HomeMy WebLinkAboutR82-095 Adams Rib sketch plan� RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 82- y,5�
IN RE THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ADAM'S RIB
RECREATIONAL AREA FOR P.U.D. SKETCH PLAN APPROVAL, FILE NO.
PD- 189 -82 -S - FINDINGS AND ORDER
PROCEEDINGS
Adam's Rib Recreational Area, a totally owned subsidiary
of the HBE Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri ( "Applicant "),
submitted on or about January, 1982, an application
requesting Sketch Plan approval of a Planned Unit Development
( "P.U.D. ") referred to as the Adam's Rib Recreational Area,
File No. PD- 189 -82 -S ( "Project Area" or "Proposed
Development "), pursuant to Section 2.06.13 of the Zoning
Resolution of Eagle County, Colorado, 1979, as amended, and
Section 2.17 of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County,
Colorado, 1972, as amended, as the same are set forth and
incorporated in Chapter II of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, 1982, as amended ( "L.U.R. "). The project area
is presently zoned R /Resource, is located approximately
fourteen air miles south of Eagle, Colorado, in the Brush
Creek Drainage both above and below the confluence of East
and West Brush Creek tributaries, and is generally described
as follows:
A parcel of land located within the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, lying in Tract 79 of Section 25,
Tract 80 of Sections 25 and 26, Tract 81 of Section
26, and Tracts 85 and 86 of Section 35, Township 5
South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian;
the W 1/2 SW 1/4 of Section 7, and Sections 16, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 33, Township 6
South, Range 83 West of the 6th Principal Meridian;
and the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 6
South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian.
On December 27, 1973, the Applicant made application for
a Special Use Permit to the U.S. Forest Service for
development of downhill skiing on all or a portion of
approximately 6,800 acres of National Forest Service lands
commonly referred to as the Adam and Eve Mountain Area.
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 29,
1980, the County, the State of Colorado, the Forest Service,
and the Applicant agreed to have a Site Specific Study, and
as part thereof, a Site Specific Environmental Impact
Statement, prepared by the Forest Service relative to the
project area. (Exhibit Nos. 15 and 16.) The Forest Service
on August 5, 1981, released the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for public comment and review. On July 12, 1982,
the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") was
released (Exhibit No. 3), and in conjunction therewith, the
Forest Service determined to issue a special use permit for
Alternative 3 as described in the FEIS which would permit
development of National Forest System lands in the Adam and
Eve Mountain Area for up to 9,000 skiers -at- one -time.
(Exhibit No. 4.)
The Eagle County Planning Commission initially considered
w, the application for P.U.D. sketch plan approval of the
project area in File No. PD- 189 -82 -S on March 17, 1982, and
at the request of the Applicant and the County Department of
Community Development, continued its review thereof to a date
not less than 35 days after the date of the release of the
FEIS by the Forest Service. (Exhibit Nos. 42 and 43.) On
August 18 and 19, respectively, 1982, the Eagle County
Planning Commission reviewed the P.U.D. sketch plan
application as revised by the Applicant in July and August,
respectively, 1982. (Exhibit Nos. 34, 35, and 48.)
2
I
� 1
un �4ux
Consistent with the recommendations of the County Department
of Community Development (Exhibit Nos. 76, 77 and 79), the
Eagle County Planning Commission at the conclusion of the
hearing determined that the subject application was in
accordance with the Eagle County Master Plan adopted April 1,
1981, and the sketch plan review criteria as set forth in the
County's Land Use Regulations. The Eagle County Planning
Commission further recommended approval of the subject P.U.D.
sketch plan application with the following conditions:
1. That the proposed Brush Creek Road improvements
be clearly worked out with a timetable in
accordance with the conclusions specified in
the staff road recommendations, paragraphs 1 -8.
2. That the water plan consider possible
relocation of the Eagle water intake upstream
on West Brush Creek, with diversion works to
include East Brush Creek into a storage
reservoir or other cooperative measures with
the Town of Eagle to work out a potable and
adequate water supply prior to preliminary
plan.
3. That the water augmentation plan be approved by
the water court.
4. That the wildlife and environmental concerns on
private lands be catalogued and concisely
identified.
5. That the proponent seriously consider the
feasibility of individual concerns expressed
during the public hearings.
6. That the wetlands mitigation measures be
clarified and approved under the 404 procedure
and approved prior to preliminary plan.
