HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/31/2000
PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 31,2000
Present:
Johnnette Phillips
Michael Gallagher
Robert W. Loeffler
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Commissioner
Commissioner
Deputy County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Tom Stone
Chairman
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips stated the first item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for week of July 31, 2000, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of July 24,
2000
C) Agreement between Consumer Protection Division of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment and Eagle County for the performance of Environmental Health
activities
D) Resolution 2000-E-03, Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization
E) Resolution 2000-E-04, Equalizing property valuation throughout Eagle County
F) Resolution 2000-109 adopting rules and procedures for arbitration and appointing
arbitrators for appeals from decisions of the 2000 Board of Equalization.
Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated they inadvertently placed the resolutions on the
consent calendar, items D and E which should be listed separately as item 5.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips spoke to the minutes regarding the McGrady Acres and noted the
minutes now reflect the motion and what was stated at the time.
Commissioner Gallagher concurred.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the consent as presented with items D and E being
voted on separately as item 5.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous. Chairman Stone was out of town.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Resolution 2000-110 To Approve An Amendment To Permit No. 1041-0013 In Order To
Construct A Major New Domestic Water And Wastewater Treatment. Stora~e. And
Distribution Svstem. And For The Efficient Utilization Of A Municipal Water Project for Two
Rivers Village Development LLC.
Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated the minimum capacity is 350,000 gallons,
however they are to work that out with the Gypsum Fire Department. He stated the file will be before
the Board soon.
1
07-31-2000
Commissioner Gallagher asked about minimum flow.
Mr. Merry stated it meets the minimum.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have any idea how big a tank it is going to be.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips stated she believes it was approved at a maximum of 500,000 gallons
but thinks that it is only for 350,000 gallons, which was the minimum.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-110 approving file number 1041-
0027, an amendment to Permit No. 1041-0013, in order to construct a major new domestic water and
wastewater treatment, storage and distribution system, and for the efficient utilization of a municipal
water project for Two Rivers Village Development Company LLC, with the following conditions:
1) A contingency plan for the lift station proposed be submitted to and approved by Eagle
County Community Development prior to building permit, addressing maintenance schedule, alarming
and emergency power backup, noise and odor control
2) The applicant must provide Eagle County Community Development with documented
approval from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, indicating the Division of Wildlife's satisfaction the
development will not introduce non-native fish to the Colorado River
3) The size ofthe water tank shall be a minium of 350,000 gallons and a maximum of
500,000 gallons, the size to be determined by the applicant and agreed to in writing by the Fire District.
The written agreement must be filed with the Eagle County Department of Community Development
prior to the issuance of the building permit
4) Except as otherwise modified by the permit, all material representations by the
applicant in this permit application, correspondence and public meetings, shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Resolution 2000-E-03 Petitions of the Board of Equalization
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated the next item on the agenda was petitions for the Board of
Equalization, Resolution 2000-E-03.
Commission Gallagher stated he really hasn't had an opportunity to review them. He questioned
the one where the land valuation was zero. It's docket number 48.
Ken Call, hearing officer, stated the P denotes personal property and there is no land involved.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked ifthere was anything out ofthe ordinary or anything that needs
to be addressed.
Mr. Call stated last year they did not allow any public comment.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-E-3, petitions of the Board of
County Commissioners, rural and personal property, in accordance with the provisions set forth in the
letters of decision.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Resolution 2000-E-04, Equalizing property valuation throughout Eagle County
Max Schafley, Chief Appraiser, stated he was speaking for the one equalization letter sent which
was an error in the calculation. He has spoken with the developer who understands.
Marty McGinnis, Personal Property Appraiser, requested a change in value be submitted for
mainly the leasing companies. She spoke to the Colorado Court of Appeals and the decision which
caused them to split the valuations.
2
07-31-2000
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the letter and changes should be considered exhibit A.
Ms. McGinnis answered yes.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-E-4, equalizing property valuations
throughout Eagle County.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and
reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Riverwalk Wines & Spirits
Earlene Roach asked if they could take a five minute break as they are waiting for the Sheriffs
deputy to arrive.
After the break, Ms. Roach explained that officer Bandrup could not be here today, but is
available next week. She stated they really could not proceed without her testimony.
Wendell Porterfield, Attorney representing the applicant, questions the officer not appearing as
the officer was supeoned.
Steve Carter, Prosecuting Attorney, stated Mr. Porterfield's assertion is correct and they did all
they could but the officer did believe it was for next week.
Commissioner Gallagher stated while he sympathizes with the license holder he does not believe
he can in good consciences dismiss it out right. He believes the potential harm on the residents of Eagle
County out weighs the hardship on the applicant.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to table this matter for one week or at the convenience of the
applicant.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Mr. Porterfield stated there is no eye witness that suggests that the liquor was sold to a visibly
intoxicated person. He stated there is no such evidence that determines that a sale was made to a visibly
intoxicated person.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated they are understanding that there was not such a time period.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant is stipulating to the facts in the officers report.
Mr. Porterfield stated he cannot stipulate to all of the report.
Commissioner Gallagher asked for a date from the applicant.
Mr. Porterfield stated his client is not available on the 7th and he is not available on the 24th. One
ofthe witnesses is not available on the 21 st. It was agreed that September 11 th is the first date they are all
together.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the renewal.
Mr. Carter stated it might be appropriate to take up the issue of the renewal at this time.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to table the show cause hearing for Riverwalk Wines & Spirits,
until September 11, 2000.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher directed Ms. Roach to issue a new subpoena for the deputy and that she
must appear before the Board to explain her absence today.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the liquor license consent agenda for July 31, 2000,
consisting of item A, a renewal of a retail liquor store license for Edwards Liquor Mart, Inc.,
dba/Riverwalk Wines & Spirits.
3
07-31-2000
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Beaver Creek Resort
Earlene Roach stated this applicant has not appeared and she must get this license to Denver so
they will have their license in time for the event.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to table the special events permit for Beaver Creek Resort
Company to 1: 15 p.m. today.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Earlene Roach presented a special events permit application for Beaver Creek Resort for August
12 & 13,2000 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Ms. Roach stated the Board now has a map.
