ownership of the water and sewage 36 02-20-2001 treatment system giving the Board assurances there will be a process set up where the owner's either own it collectively as a group or some kind of process that will protect owners. Commissioner Menconi what other projects has this development company done. Mr. Badger stated he works for Kensington Partners which is one of the entities of the Cordillera Group. He stated there are multiple entities. He stated this particular development is owned White Hawk Investments Inc. He stated he is part of that. Dave Hill is the president of that entity and they are still affiliated with the mass entities making up the Cordillera Group. Commissioner Menconi asked when White Hawk Investment was formed. Mr. Badger stated in the fall when Amendment 24 was being proposed. It was transferred from other entities and then consolidated back into White Hawk Investments Inc. Commissioner Menconi asked are these affiliates of Kensington Partners. Mr. Badger stated it is. Chairman Stone reminded Commissioner Menconi there is nothing that prevents them from selling to another developer outside of this group. Commissioner Menconi asked if this 1041 is to serve the ranch, the cabins, the club house and other capital investments. He asked about the water from the one potable water source and if that is being used for the golf course. Mr. Badger stated it is for the agricultural lands which it has done historically and for irrigation of the golf course. Those are established water rights that have been on the property for many years. Additionally they have purchased the additional water. Commissioner Menconi suggested the 1041 is to meet the human needs. Mr. Merry stated the 1041 does not regulate irrigation water. Chairman Stone asked for water sprinkling around the cabins. Commissioner Menconi asked if the building of the lake creates issues down river. Mr. Merry stated it does not. Commissioner Menconi asked how far it is to 1-70. Mr. Merry stated about 10.5 miles. Commissioner Menconi asked about item I and the need for a development of this type. He asked what type of studies were done and what is the expected square footage of the cabins and how many memberships are expected to be sold. Mr. Badger stated the project is a small residential family club. They believe it is a community need currently not available in the County. The BoCC further found that by their approval of the sketch plan. He stated the plan has changed only to improve the plan and they have not added buildings. He stated the square footage of the cabins is 3,200 square feet. They are designed to be much smaller than a typical home in similar developments. He stated they have not determined the number of memberships and there are different configurations. He explained how different memberships work. Commissioner Menconi asked if this will assist members of other Cordillera courses to have access to this course. Mr. Badger stated it is not and the intent is for this project to stand alone. Commissioner Menconi asked him to further explain the need for this type of development. Mr. Badger stated they have looked at all kinds of uses here and there is the issue of ranching. He stated Bill Nottingham owned it previously and ran about 1400 head of cattle. He stated it could not continue as a working ranch at the price it was offered for. He stated the real goal was to create a preservation component which this does. He spoke to the golf component and coupling the golf which allows for memberships, reduces the impacts and creates value. He stated the intent is not to create a subdivision but a resort that takes advantage of the river, the Flat Tops and to enjoy those amenities. Commissioner Gallagher asked how long it will take them to come up with the unknowns and how much use this is going to get. He asked after the number of rounds to be played, the other amenities and how they will be played. 37 02-20-2001 Chairman Stone suggested that the Board needs some more background and more written information on the findings on page 6, letter b and a pencil and paper analysis of item i on page 7. He asked them to demonstrate the need on paper. He stated they would also need the financial analysis on letter q, on page 9, and how it will not produce an undue burden. He suggested rather than making a condition of approval, they need a written agreement to specify ownership and the rights and privileges. He stated he can not make a positive finding on this. Commissioner Gallagher stated along with those he would like to have an understanding of what they anticipate the use to be. The numbers, the tee times, the horse rides, the fisherman use and the numbers they anticipate. He stated he approved the sketch plan but would like to bring it back to satisfy those requirements. Chairman Stone stated that is why he made the statement he did because they are going to need to make extra effort to bring everyone up to speed. Mr. Badger asked if it would be appropriate to say they will have a property ownership group that would have a controlling interest in managing the sewer and water systems. Chairman Stone stated when you look at how special districts are formed, they have very specific guidelines and requirements. He stated he doesn't want to tell them how to do it, but they will need to have an understanding of what they intend on this functioning. Mr. Merry stated on page 10 of staff s report he is hearing that some of the information can be used on findings a, band e. He stated that it is important that whoever is going to maintain this is providing quality water to the residents. Chairman Stone asked they prepare the presentation to address those findings. Mr. Badger asked ifthere are other questions or information the Board may want answered specifically. Commissioner Menconi stated he will be investigating some history based on the trends demonstrated for small resorts and golf course communities and how to support i as an item. Mr. Merry stated within the application ofthe 1041 permit the applicant has written text. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Merry to provide that as back up. Mr. Loeffler stated he would presume they would table the 1041 and the land use files for the same time on a date in the future. Chairman Stone asked how much time the applicant needs. Mr. Badger stated they can be prepared in a week. Jack Ingstad suggested the 13th or the 20th of March. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table files 1041-0034, SSA-0012, PDP-00018 and ZC-00042, at the applicants request, until the 13th of March, 2001. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SMA-00009, ZC-00031, Nystrom Ranch Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers SMA-00009 and ZC-00031, Nystrom Ranch. Steve Kloosterman is applying for a Minor A type file subdivision to subdivide a 9.474 acre lot into 3 lots. She stated they have received another request to table this file. Chairman Stone read the letter of request into the record as follows: "Dear Commissioners, We request the Nystrom Ranch/Kloosterman property be tabled to your June hearings. As you remember, this file entered the public process two years ago under the Nystrom Ranch. The Nystrom Ranch went to the Planning Commission in the fall of 2000 but before the file could be heard by the Board the property was sold to Steve Kloosterman. Mr. Kloosterman has authorized Isom and Associates to continue to represent this file and we awaiting direction from the new owner in order to proceed in the review process." 38 02-20-2001 Ms. Skinner stated June 19th would be the date. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file numbers SMA -00009 and ZC-00031, Nystrom Ranch, to June 19, 2001, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Joseph Forinash presented file number PDF-00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm. He explained the preliminary plan hearing has been rescheduled and there is no final plat. Chairman Stone asked if they can just not open this file or if they need to table to a specific date. Mr. Ingstad suggested the intent of planning was to table to a specific date. Mr. Forinash suggested the 20th of March. Commissioner Gallagher asked what this file is for. Mr. Forinash stated it is the final plat. The preliminary plan will be coming before them next Tuesday. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDF-00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, to March 20, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until February 27, 2001. ~~ Chairman Attest: Clerk to the B 39 02-20-2001