7. That the proponent seriously consider the
employment of local people to the maximum
possible.
8. That employee housing agreements be developed
to assure long term employee availability as
well as pre- construction housing.
9. That financial ability and project economic
viability be provided by the proponent.
(Exhibit No. 201.)
3
The revised P.U.D. sketch plan application was scheduled
for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado ( "Board "), on
August 23, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., and hearings were held on
August 23, August 24, and August 25, respectively, 1982. The
Board received oral evidence in the form of sworn testimony
and informational statements, and written evidence in the
form of letters, statements, comments, recommendations,
reports, studies, and other documentation. Such evidence was
submitted by the Applicant; County planning staff members;
various groups and governmental entities such as the Forest
Service, the Division of Wildlife, the Town of Gypsum, the
Town of Eagle, the Eagle Valley Chamber of Commerce, and the
Concerned Citizens for Upper Brush Creek and Eagle County;
and members of the general public including residents of
surrounding communities, ranchers, businessmen,
professionals, developers, and environmentalists. Three
hundred and thirty -one exhibits were tendered, all of which
were admitted at the conclusion of the hearing into the
record of proceedings before the Board. The evidence was
weighed accordingly based upon the probative value placed
thereon by the Board, and the following findings are based on
the record as a whole. References to exhibits and testimony
herein relate to the record of proceedings before the Board
in the above - entitled matter. Such references are for
convenience only and do not necessarily compile all portions
of the record on which the findings are based.
PROPOSAL
The proposed Adam's Rib Recreational Area consists of a
four season resort on 2,480 acres of private land which
4
includes 3,939 dwelling units consisting of condominiums,
single family homes, duplex homes, and apartments, some of
which would be affordable housing for employees of the
resort; hotels; retail and commercial facilities; a
convention center; a fine arts center; athletic and health
facilities; a mass transit system; public services; service
maintenance support centers; and recreational facilities to
include two golf courses, indoor skating arena, cultural
center, and development of downhill winter skiing on 2,920
acres of public lands. The revised P.U.D. sketch plan
application was based upon the premise that the Forest
Service would issue a Special Use Permit to develop a ski
area capable of accommodating 9,000 skiers -at- one -time.
The project area would entail one major center of
activity with two other areas in support. The major
community center referred to as the Transit Served Community
would be located primarily in Vassar Meadow, and would
contain a series of residential clusters, linked by a mass
transit system, and centered on a dense commercial core. At
the confluence of East and West Brush Creek would be the
Service Support Area which would contain no residential,
recreational or commercial activities but, rather, would
provide an area for maintenance shops, equipment storage and
an interceptor parking facility for skiers. The second
support activity area would be the Golf Course Resort Site
which would be located 5 1/2 miles south of the Town of Eagle
and would consist of two golf courses surrounded by a limited
number of clustered home sites.
DISCUSSION
Section 2.06.13(3) of the Zoning Resolution of Eagle
County, Colorado, 1979, as amended, and Section 2.17.02(3)
5
l„ of the Subdivision Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado,
1972, as amended, as the same are set forth in Chapter II of
the L.U.R., require the Board to make a determination that a
P.U.D. sketch plan application is in accordance with the
following requirements prior to its approval thereof:
(1) there are special physical conditions or
objectives of development which the proposal
will satisfy to warrant a departure from the
standard regulation requirements;
(2) resulting development will not be inconsistent
with the Master Plan objectives;
(3) the area around the development can be planned
to be in substantial harmony with the proposed
P.U.D.;
(4) the adjacent and nearby communities will not be
detrimentally affected by the proposed P.U.D.;
(5) the P.U.D. can be completed within a reasonable
period of time, which shall be determined prior
to final approval of the P.U.D.;
(6) any proposed commercial or industrial
development can be justified economically;
(7) the streets are adequate to support the
anticipated traffic and the development will
not overload the streets outside the planned
area;
(8) proposed utility and drainage facilities are
adequate for population densities and type of
development proposed;
(9) the employee housing plan as provided is
acceptable;
(10) conformance with the Master Plan, policies,
guidelines, zoning and other applicable
regulations;
(11) suitability of the land for subdivision;
(12) comments and recommendations from the agencies
listed in Section 2.17.02(1) of the Subdivision
Regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, 1972, as
amended, as the same is set forth in Chapter II
of the L.U.R.