Jean Dennison, applicant, apologized for not being here this morning. She stated this is for the
13th year ofthe Arts Festival and the second year that they will be selling beer and wine. She stated they
will work directly with Beaver Creek Security for control of the boundaries. They are working with Vail
Food Services. Part of the premises is the background area of Rendevous and they will not have their
optional premises in effect during that time.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked about the other restaurants in the area.
Ms. Roach stated they are not part of the licensed area.
Ms. Dennison stated all restaurants that have connecting boundaries will be working with them.
She stated they use both barriers and man power to all those places where there could be a problem. She
stated they will also have signage.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about controlling alcohol and people leaving the area via the
adjacent facilities. He stated the buildings have door ways and how is the applicant going to control
those areas.
Ms. Dennison spoke to the access point to the Hyatt. She stated they will be sure to cover that
with manpower.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips spoke to the sales area and the promenade. She asked ifthere will be
tables or places for people to sit.
Ms. Dennison stated there are between 120 and 130 booths. She stated this will be an event
where people are going to be viewing art and not there just for the alcohol.
Commissioner Gallagher stated there are three wine and beer sales areas and three food booths
that he sees. He believes it is a phenomenal event and hopes they are able to control the boundaries.
Ms. Roach stated she was at an event with similar boundaries and they were able to keep control.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the special events permit for Beaver Creek Resort for
August 12 & 13,2000, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the premises as submitted on the proposal.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
AFP-00098, Highland Meadows, Lot 22, Filing 2
Matt Gennett presented file number AFP-00098, Highland Meadows, Lot 22, Filing 2. He stated
this was an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to modify the previously platted building
4
07-31-2000
envelope.
Mr. Gennett stated staff findings are found on the staff report as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community
Development Director has considered the following in the review of the Type B Minor
Subdivision:
a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage on the land to be
subdivided are adequate;
b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The Amended Final Plat is in conformance
with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is not applicable.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number AFP-0098, Highland Meadows, Lot 22,
Filing 2, incorporating staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
SUS-00007, ZC-00034, Willits Family Homestead
Matt Gennett presented file number SUS-00007 and ZC-00034, Willits Family Homestead. On
June 21, 2000 the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval to the Eagle County
Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of the portion of Edwards Cemetery Road
through the Logan Park PUD with the following three conditions:
1) The effective date of the vacation of this road shall be the date on which the last of the three
following documents has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder: 1) Quit Claim Deed,
2) Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, and 3) Letter of Acceptance for
warranty by the Eagle County Engineer of the relocated portion of Edwards Cemetery Road to be
constructed as part of the Logan Park PUD Final Plat;
2) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by James S. Kunkel, Eagle
County Surveyor in his letter dated June 7, 2000; and
3) At the time the Logan Park PUD Final Plat is recorded, it should include the description of all
surviving rights-of-way and refer to this Road Vacation action.
This is a petition for the vacation of a portion of the public road known as Edwards Cemetery
Road (Eagle County Road ED6) on the Logan Park PUD. Under the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, this road is considered to be public and is therefore subject to the requirements of Section
5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations.
The Palmateers want to vacate this road so they can develop single family building lots on some
of the land now occupied by the road. They agree to reconstruct a new portion of Edwards Cemetery
Road through the eastern portion of their property for continued access to the pipe bridge which carries
Edwards Cemetery Road across the Eagle River. The construction plans for the relocated road were
approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners as part of the Logan Park PUD
Preliminary Plan.
Mr. Gennett stated the referral responses are shown in staffs report as follows:
Eagle County Surveyor: The Eagle County Surveyor, James S. Kunkel provided four comments
in a letter dated June 7, 2000, which is attached to this report.
Staff has no major concerns regarding the vacation of the road as requested by the Palmateers.
However, one issue remains to be resolved:
Timing: The vacation should not be effective until the reconstructed portion of Edwards
Cemetery Road has been accepted for warranty.
It is the Engineering Staff s conclusion that the recording ofthe Letter of Acceptance for
warranty will indicate that Edwards Cemetery Road has been relocated to the satisfaction of Eagle
5
07-31-2000
County. Therefore, Engineering Staff suggests that this be made a condition of approval.
On June 21, 2000 the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval to the Eagle
County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of a portion of Edwards Cemetery
Road as shown in the petition with the following three conditions:
1) The effective date of the vacation of this road shall be the date on which the last of the three
following documents has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder: 1) Quit Claim Deed,
2) Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, and 3) Letter of Acceptance for
warranty by the Eagle County Engineer of the relocated portion of Edwards Cemetery Road to be
constructed as part of the Logan Park PUD Final Plat;
2) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by James S. Kunkel, Eagle
County Surveyor in his letter dated June 7, 2000; and
3) At the time the Logan Park PUD Final Plat is recorded, it should include the description of all
surviving rights-of-way and refer to this Road Vacation action.
At its hearing of July 6th, 2000, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission
responded positively to the applicant's proposal and considered the following in its recommendations of
approval for File No. ZC-00034, and approval with Conditions for File No. SUS-00007:
The proposed zone change seems to be consistent with the development patterns in the area and
surrounding uses. El Jebel is becoming a "core community" and the proposed density under the zone
change request makes sense in the larger context of the community.
The Applicant's request to subdivide the parcel into four (4) lots, while the proposed zone
change would allow for a maximum of seven (7) lots, is reasonable and appropriate. However, safety
concerns regarding the access to the lots must be addressed. Even though the land is currently occupied
by the Willits Family, potential long-term interests must be considered as well. The adequacy of the
turning radii of the Cul-de-sac needs to be demonstrated.
It would be appropriate for building envelopes to be depicted on the site plan at the Preliminary
Plan stage.
An application for a Variance from the Roadway Standards (Section 4-620, ECLUR) has been
filed with the County Engineer.
No further responses have been received.
Staff findings are as follows and also shown on staff report:
Requirements for a Zone Chan~e - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D.,
Standards for Amendment to the Official Zone District Map:
{The criteria are analyzed based upon the maximum density allowed under RSL zoning, which would be
a total of seven (7) lots for a 2.4 acre parcel.}
(1) Consistency With Master Plan.
FINDING: [+] The density allowed by an RSL zoning designation is consistent with the
purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. The proposed zone change is also
consistent with the Mid Valley Master Plan.
(2) Compatible with surrounding uses.
FINDING: [+] The density allowed under RSL zoning is compatible with the uses that surround
the applicant's property as there are higher-density residential developments already in existence on two
sides of the parcel.
(3) Changed conditions.
FINDING: [+] There are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density
and intensity.
(4) Effect on natural environment.
FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment will not result in significantly adverse impacts to the
natural environment.
6
07-31-2000
(5) Community need.
FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment addresses a community need.
(6) Development patterns.
FINDING: [+] The proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development
pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with
necessary public facilities and services.
(7) Public interest.
FINDING: [+] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply has changed
and continues to change is such that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area.
Requirements for a Subdivision Sketch Plan - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section
5-280.B.3.e., Standards for a Subdivision:
1. Consistent with Master Plan.
FINDING: [+] The Subdivision Sketch Plan is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and
FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. The Sketch Plan is also consistent with the Mid Valley Master
Plan.
Consistent with the Land Use Regulations.
Article 3, Zone Districts
FINDING: [+] The Subdivision Sketch Plan complies with the applicable standards of Article 3,
Zone Districts.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
FINDING: [+] The Subdivision Sketch Plan complies with the applicable standards of Article 4,
Site Development Standards.
Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient.
Utility and Road Extensions.
FINDING: [+] The three (3) existing units are presently served by public services and the
proposed development (1 single family home) will not result in a leapfrog development pattern.
Serve Ultimate Population.
FINDING: [+] The utility lines will serve the planned ultimate population of the area and will be
sized to avoid future land disruption.
Coordinate Utility Extensions.
FINDING: [n/a] There are no planned utility extensions.
4. Suitability for Development.
FINDING: [+] The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development.
Compatible With Surrounding Uses.
FINDING: [+] The proposed subdivision is compatible with the surrounding uses.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips pointed out that there appears to be no outstanding issues and that all
the conditions can be met.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the property to the west and if it is owned by the same
people.
Mr. Gennett stated the property is not owned by the same people and it is zoned Resource. He
stated this will allow them to have four parcels instead of one and brings them into compliance.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked if they came in on their own.
Mr. Gennett stated that is correct.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to a file a few weeks ago where the issue was common parcels.
He suggested this would have been a solution available to them and that this is the way to go.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked for public comment.
There was none.
7
07-31-2000
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file number ZC-00034, incorporating staff
findings and file SUS-00007, incorporating staff findings and conditions as follows:
1) At the Preliminary Plan stage, the Applicant shall address the Road Standard concern outlined
in the comments of the Eagle County Engineer and, if necessary, demonstrate the sufficiency of the
existing road.
2) Likewise, by Preliminary Plan, the Applicant shall address the Fire Apparatus Access concern
brought forth by the Colorado State Forest Service.
3) Pursuant to the comments of the State Engineer, by Preliminary Plan, a report shall be filed
with the State Engineer and Eagle County that provides water use estimates. The report will be prepared
by, or on behalf of the Mid Valley Metro District.
4) Building Envelopes shall be depicted on the site plan at Preliminary Plan stage.
5) Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations of the Applicant in
this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
G-OOOlO, Palmateer Easement Vacation, Edwards Cemetery Road
John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number G-OOOIO, Palmateer Easement
Vacation. He stated on June 21, 2000 the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval
to the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of the portion of
Edwards Cemetery Road through the Logan Park PUD with the following three conditions:
1) The effective date of the vacation of this road shall be the date on which the last of the three
following documents has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder: 1) Quit Claim Deed,
2) Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, and 3) Letter of Acceptance for
warranty by the Eagle County Engineer of the relocated portion of Edwards Cemetery Road to be
constructed as part of the Logan Park PUD Final Plat;
2) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by James S. Kunkel, Eagle
County Surveyor in his letter dated June 7, 2000; and
3) At the time the Logan Park PUD Final Plat is recorded, it should include the description of all
surviving rights-of-way and refer to this Road Vacation action.
This is a petition for the vacation of a portion of the public road known as Edwards Cemetery
Road (Eagle County Road ED6) on the Logan Park PUD. Under the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, this road is considered to be public and is therefore subject to the requirements of Section
5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations.
The Palmateers want to vacate this road so they can develop single family building lots on some
of the land now occupied by the road.. They agree to reconstruct a new portion of Edwards Cemetery
Road through the eastern portion of their property for continued access to the pipe bridge which carries
Edwards Cemetery Road across the Eagle River. The construction plans for the relocated road were
approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners as part of the Logan Park PUD
Preliminary Plan.
Mr. Vengrin stated the referral responses are attached to staff report as follows:
Eagle County Surveyor: The Eagle County Surveyor, James S. Kunkel provided four comments
in a letter dated June 7, 2000, which is attached to this report.
Staff has no major concerns regarding the vacation of the road as requested by the Palmateers.
However, one issue remains to be resolved:
Timing: The vacation should not be effective until the reconstructed portion of Edwards
Cemetery Road has been accepted for warranty.
It is the Engineering Staff s conclusion that the recording ofthe Letter of Acceptance for
8
07 -31-2000
warranty will indicate that Edwards Cemetery Road has been relocated to the satisfaction of Eagle
County. Therefore, Engineering Staff suggests that this be made a condition of approval.
Mr. Vengrin stated staff findings are included in the staff report as follows:
1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Vacation of a portion of Edwards Cemetery Road in
conformance with the requirements of Section 5-2200.
2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5-
2200.CA.a and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Board of County
Commissioners.
3. The petition has demonstrated the vacation request to be in the general interest of the public's
health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation oflaw, and to be in compliance with the Land Use
Regulations, and the Master Plan.
On June 21, 2000 the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval to the Eagle
County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of a portion of Edwards Cemetery
Road as shown in the petition with the following three conditions:
1) The effective date of the vacation of this road shall be the date on which the last of the three
following documents has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder: 1) Quit Claim Deed,
2) Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners, and 3) Letter of Acceptance for
warranty by the Eagle County Engineer of the relocated portion of Edwards Cemetery Road to be
constructed as part of the Logan Park PUD Final Plat;
2) The legal description and exhibit should be corrected as requested by James S. Kunkel, Eagle
County Surveyor in his letter dated June 7, 2000; and
3) At the time the Logan Park PUD Final Plat is recorded, it should include the description of all
surviving rights-of-way and refer to this Road Vacation action.