The Eagle County Master Plan sets forth various goals,
objectives, and policies to serve as a basis and guide in the
Board's initial determination of whether a specific
N
development proposal is an appropriate use of the land. Such
goals, objectives, and policies encourage the P.U.D. approach
for proposed developments which would establish new community
centers, and which are of such a magnitude that flexibility
in conventional land use controls is necessary. Further, the
Master Plan specifies that new community centers should be
developed in such a manner as to, inter alia, protect the
open rural character of the county; provide land uses in
harmony with the natural and social environment, and with
adjacent land uses; establish a full range of public
services, diversified housing including employee housing, and
recreational uses; provide an economic determinant which is
site - specific, and which will generate sufficient public
revenues to minimize the costs of governmental services
provided to and associated with the development; develop
safe, adequate and energy- efficient circulation systems; and
mitigate any adverse impacts related to the development on
the natural and social environment, including wildlife,
fisheries, wetlands, and water quality and quantity. (See
Exhibit No. 77.)
Based upon the evidence received during the hearing
process in conjunction with the foregoing land use
requirements, the Board determined that a number of the
issues raised had been adequately addressed by the applicant
or the applicable governmental entity; or were more
appropriately the subject for review during the preliminary
plan process at which time detailed studies would be required
and specific mitigation measures would have to be addressed.
The following discussion will focus on the primary issues
which were properly brought before the Board during the
P.U.D. sketch plan hearing review process.
7
DEVELOPMENT
As set forth in the revised P.U.D. sketch plan
application (Exhibit No. 1), the Transit Served Community
within the project area would be developed as a
self- contained community center with a diversity of
concentrated commercial and residential land uses.
Traditional public services including, but not limited
to, water, sewer, fire protection, and circulation
systems within the Transit Served Community and other
residential areas within the project area would be
provided by the Applicant on an organized and centralized
basis. As a four - season recreational area with
year -round employment opportunities, the new community
center when established would provide an economic
determinant through the generation of additional jobs and
revenues to the county economy in visitor expenditures,
and in addition, would strengthen the County's economic
base by providing a capital attracting primary industry,
namely recreation, which is labor intensive,
non - polluting, and involves the use of renewable
resources. The anticipated revenues generated throughout
the construction stages and subsequent to the completion
of the project area, along with the financial commitment
of the Applicant to provide on -site and certain off -site
public improvements, would offset any additional burden
placed upon governmental entities by reason of the
development of the project area.
The County planning staff, along with various members
of the public, questioned the economic viability of the
project and the major consequences to the County if the
project failed. Such reservations were based, in part,
on skier demand, the location of the project area, and
other major developments on the Western Slope which had
0
z
w' failed. (See generally Exhibit Nos. 79, 118, 164, 198,
245, 295 and 297.) In response, evidence was produced
regarding the need for local employment, the increased
revenues which would be generated by local businesses,
the financial stability of the Applicant, and recent
economic studies of the ski industry. (See generally
Exhibit Nos. 39, 84, 85, 122, 127, 128, 169, 309 and
327.) Other primary concerns expressed by the public
centered around the impacts the proposed development
would have on local communities. Testimony in favor of
the project area dealt with the need to establish a major
industry in the Lower Eagle Valley, and the benefits
which would be derived therefrom including employment
opportunities and a generating source of revenue. (See
generally Exhibit Nos. 110, 111, 139, 302 and 312.)
Those opposed testified to the adverse impacts which
would be placed on the operating and capital needs, and
services provided by governmental entities, the
inflationary cost of living, and the social disruption
and change in local lifestyles resulting from a rapid
increase in population attributable to the development of
a ski resort in the Lower Eagle Valley. (See generally
Exhibit Nos. 46, 115, 117, 119, 189, 282, 294 and 307.)
OPEN SPACE
The project area encompassing 2,480 acres of private
land would provide 1,420 acres of open space or 57.2% of
the total land acreage. The open space provided would be
used for various passive and active recreational uses
and, in many instances, would occur in large solid blocks
of land.
The provision for open space in certain areas was
considered of prime importance for several reasons. The
V
placement of private lands in the west Brush Creek
drainage and Lower East Brush Creek drainage into open
space under public ownership would insure the future
preservation of the same, and would serve as a necessary
buffer zone between the community centers of the Town of
Eagle and the Transit Served Community, and the
surrounding rural undeveloped private and public lands.