Staff recommended approval with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Tom Boni, Knight Planning, representing Oran Palmateer, stated they have submitted the sketch
plan and the preliminary plan. They have been in contact with Mr. Vengrin and agree with the
conditions. He pointed out on a map the current roadway being shown in the light blue with a
prescriptive right-of-way. They want to move the road to the eastern side of the property. The
agreement concludes they will abandon the existing Cemetery road and realign it on the south side of the
bridge. He reviewed the conditions as they understand them and the effective date will be when
recorded. The quit claim deed is between Eagle County and the applicant.
John Vengrin stated that is a quit claim between Eagle County and the Palmateers. He stated it is
a document they will produce.
Mr. Boni continued stating the Resolution will be a summary of this meeting and the last a letter
of acceptance for warranty by the Eagle County Engineer of the relocated portion of Edwards Cemetery
Road. He stated they are in agreement will all the conditions.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked for public comment. There was none.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number G-00010, Palmateer Easement Vacation,
incorporating staff findings and the conditions as listed by staff.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion for discussion.
In discussion Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked if all of the neighbors have been notified.
Mr. Palmateer responded they have been notified and all concerns have been met.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips called for the question on the motion. The vote was declaredeunammous.
ZS-00059, Bones Special Use
Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number ZS-00059, Bones Special Use. He showed
9
07-31-2000
aerial photos of the site and explained the buildings and their locations.
In August 1999, the Eagle County Environmental Health Division initiated a code enforcement
action against the Applicants, citing [1] a non-agricultural accessory building built without a building
permit, [2] the existence of an accessory dwelling unit (in the accessory building) without a Limited
Review, as required by the Land Use Regulations in the RR zone district, and [3] the operation of a
Home Business without a Special Use Permit (the subject ofthis file).
This Special Use Permit application would correct the third enforcement item. Action related to
the first two are pending the outcome of this application.
He stated the applicants operate a wood flooring business as a Home Business on this site
without a required Special Use Permit. A Home Business is defined in the Land Use Regulations as "the
conduct of a business, occupation or trade as an accessory use entirely within a residential building or
accessory structure for gain or support by residents of the dwelling and employees residing off-premises,
that may serve patrons on the premises." As a result of a complaint and resulting code enforcement
action, the Applicants have submitted this application for Special Use Permit to bring the Home
Business into compliance with the Land Use Regulations. Other applications under consideration
pursuant to the code enforcement action are {I] a building permit for the accessory building, and [2] a
Limited Review Permit for the accessory dwelling unit located in the accessory building. Resolution of
these items will proceed after the application for a Special Use Permit is acted on by the Board.
Based on information provided by the Applicants and observations by Staff, the home business
appears to be being operated in a manner consistent with the definition provided in the Land Use
Regulations, specifically as it relates to employees living on and off-premises, business related activities
being conducted indoors, materials and equipment being stored indoors, and the frequency of visits on-
site by patrons of the business. Staff has determined that the home business satisfies the required
findings with respect to [1] consistency with the Master Plan, [2] appropriateness for its proposed
location and compatibility with the character of surrounding land uses, [3] minimizing adverse impacts,
[4] meeting most ofthe standards of the zone district in which it is located, [5] minimizing
environmental impacts, [6] being adequately served by public facilities and services, and [7] complying
with the site development standards in Article 4 of the Land Use Regulations.
However, the proposed use does not meet the standards applicable to the particular use, that is, a
home business. (See "Zone District Standards" on page 4.) Most specifically, the accessory building
itself, in which the home business is conducted, including [1] the absence of a building permit and
certificate of occupancy, [2] the absence of a Limited Review Permit for the accessory dwelling unit, [3]
the accessory dwelling unit which exceeds the maximum allowable size for the zone district, [4] an
inadequately sized individual sewage disposal system, and [5] an expired water well permit. The
recommended conditions of approval are intended to correct these deficiencies and to generally ensure
that the home business is operated in compliance with the Land Use Regulations and the conditions of
this Special Use Permit. He spoke to a letter that he passed out from the Mid-Valley Metropolitan
District which allows them to remove condition #11. Staff is agreeable to that.
Mr. and Mrs. Bones were present for the meeting. They are trying to comply with all the
requirements. He stated he did meet with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. He stated they did try to
hook up previously. They have made arrangements to enlarge the septic accordingly. He stated they
would like to continue to work out of their home as they have for three years.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked for public comment. There was none.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the applicant would like # 11 deleted.
Mr. Bones responded yes.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Forinash stated the referral responses are attached to the staff report as follows:
Mid Valley Metropolitan District (by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Engineers)
10
07-31-2000
Bones residence site is outside of the District. District recommends, due to the vicinity of the
Bones residence site to the District boundary, that the site be included in the District and obtain the
services of both potable water and sanitary sewer from the District.
District is concerned about individual sewage disposal systems contaminating the District's water
source.
District has an interceptor sewer that is contiguous to this property in Valley Road.
Colorado Division of Water Resources
Larry Bones was issued a well permit in July 1994, but he failed to submit a Statement of
Beneficial Uses prior to the expiration date of the permit.
Mr. Bones must take one of several alternative actions to allow continued use ofthe well.
STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall
comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the
particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential.
Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular
Commercial and Industrial Uses.
A late referral response from the Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that the
Applicants failed to file a Statement of Beneficial Use with respect to a water well permit issued in
1974. The well permit has expired, but the Division of Water Resources has provided alternatives to
Mr. and Mrs. Bones to allow them to continue using the well. This deficiency is another element in the
inability of the building housing the home business to meet all required County or State building, fire
and safety codes. A recommended condition is provided below.
Mr. Forinash stated staff findings are attached to the staff report included in the Board's packet
as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review
of a Special Use Permit:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] - The proposed Special Use
shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and
policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standardsfor building and
structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l
The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including
standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be
appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2]
The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the
character of surrounding land uses.
STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall
comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the
particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Apvlicable to Particular Residential.
Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular
Commercial and Industrial Uses.
This Finding may be made favorable by adopting the conditions recommended below.
FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3]
The proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards ofthe zone district in which it is located,
11
07-31-2000
but DOES NOT meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310,
Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-
330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses.
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] - The design of the
proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on
adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on
surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare,
and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA]
The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual
impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid
significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and
loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance.
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] - The proposed
Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water
and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5]
The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause
significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural
resources.
STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - The proposed Special Use
shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable
water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical
services.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6]
The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads,
pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical
serVIces.
STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use
shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards.
Applicant and Staff are in agreement with this favorable Finding.
FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7]
The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site
Development Standards.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00059, incorporating the staff
findings as amended at this meeting, and with the following conditions:
1) All written and oral representations made by the Applicants with respect to this Special Use
application be a part of the record of this hearing and conditions of approval.
2) The Applicants meet all applicable building code requirements and obtain a Certificate of
Occupancy for the accessory building.
3) The Applicants obtain a Limited Review Permit for the accessory dwelling unit or remove the
unit.
4) The Applicants properly size the accessory dwelling unit to conform with the maximum size
requirements provided in the Land Use Regulations.
5) The Applicants increase the capacity of the Individual Sewage Disposal System as needed to
12
07-31-2000
meet or exceed current regulatory requirements for all uses on the site.
6) The Applicants demonstrate in the building permit application for the accessory dwelling unit
(a) that the General Standards and the Design Standards ofthe Land Use Regulations (Sections 4-130
and 4-140, respectively) regarding parking and loading areas will be satisfied and (b) where on the site
the required parking and loading areas are located.
7) The Applicants provide in the building permit application for the accessory building a
sufficient soils report to determine that potential impacts from geologic hazards have been adequately
mitigated.
8) The Applicants store all hazardous and non-hazardous materials in a manner consistent with
the requirements of OSHA and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District.
9) This Special Use Permit be subject to Staff review from time to time to confirm that the site
and activities related to this Special Use Permit, including but not limited to off-street parking and
loading standards, illumination standards, maximum number of persons conducting the business but
living off-premises, and storage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, continue to be consistent
with the intent and in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations and the
conditions of this Special Use Permit.
10) Water well permit be in order by the time of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the well permit is in order.
Mr. Forinash stated the Division of Water Resources has asked for some additional information.
Mr. Bones stated he has spoken with them and Resource Engineering has approved the resources
they want. There is a question as to whether they should submit another well permit or if a statement of
use is adequate.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how long they anticipate it will be to get the permit.
Mr. Bones stated they are reviewing it, but is not sure how long it will take.
Commissioner Gallagher changed #10 to say the well permit will be in effect before the special
use permit will be effective.
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDS-00019, Colorado River Ranch
Joseph Forinash presented file number PDS-00019, Colorado River Ranch. He stated before
getting into the file he wanted to introduce two pieces of information just received. First is a letter form
the BLM from Anne Huebner regarding the fishing easement. He stated second is a letter from
Kimberly Ghiselli from Johnson Repucci & Berg, representing Bill Nottingham who has a lien against
the property. He spoke to a photo of the area and showed a map of the area. He stated the points of
discussion included the following:
Water supply. Amount of water to be used from Wolford Reservoir; use of exempt wells for this
development; means of water treatment; need for water storage tanks.
Off-site impacts. Adequacy of Colorado River Road and one-lane bridge south of the site.
Golf course. Availability for public play; discounted fees.
Site design. Location of various uses; continuation of agricultural uses; need for convenience
store; public access to Colorado River for fishing; number of employee beds.
Fire protection. Sufficiency of water for fire protection purposes; sprinkler systems vs.
alternative technology.
Revisions to the project include the following:
Three home sites with direct access to Colorado River Road to be moved west to more internal
locations.
In response to comments by Planning Commissioners, golf course tee times for public play have
been changed from six tee times per day with fees at the same rate for a member's unaccompanied guest
13
07-31-2000
to three tee times per day with fees at 60 percent of the rate for a member's unaccompanied guest. [See
attached revised pages 72 and 73 of the application (PUD Guide.)]
The applicant is requesting a PUD Sketch Plan approval for:
1) Club facility that would include an 18 hole golf course, and other recreation (e.g., pool, tennis
court, sporting clays);
2) 25 small ranch homesteads of from 1 to 6 acres;
3) Fire station;
4) Employee housing for up to 22 employees and 4 firefighters, and;
5) Agricultural uses (a ranch operation) and open space.
Mr. Forinash showed an aerial view of the parcel and identified the river, the tracks, the road and
Willow Creek. Trail Gulch has been discussed as a public access. The golf course lies on either side of
the Colorado River. Agriculture areas run outside and between the greens.
The applicant and Staff are in agreement with all Findings and recommended conditions of
approval, with the exception of condition No. 30. He stated there is a standard condition to be included
which is all conditions......That to be discussed today follows:
1) Ensure that all structures are a minimum of 50 feet from the high water mark or outside
the 100 year floodplain, which ever is more restrictive.
Rationale 1 Due to the adverse impacts of building in the floodplain, the Land Use
Regulations provide that "in no case shall the area within the 100-year floodplain be used for structural
development without specific approval of the Board." [See Section 5-280.B.4.a(2)(u)].
Rationale 2: A Standard which must be met for a subdivision is that it shall comply with
all provisions of the Land Use Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts. Table 3-340, Schedule
of Dimensional Limitations, provides that "a 50 foot strip of land or the 100 year floodplain, whichever
is the greater distance. . . shall be protected in its natural state. . . to protect the stream."
Rationale 3: While Chapter 6 of the Land Use Regulations does provide some measures
available to mitigate development in the floodplain, it is the position of both County planning and
engineering staffs that these provisions should be used only when development already exists or is
otherwise unavoidable. He stated this is also a recommendation ofNWCOG.
Staff findings are found on the staff report as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the
review of a Sketch PUD:
FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1) The title to all land that is
part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
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 ofthe application for PUD. However, variations of these use designations MAY BE
authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, at Preliminary Plan approval.