The location of open space in the Golf Course Resort Area
with only limited clustered residential uses allowed, in
addition to serving as a necessary buffer zone, would
prevent strip development along the highway corridor in
the Brush Creek Valley. By concentrating the development
density inside the Transit Served Community and
clustering the residential uses around the Golf Course
Resort Area, the Applicant has attempted to minimize the
visual and physical impacts on the scenic and
agricultural lands that characterize the Brush Creek
Valley.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The revised P.U.D. sketch plan application provides
employee housing for 71% of the estimated direct
workforce and 48% of the estimated entire workforce
generated by the proposed development. The employee
housing, consisting of a diversity of housing types and
densities, would be located in two areas, with 672 beds
to be located in the Mill Park Subdivision or a similar
location adjacent to the Town of Eagle, and 1,337 beds to
be located in the Transit Served Community in the project
area. An additional 220 beds would also be provided in
the Transit Served Community for the temporary workforce
employed during the construction stages of the
development. Although the proposed location and
distribution of the employee housing were not at issue
during the hearing process, concerns were expressed
fill]
5.,,✓' regarding the availability of long -term affordable
housing for employees of the project area, the financial
burden placed upon governmental services, and the need
for housing and related services for the temporary
construction workforce in the Transit Served Community.
(See generally Exhibit Nos. 75, 79, 119 and 201.)
TRANSPORTATION
The primary circulation system would include a major
access road from State Highway No. 6 to the project area
with an interceptor parking lot and shuttle busing system
provided at the Service Support Area for day- skiers and
non - guests of the ski resort. Although vehicular access
roads and parking would be provided within the Transit
Served Community for guests of the resort, the
circulation system therein would primarily consist of a
"horizontal elevator" and pedestrian paths. Service
vehicles would be directed to a Master Loading Dock
within the Transit Served Community at which point goods
delivered would be distributed by an underground system.
In addition, a mass transportation system using shuttle
vehicles would be provided for employees not housed at
the Transit Served Community, persons traveling to the
project area from the Town of Eagle, and guests arriving
to the area by means other than individual automobile.
Present access to the project area entails use of the
I -70 spur and State Highway No. 6 north of the Town of
Eagle, the primary highway system of the Town of Eagle,
and Eagle County Road No. 307 commonly referred to as the
Brush Creek Road. Consistent with the testimony and
evidence presented at the hearing by the Applicant, the
County, adjacent property owners, and members of the
traveling public, the aforesaid roads as they presently
11
exist are inadequate to serve the anticipated additional
s volumes of traffic which would be generated by the
project area. By reason thereof, DeLeuw Gather & Company
in May, 1982, prepared on behalf of the Applicant, a
report entitled "The Brush Creek Road Transportation
Analysis." (Exhibit No. 2). In summary, DeLeuw Gather &
Company recommended the following general road
improvements: the reconstruction of Brush Creek Road
consisting of two 12 -foot paved lanes and 8 -foot graveled
shoulders; the relocation of the Brush Creek Road to
connect with State Highway No. 6 west of the Town of
Eagle; the realignment of the existing Brush Creek Road
which would remain within the primary circulation system;
and intersection channelization and signalization,
acceleration - deceleration lanes, turning lanes and
passing lanes on certain specified portions of the
primary circulation system to minimize automobile
congestion and provide safe, efficient and adequate
access to the project area.
As recommended by DeLeuw Gather & Company, the design
capacity of the reconstructed Brush Creek Road from the
Adam's Rib Headquarters to the confluence of East and
West Brush Creek tributaries should meet State standards
for a Type B (improved design) two -lane roadway operating
at a level of service "C" with a 60 mph design. The
remaining roadway portion to the project area should be
designed to accommodate 1997 design hour volume traffic
flows operating at a level of service "E" with a 35 mph
posted speed limit. In order to accomplish the
foregoing, a basic minimum of 80 feet of right -of -way
would be required for the Brush Creek Road with
additional right -of -way being necessary for certain
fya
roadway portions depending on the final location,
s' cross - sections, design requirements, slope and drainage
requirements, cuts and fills, and acceleration -
deceleration lanes.
The construction of the primary circulation system to
the project area would be phased consistent with the
development of the project area. Phase I improvements to
be completed prior to the opening of the ski area at a
2,500 skiers -at- one -time, would entail the construction
of the improved Brush Creek Road from the project area to
State Highway No. 6, and the acquisition of rigbt -of -way
necessary for Phase II improvements. Phase II
improvements to be completed before Adam's Rib reached 60
to 70 percent of its skier capacity, or as development
levels required, would entail the construction of the
interceptor parking lot and the turn lanes associated
therewith, the uphill passing lane on grades exceeding
7 %, channelization improvements on State Highway No. 6,
and the establishment of a shuttle fleet, schedule,
operation and maintenance to accommodate day skier
traffic and employee traffic. (Exhibit No. 2.)