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 ofthe application for PUD. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the
Preliminary Plan.
FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)
It has NOT been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies
with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a
necessity for a reduction in the standards. However, these standards MAY be met in the Preliminary
14
07-31-2000
Plan.
FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2,
Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
The sign standards applicable to the PUD IS NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations. However, the Applicant has submitted a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD, as provided
in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that MAY BE suitable for
the PUD and provide the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
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 sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; but HAS
NOT clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be
provided adequate facilities for potable water, solid waste disposal and fire protection. In addition, the
Applicant HAS NOT demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to
schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, it appears that the
Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that adequate facilities exist in the Preliminary Plan.
FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
It HAS NOT 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.
However, the applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that improvement standards applicable to
the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards in the Preliminary
Plan.
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.
FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A phasing plan HAS NOT been provided for this development. However, a sufficient phasing
plan MAY BE provided as part of the Preliminary Plan.
FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The PUD HAS NOT 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.
However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate in the Preliminary Plan that the proposed
development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards.
FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)
The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
15
07-31-2000
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 Sketch Plan for Subdivision:
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).
FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies 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. However, it appears that the Applicant MAY be able to meet the applicable standards at
application for Preliminary Plan approval.
FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shalf 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.
FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
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.
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
SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)]
Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section
MAY be fully met in the Preliminary Plan.
Lance Badger, representing Falcon Realty LLC. He stated the proposed project is a balanced
development. He stated after looking at the project they felt attached. He spoke again to the property
which has been operated as a working ranch. He spoke to the structures on the property including the
historical school house. There are four existing railroad crossings. Irrigation comes primarily from Red
Dirt Creek, the Colorado River and Willow Creek. The utilities on site are telephone, cable and
fiberoptics in the railway. Surrounding land uses include commercial uses in Dotsero. He stated closer
to the ranch is the Hidden Valley Gravel Pit, Anderson Camp, and Sweetwater Lake Resort with an
outfitter center, overnight cabins and a 50 lot subdivision. There is an abandonded gravel pit east of the
road. South of the ranch are smaller ranches. To the north is the River Bend Subdivision and to the
west and east is BLM, and thirteen mining claims. He stated the surrounding land uses are primarily
agricultural, industrial, commercial, resort and residential.
He stated the development plan was designed to maximize the ranching character and minimize
visual impacts. He stated the desire is to create a family club facility including golf course and related
facilities as described in staffs report. He spoke to the fire station that will have a two bay facility with
housing for four. It will be a working ranch operation that will stay in tact. There will be about 870
acres of open space and agricultural use. He showed photographs of the architectural design. He stated
the materials and the design will be such to keep the history and flavor of the ranching community. He
spoke to the old school house which is one room with three different siding materials. It embodies much
of what they are trying to recreate. He spoke to the ranch compound near the entry. He showed that area
on a site plan map. He stated they will relocate and restore the old school house. He stated the idea is
16
07 -31-2000
designed to come up over the rise and see the ranch which will look like it has been there for 100 years.
He stated the project is consistent with the Master Plan in remaining primarily agricultural. He stated
there are alternatives to the proposal being 35 acre parcels. This will allow for 29 single family homes
with 29 caretaker units. He stated they could leave it a working ranch but that is not feasible as it will
not pay the mortgage. He read from an article in the paper today and a statement by Jan Jouflas. He
stated this is a way to preserve the ranch lands with limited development and believes it is a unique
opportunity. He stated the third option is that which is before them today. He showed the conformance
scale to the Board. He stated they have mitigated the wildlife concerns. Their plan addresses the
wetlands and will increase and improve those that exist. They will minimize disturbance to the trees.
He spoke to the open space and the open corridor it will provide. He read form the Master Plan. He
stated their plan maintains a road access to the BLM lands. He stated it creates outdoor recreational
facilities. He stated most importantly the plan preserves the majority ofthe land for agricultural
purposes. He stated the land is suitable for development as such allowing for maximum preservation of
an existing ranch. It included employee housing in a ten bed bunk house, two single family employee
units and the fire station. He spoke to the Land Use Map. He stated there are a number of existing
characteristics that will be maintained. He spoke to the watershed plan and asked Charlie Stanzion,
Water Engineer, to summarize the water supply plan.
Mr. Stanzion stated the water plan is simple and straightforward as there are a number of water
sources both surface and below. He showed them on a map. He stated they will rely on the surface
water for irrigation. He stated the Colorado River water is available and the water rights are available on
Red Dirt Creek, Colorado River, Willow Creek as well as new water rights. He stated the proposed
property benefits from the water supplies are available.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the rights applied for are for domestic water or irrigation water.
Mr. Stanzion stated they are for both.
Mr. Badger stated this is a significant improvement that is in conformance with the plans in
effect in Eagle County. He stated the Planning Commission identified thirty conditions and one they
wish to discuss. They would like to propose adding a 31 st. He stated the applicant agrees that no
Planned Unit Development Guide or other re-zoning affecting any portion of the River Ranch property
encumbered by the Deed of Trust for the benefit of Nottingham Investment Co. LLLP dated April 1998
and recorded April 24, 1998 under Reception No 653563 (the Deed of Trust) shall be recorded or
otherwise bind and encumber such property unless (1) tender of the principal and interest of the debt
secured by the Deed of Trust has been made or (2) the holder ofthe Deed of Trust has consented to such
action. He stated as the applicant they are willing to place that condition in there. The condition they
would like to modify relates to the flood plain. He explained there are existing buildings within the
flood plain today. They would like to maintain the pump house locations as non-inhabitable structures.
At preliminary plan they would like to explore having some habitable structures in the flood plain
subject to constraints in the Land Use Regulations.
Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, asked for clarification.
Mr. Badger repeated that they would like to maintain the pump house locations as non-
inhabitable structures. At preliminary plan they would like to explore having some habitable structures
in the flood plain subject to constraints in the Land Use Regulations.
Mr. Loeffler spoke to the Deed of Trust and stated on its face it appears the Board is being asked
to condition a land use with private agreements. He stated they don't normally get involved in that. He
stated he does not think this is an appropriate use of the land use.