The Applicant in its revised sketch plan application
agreed to pay 100% of the construction cost for the
phased improvements as recommended by DeLeuw Cather &
Company. (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 35.) In addition, and as
modified by the Applicant during testimony at the
hearing, the Applicant agreed to dedicate a 120'
right -of -way through lands under its ownership, and to
fund the acquisition of necessary right -of -way across
lands not under its ownership for the construction of the
proposed primary circulation system.
13
Although the County Engineer concurred with the basic
findings and conclusions of the road analysis by DeLeuw
Gather & Company, he expressed concerns regarding the
phasing of the recommended improvements and acquisition
of the necessary right -of -way; the realignment of the
Brush Creek Road as it relates to the Town of Eagle; the
provision for graveled shoulders rather than paved
shoulders on the Brush Creek Road; the need for
additional right -of -way on the Brush Creek Road; and the
need for an interceptor parking lot. (Exhibit No. 76.)
Other evidence presented at the hearing by the public
relative to the recommended circulation system pertained
to the need for a four -lane highway, the phasing of road
improvements, the need for improvement of the present
Brush Creek Road, and a critique of the report prepared
by DeLeuw Gather & Company. (See generally Exhibit Nos.
37, 38, 75, 162, 215, 246, 265, 266, 279, 295 and 330.)
ENVIRONMENT
1. Wildlife
The cumulative adverse impacts on wildlife resulting
from the proposed development may include stream
modifications affecting fishery habitats; the occupancy
and use of approximately 80 acres of wetlands providing
water, cover, and food to transitory wildlife; the loss
of forage and big game winter range; the increase in
human activity in conjunction with the reduction in
wildlife solitude; and the construction of roads in
movement corridors causing increased wildlife road -kill
problems. Although mitigation measures were proposed
within the FEIS and the revised Y.U.D. sketch plan
application, including by way of example only, the
construction of 153 net acres of new wetland habitat, the
14
prohibition of dogs, and the construction of new water
' impoundments, concerns were expressed during the hearing
process relative to the adequacy of such mitigation
measures, and the irreversible effect the proposed
development could have on the natural environment
including the loss of natural resources. (See generally
Exhibit Nos. 46, 113, 166, 245 and 285.)
2. Water quality and quantity.
While water for the project area would originate from
a variety of sources including wells, surface diversions
and reservoirs, the major municipal source of water would
consist of high yield wells located in the Joe Goode
Meadow. Municipal water produced from the high yield
wells would pass through a transmission main extending
through the upper Brush Creek valley. Storage facilities
would be located along the transmission line and in a
variety of pressure zones to insure pressure and volumes
for peak daily uses as well as fire flows. Waste water
collection would be accomplished by a major interceptor
line extended from the upper valley to a treatment
facility. The level of treatment would be tertiary to
insure that the resultant effluent is superior in quality
to the existing stream flow at the point of discharge. A
storm drain system would be constructed to collect and
conduct the storm run -off water to a central grit
removal /floating material removal facility, whereat the
settling sand and gravel particles, oil and grease, and
floating material would be removed, with the water
effluent conducted to a settling pond for final treatment
before being returned to Brush Creek. To insure that
minimum stream flow and water quality requirements are
met, the Applicant additionally proposed a series of
15
reservoirs on East Brush Creek, lower West Brush Creek,
and adjacent to Main Brush Creek. All of the foregoing
would be constructed and operated in accordance with
Federal, State and local rules and regulations, and in
such a manner as to insure the protection of existing
water quality and the preservation of minimum stream
flows, senior water users' rights, and stream character.
A court approved plan for augmentation would be
required for the municipal, green areas, storage, and
snow making components of the project area. The
Applicant represented that the total average annual
depletion would not exceed 1,000 acre feet for the
project area at full development. In comparison, the
historic consumptive use of the Applicant's water rights
has been an average of 1,660 acre feet per year over the
period of record from 1958 to 1978, with such use being
in the nature of agriculture.
The main objections to the Applicant's proposal on
water quality and quantity were embodied in a letter and
testimony submitted by the Town of Eagle. (Exhibit No.
75.) As a downstream water user, the Town's concerns
were centered around the adverse effect the proposed
development could have on the Town's water system, and
the adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed by the
Applicant. More specifically, the Town asserted that the
proposed use of riparian and wetlands areas by the
Applicant could potentially destroy the valuable natural
water treatment processes associated therewith. The Town
further asserted that the proposed wetland mitigation
plan, i.e., construction of sedimentation reservoirs and
replacement wetlands, did not adequately address the
qualitative function of natural wetlands; the maintenance
16
a
of water quality through filtration of sediment; the
timing of replacement; the sufficiency of the Applicant's
water rights for flood irrigation in the development of
replacement wetlands; the maintenance of artificial
wetlands; nor the interrelationship between the Joe Goode
and lower wetland areas and the effect of the high
velocity wells located in Joe Goode. In addition, the
Town alleged that the revised P.U.D. sketch plan
application neglected to address water quality problems
resulting from vegetation disturbance, soil disturbance
and earth movement, impervious cover, storm water runoff,
domestic and industrial waste, and the use of pesticides,
fertilizers, and chemicals. The Town further expressed a
need for coordination between the Town's and other down
valley treatment systems, and the Applicant's proposed
sewage treatment and water supply systems and storm
runoff collection and treatment systems, along with a
specification by the Applicant of the legal entity
responsible for the continued operation and maintenance
of the Applicant's various water related systems.
With respect to water quantity, the Town questioned
the legal and physical ability of Brush Creek to supply
not only the project area but also related growth in the
Brush Creek Valley and the Town. The major points of
contention included the reliability of the Applicant's
water rights in dry years because of senior water rights;
the adequacy of a year -round legal supply of water for
the Applicant's ultimate development needs; the ability
of the physical flow of East Brush Creek and Main Brush
Creek at times of critical low flow; and the cumulative
impacts of all development related to the project area
combined with minimum flows, federal reserved rights, and
existing irrigation and domestic uses in relation to the
physical ability of Brush Creek to supply.
17
t�
The Town in testimony did acknowledge the fact that
the majority of the issues raised were premature, and
were more properly the subject for discussion during the
Water Court's consideration of the Applicant's plan for
augmentation, the Federal 404 permitting process, and the
County's preliminary plan review process and 1041
permitting process.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
Based on the record as a whole, including an analysis of
the foregoing, the Board of County Commissioners finds that
with the imposition of the conditions set forth hereinbelow:
(1) there are special physical conditions and objectives of
development which the project area will satisfy to warrant a
departure from the standard regulation requirements; (2) the
project area can be developed in such a manner as to be
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Eagle County Master Plan as summarized in Exhibit No. 77; (3)
the area around the proposed development can be planned in
substantial harmony with the project area; (4) the proposed
development can be planned and organized so that adjacent and
nearby communities will not be detrimentally affected; (5)
the proposed development can be completed within a reasonable
amount of time; (6) the proposed commercial or industrial
development can be justified economically; (7) street
improvements and safe and efficient access can be
accomplished to adequately accommodate the anticipated
traffic generated by the project area; (8) proposed utility
and drainage facilities can be adequately designed for
population densities and type of development proposed; (9) an
acceptable employee housing plan can be provided; and (10)
the land is suitable for subdivision.
18
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado:
THAT, the Board hereby approves the revised sketch plan
application of Adam's Rib Recreational Area for a Planned
Unit Development in File No. PD- 189 -82 -S.
THAT, the Board hereby imposes the following conditions
on its approval of the subject revised P.U.D. sketch plan
application, which conditions shall be fully complied with by
the Applicant during the preliminary plan review process and
prior to preliminary plan approval by the Board:
1. One comprehensive and all- inclusive P.U.D.
development control document shall be established.
Such a document shall constitute the master approval
document governing the over -all phasing of
development and the specification of permitted land
uses within the project area, and in addition, shall
identify with specificity and integrate all
mitigation measures, restrictions and other
conditions imposed upon the Applicant by the Board
and other governing entities having jurisdictional
authority over the project area.
2. For purposes of this Paragraph 2, the primary
circulation system to the project area shall be
defined as commencing at I -70, thence southward on
the I -70 spur, thence westward on State Highway No. 6
to a point west of the Town of Eagle whereat State
Highway No. 6 will intersect with a realigned Brush
Creek Road, and continuing therefrom in a
southeasterly direction on a major access road
19
located in the general vicinity of the present Brush
Creek Road and East Brush Creek Road to the project
area.