Mr. Forinash stated staffs position on the flood plain remains the same.
Kim Ghiselli, a lawyer from Boulder, representing Nottingham Ranch, stated they are here
because of an agreement with the borrower, who is the developer. She stated there is a provision that
requires their consent for any loan application that binds the property. They do not consent to this land
use because this project has changed significantly since the special use application when they sold this
17
07-31-2000
back in 1998. Under the old special use, the development was centered in the middle of the property.
She showed the sketch plan for the entire ranch. She stated in the middle is about 266 acres not
encumbered by the Nottingham Ranch. She stated this particular project moves much of the
development to the unencumbered portion of the ranch. Rather than sit back and not raise this as an
issue, they felt they should let the County and the developer know they must sort something out. They
can payoff the loan which is in excess of $4,000,000 or reach another agreement. She spoke to the
standard of unified ownership or written consent of all owners. She stated though Falcon Development
are the owners, there is the issue within their loan agreement. She spoke to her letter of July 28 which
has the language ofthe deed agreement. She read that portion ofthe letter, "Falcon Realty shall not bind
and encumber any portion of the Property which is at such time encumbered by the lien of the Deed of
Trust with any permits, final plats, zoning amendments or any other kind or type of development
approval without the prior written consent ofthe lender being first obtained in each instance". She stated
that consent has to be obtained before this deal can go through. She stated it is the property that is
encumbered by the deed of trust. Until the deed oftrust is released, there can't be the dedication that the
County is going to be requiring. She would like there to be a condition that recognizes their position.
Mr. Badger stated they intend to meet all their obligations in regard to their contract with Mr.
Nottingham. They agree to have the condition as read to be placed in the approval of the application.
Mr. Loeffler stated he appreciates the explanation from Attorney Ghiselli but it is still a matter of
the private transaction between the parties. He stated if they became involved with those matters at
every stage ofthe land use, it would be difficult to administer. The regulations provide one place where
the mortgagee is called upon to consent and that is at the final plat stage. He is sure the applicant
recognizes they might being doing all for nothing if they get to that point and the mortgagee will not
sign, but that is the only place the regulations call for the clients consent. He stated the condition as
proposed, even if consented to by both sides, is drawing the land use approval into a private transaction.
Commissioner Gallagher stated sufficient notice has been given to the applicant. The next step is
when the zone change might occur and hopes they will take care of it.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips questioned this conforming to the Master Plan as stated by Mr.
Badger. She questioned how this conforms with its distance from the community. She asked how they
can justify this.
Mr. Forinash stated there are several things they looked at, such as encouraging growth from
existing centers. This is a rural area. In the text related to development, it refers to Rural Resort Areas.
The nature of this proposal and considering all the factors, they gave considerable weight to the Rural
Resort Area which encourages additional areas as such. He stated they were therefore able to justify that
decision.
Danny Walck, currently leases and runs the ranch, stated he thinks it is a good project and
believes there are a lot of opportunities there and will allow him to do what he loves to do which is
ranching.
Scott Hoover, who's property is along the River Road, asked if they have changed the proposal
since he saw it with the Fire District.
Mr. Badger explained the fire location and stated there may be two trucks or one truck and one
ambulance.
Mr. Hoover stated Cordillera has built some good projects and he likes this because of what they
have done in the past and what they are planning on doing there. He likes it because of the fire
protection it will provide. He spoke to response time needed. He thinks that is a key factor that he likes
in this proposal. He supports the proposal.
Patty Haefelli, a resident of the area and planner, believes the proposal is pro-active and a unique
and good plan. She stated other plans are not preserving the ranching heritage. She spoke to the
ecosystem and the other options of 35 acre developments. From a land use perspective this proposal
makes a lot of sense responding to the changing times of the County.
18
07-31-2000
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked if there were additional public that would like to speak.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the majority of the ranch remaining as a working ranch.
Are they going to hay between the fairways.
Mr. Badger responded they are going to try to do that.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how many head of cattle they will run.
Mr. Badger stated they will probably see between 35 and 45 cows, but it may end up being just
hay. He stated the future of the cattle industry is questionable.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what will keep them from coming back and looking for more
housing or a golf course.
Mr. Badger stated they would have to come through the public approval process. He stated the
reason they are behind this project is to protect the ranch.
Commissioner Gallagher asked who will use the golf course.
Mr. Badger stated it will be by membership. There is a proposed public play in the application.
He stated before the Planning Commission they spoke of a 40% discount to Eagle County residents.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the flood plain line.
Mr. Badger stated in the packet on picture # 11 it shows the flood plain. He spoke to the pump
houses by the water which are closer than the highwater mark. He stated that was allowed to be built
there.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is a FEMA line.
Mr. Badger stated it is not mapped. They did an extensive flood plain study in the area.
Commissioner Gallagher stated concerning fire protection, two people are not enough.
Mr. Badger stated they have talked with Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Protection District, about
cross training programs to provide ample employees to fight fires.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested the employee housing encourages seasonal workers.
Mr. Badger spoke to their internship program that comes with housing. He stated they would do
training within the golf course and they have two single family homes.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if their intention is trying to do a dude ranch type operation.
Mr. Badger stated yes they will have a horse stable there and will look for an outfitter perhaps to
run that portion of the operation.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to Mr. Hoover and suggested they might get trained to fight fires
that way there will also be a local response.
Mr. Hoover stated that is a point well taken.
Mr. Loeffler asked if this is a 1041 which requires a FEMA approval.
Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated once this development goes through they will
adopt this as part of their mapped regions. It falls under the current regulations.
Mr. Loeffler stated the applicant proposed changing #30 and what they proposed is to add the
provision a structure can be added in the area if approved by the Board. He thinks that would be an
accurate approval even if the Board is reviewing for 1041 permitting. He stated the way the applicant
has proposed to change this is consistent with what the applicant amended. He stated they have that
right and they can exercise it.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated the modification of the language would not be excluded. Non-
residential structures can be allowed. The applicant is trying to leave the door open to the low hazard
area. They are looking for approval from the Board to look at it.
Mr. Badger agreed.
Mr. Loeffler asked if the staff recommendation has solely to do with the previously existing
pump houses.