The Applicant shall provide detailed surveys,
and road improvement drawings and specifications of
the proposed primary circulation system commensurate
with the general road improvements and design
criteria recommended by DeLeuw Gather & Company in
its "Brush Creek Road Transportation Analysis"
(Exhibit No. 2). Such general road improvements and
design criteria as set forth in Exhibit No. 2 are
hereby approved by the Board. The detailed surveys,
and road improvement drawings and specifications
required of the Applicant shall include by way of
example only, cross - sections of the primary
circulation system; identification of the specific
location of the primary circulation system where
realignment is necessary or warranted; an itemized
schedule for phasing of road improvements taking into
consideration the recommendations of DeLeuw Gather &
Company (Exhibit No. 2) and the County Engineer
(Exhibit No. 76); the establishment of site - specific
locations for required intersections; and the
depiction of the recommended length, alignment, and
distances of overall grades of the recommended third
passing lane on the roadway portion from the
confluence of East and West Brush Creek tributaries
to the project area. The detailed road improvement
drawings and specifications shall further depict a
basic minimum of 120 feet of right -of -way for the
Brush Creek Road from State Highway No. 6 to the
project area. In conjunction therewith, the
Applicant shall re- evaluate the eventual need for a
basic minimum of 120 feet of right -of -way as opposed
to 80 feet of right -of -way on the Brush Creek Road in
relation to future traffic volumes, the requirement
of providing an adequate, efficient and safe primary
circulation system, and the recommendations of the
County Engineer. (Exhibit Nos. 76 and 331).
For those proposed road improvements on the
I -70 spur and State Highway No. 6, the Applicant
shall submit the road improvement drawings and
specifications as approved by the County Engineer to
the State of Colorado Department of Highways for its
review and consideration.
With respect to the acquisition of the
right -of -way required for the recommended road
improvements on Brush Creek Road by reason of the
proposed development, the Applicant shall develop a
comprehensive plan detailing and outlining the
process by which the right -of -way will be acquired;
an estimate of the direct and indirect costs which
may be incurred or associated with the right -of -way
acquisition; and a schedule specifying the phasing of
the right -of -way acquisition, taking into account the
recommendation of the County Department of Community
Development that all right -of -way acquisition be
completed prior to the commencement of any
project - related construction (Exhibit Nos. 76 and
79). The Applicant shall dedicate a 120 foot
right -of -way through lands under its ownership. The
Applicant shall also reimburse the Board for all
direct costs incurred by the Board for right -of -way
21
�
k
9
4' 1
�4flr
acquisition of a basic minimum of 80 feet across
w' lands not under its ownership for the construction of
the recommended
foregoing shall
in constructing
recommended by
2), which costs
Applicant.
primary circulation system. The
be in addition to the costs incurred
the primary circulation system as
)eLeuw Cather & Company (Exhibit No.
shall be borne solely by the
The Applicant shall re- evaluate the need to
provide paved shoulders as opposed to the recommended
graveled shoulders on the improved Brush Creek Road.
Such review shall adequately address the advantages
and disadvantages of both alternatives relative to
the issues of safety for motorists and bicyclists;
maintenance costs; and impact on the natural
environment.
The realignment of the Brush Creek Road as it
relates to the location of the intersection of the
Brush Creek Road and State Highway No. 6, and the
point of connection of the realigned Brush Creek Road
with the present Brush Creek Road, shall be jointly
determined by the Board and the Applicant, in
cooperation with the Town of Eagle.
The necessity of an interceptor parking lot at
the confluence of East and West Brush Creek
tributaries, and the skier access terminals at
Fischer Gulch and Pipe Creek shall be re- evaluated by
the Applicant and the Board, in cooperation with the
Forest Service. As part thereof, consideration shall
be given to the advantages and disadvantages of
locating parking lots and /or shelter facilities for
22
, t
r
skiers and the traveling public at Fischer Gulch
and /or Pipe Creek in lieu of the proposed interceptor
parking lot.
The provision for maintenance of the roadway
portion from the confluence of East and West Brush
Creek tributaries to the project area by the
Applicant during the initial construction phases of
the proposed development shall be further addressed
and resolved by the Board during the preliminary plan
review process.
The provision for public access and the
possibility of constructing a parking area in the
vicinity of Yeoman Park for persons traveling to and
residents of the Town of Fulford shall be considered
and reviewed by the Applicant.