Mr. Forinash suggested it does not preclude the existing pump houses. Staff would go along
with the modified condition that would allow a new pump house. He stated they would not object to that
and would agree to the revised condition.
19
07-31-2000
Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked Commissioner Gallagher ifhe agrees with adding condition
#30.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he does.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked about the addition of another condition regarding the Deed of
Trust.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he does not believe it is necessary.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve file number PDS-00019, incorporating the
Staff findings, and with the following conditions:
1) 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,
including locations, numbers, and dimensions.
2) Identify the vegetation proposed to be removed in riparian and wetland areas to either enhance
those areas or make room for recreational improvements.
3) Specify plants in the Detailed Landscape Plan that conform fully to the minimum size
requirements of the Land Use Regulations.
4) Provide in the Preliminary Plan an adequate weed control plan for the entire PUD.
5) Utilize sound defensible space practices throughout the PUD.
6) Clarify the sign provisions of the PUD Guide to be at least as restrictive as the Eagle County
Sign Regulations with respect to illuminated signs.
7) Provide as part ofthe Preliminary Plan [1] a water court approved augmentation plan or
evidence that a sufficient augmentation plan has been submitted to the Water Court, and [2] a more
detailed water supply plan, including more specific information regarding the use of water wells,
especially with respect to exempt wells, with an opportunity for the Staff of Northwest Colorado Council
of Governments to review the more detailed water supply plan and provide additional comments.
8) Specify that [1] all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, and [2]
the proposal for ISDS for this development be further reviewed by the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division, unless the Applicant can demonstrate that the cumulative design flow for all contemplated
septic systems is expected to be less than 10,000 gallons per day.
9) Locate all ISDS components outside the 100 year flood plain, and a minimum of 50 feet from
wetlands, streams and rivers (high water mark).
10) Install adequate fire sprinkler systems in all habitable structures or provide an alternative type
of fire protection acceptable to the Gypsum Fire District.
11) Provide in the Preliminary Plan a detailed fire protection plan, with input from the Gypsum
Fire Protection District, which [1] demonstrates that the Gypsum Fire Protection District has the ability
and willingness to provide fire protection services for the development, [2] demonstrates the ability to
adequately fight fires at any location within the development, especially at all of the habitable structures,
[3] incorporates all of the suggested wildfire protection measures of the Colorado State Forest Service
(Referral response dated June 12,2000), and [4] 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.
12) Demonstrate that the Union Pacific Railroad has granted all necessary agreements or
authorization for all of the proposed railroad crossings.
13) Demonstrate that all necessary permits have been obtained for the construction and re-
construction of the respective bridges.
14) Demonstrate that the children living in the proposed development will be conveniently
transported to and from schools.
15) Provide an assessment of the advisability of the PUD's managing entity providing a certain
level of its own security personnel, including staffing, training, and equipment, and incorporate
20
07 -31-2000
appropriate measures in the Preliminary Plan.
16) Provide in the Preliminary Plan an assessment, with input from the Western Eagle County
Ambulance District, of the feasibility of maintaining and supporting certain members of the Colorado
River Ranch staff qualified at least at the "first responder" level of proficiency in emergency medical
care, and incorporate appropriate measures in the Preliminary Plan.
17) Dedicate a public access easement on Big McClosky Road to ensure long-term public access
through to public lands to the east.
18) Dedicate, after consultation with the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Trails
Coordinator, a sufficient public trails easement along the entire length of Colorado River Road as it
crosses this site.
19) 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.
20) Provide in the Preliminary Plan, with input from appropriate emergency service providers,
adequate provisions to accommodate emergency vehicles within the development, specifically
addressing the suggestions ofthe Colorado State Forest Service (Referral response dated June 12,2000.
21) Demonstrate how potential unauthorized use of public lands and potential conflicts will be
avoided, and whether any permits will be required.
22) Provide an adequate identification of the proposed wetland impacts and mitigation and
demonstrate how disturbance of wetlands and riparian areas will be minimized.
23) Adhere to "Guidelines for Water Quality Enhancement at Golf Courses Through the Use of
Best Management Practices" (1999), as recommended by the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments (Referral response dated June 9, 2000), unless there are specific circumstances that require
variances and are approved by the BOCC.
24) Use appropriate agricultural "best management practices" (BMPs) on the portions of the site
that remain in agricultural production.
25) Incorporate in the Preliminary Plan all provisions of the proposed Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan submitted with the Sketch Plan application.
26) Developer will provide at Preliminary Plan stage adequate assurance that Planning Parcel A
will be operated and used in accordance with representations made by the Developer at the Sketch Plan
hearing with respect to irrigated agricultural open space.
27) Incorporate in the Preliminary Plan adequate measures to minimize impacts to riparian areas,
the fragile Willow Creek system, and other sensitive areas as a result of fishing, hunting, shooting,
walking trails and other facilities and activities in these areas.
28) 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).
29) 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.
30) The applicant will ensure that all habitable structures are a minimum of 50 feet from the high
water mark or outside the 100 year flood plain, whichever is more restrictive, unless approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
31) All written and oral representation read by the applicant with respect to this sketch plan be a
part of the record and conditions of approval.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
21
07-31-2000
AFP-0010l, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Lot 15
Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number AFP-00I0l, Millers Creek on the Eagle River, Lot
15. She stated the Purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to correct the lot designations and addresses on
the Final Plat, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, ARe-sub of Lot 15, as recorded April 17, 2000 at
reception No. 727444. The intent ofthis Amended Final Plat is to supersede the above mentioned Final
Plat.
Ms. Skinner stated staff findings are as shown on the staff report presented to the Board as
follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-90.G.2. Standards for Amended Final Plat:
a) Adjacent property. The review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners.
b) Final Plat Consistency. The review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the
proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat.
c) Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The review of the Amended Final Plat has
determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other
applicable regulations, policies and guidelines.
d) Improvement Agreement. The proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements
agreement ARE adequate.
e) Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT Apply
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number AFP-OO 1 01, Miler's Creek on the Eagle
River, Lot 15 incorporating staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat.
Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
August 7,2000.
Attest:
Clerk to the Bo
c~.~
22
07 -31-2000