3. The Applicant shall further consider the
establishment of a quasi - municipal corporation such
as a metropolitan district, to provide public
services including, but not limited to, water, sewer,
fire protection, road maintenance both within the
project area and from the confluence of the West and
East Brush Creek tributaries to the project area, and
the continued operation and maintenance of the
proposed mass transit system.
4. The Applicant shall provide employee housing
consistent with the densities, location,
distribution, and diversity of housing types set
forth in the revised P.U.D. sketch plan application
and the testimony of the Applicant. The Applicant
shall further develop an employee housing plan which
ensures the availability of long -term employee
housing in addition to housing for the construction
23
� M
work - force, and which sets forth in detail the
specific location of the employee housing and the
types of services which will be provided to the
construction workforce during the initial
construction phases of the proposed development, and
the employee- resident population which will be
located in the project area.
5. The Applicant shall provide a detailed
itemization of all proposed wildlife and
environmental mitigation measures which will be the
responsibility and obligation of the Applicant,
taking into consideration the mitigation measures
proposed by the Forest Service in the FEIS, and the
letters and testimony submitted by the Division of
Wildlife. (See generally Exhibit Nos. 3, 191, 192,
193, 197 and 256.) The mitigation measures which are
subsequently approved by the Board shall be
incorporated into the P.U.D. development control
document referred to in Paragraph 1 hereinabove.
6. With respect to Exhibit No. 75, the Board
encourages joint planning and facilities management
and development between the Applicant and the Town of
Eagle relative to their respective water and waste
water treatment systems. In addition, the Applicant
shall specify any changes that are proposed in the
location of the Town's water facilities or the nature
of existing treatment by reason of the proposed
development.
The Applicant shall obtain the approval of the
Water Court relative to its plan for augmentation as
generally described within the revised P.U.D. sketch
plan application. Further, the Applicant shall
24
u,
tw,
submit to the Board an approved 404 permit from the
Army Corps of Engineers, and a plan detailing the
phasing and design of the construction of the
replacement wetlands proposed as a mitigation measure
for the Applicant's use and occupancy of natural
wetlands located in the project area.
Notwithstanding the foregoing conditions, the
Board reserves the right to further evaluate and
review the Applicant's proposed water and waste water
treatment systems during the Preliminary Plan review
process and the County's 1041 permitting process.
7. In addition to the foregoing conditions, the
Applicant shall adequately address those
recommendations of the Eagle County Planning
Commission as set forth in Exhibit No. 201 excluding
therefrom Paragraphs 5 and 9, and those recommen-
dations of the County Department of Community
Development as set forth in Exhibit No. 79 excluding
therefrom Paragraph 1, which were not specifically
mentioned herein.
8. In addition to the foregoing conditions, the
Applicant shall further comply with the preliminary
plan requirements set forth in Section 2.06.13(6) of
the Zoning Resolution of Eagle County, 1979, as
amended, and Section 2.18 of the Subdivision
Regulations of Eagle County, 1972, as amended, as the
same are set forth and incorporated in Chapter II of
the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, 1982, as
amended.
THAT, the Forest Service and the Board shall cooperate
with one another in the development of a memorandum of
25
�aY i
1
understanding or other appropriate document which sets forth
the respective roles of said governmental entities in the
event an increase in the scope of the Special Use Permit
granted by the Forest Service is requested, including the
right of the Board to require a Special Use Permit for such
increase pursuant to its Land Use Regulations. For purposes
of this paragraph, the term "increase" shall mean any
increase in the land acreage as presently described or the
number of skiers -at- one -time as presently specified within
the Forest Service's proposed Special Use Permit.
THAT, the provisions of this Resolution and the
conditional approval of the Board of the revised P.U.D.
sketch plan application contained herein shall not be deemed
or construed to be deemed as conferring any additional rights
upon the Applicant other than the right to proceed to
preliminary plan in accordance with the County's Land Use
Regulations.
THAT, this Resolution is necessary to preserve the public
welfare, health and safety.
MOVED, READ AND UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED by the Board of
County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, at its regular meeting held the day
of O /() 1982, non pro tunc August 25, 1982.
ATTEST:
By: jbnette GLC
Phillp , Cler
he Board of County
Commissioners
26
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
By and Through its
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By:_
Dare F. Grant, -Chairman
th Troxel, ommissioner
Dan illiams, Commissioner