HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/24/2000
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 24, 2000
Present:
Tom Stone
Johnnette Phillips
Michael Gallagher
James R. Fritze
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
1041-0030, SSA-0008 & SSA-0009, Adams Rib - Frost Creek
Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was the continuation of the Adams Rib - Frost
Creek hearing, files 1041-0030, and companion files SSA-0008 and SSA-0009. He stated where they
finished at the last hearing was with testimony from the Eagle Town Board. He stated he had asked that
Roxie Deane be present today. He stated Commissioner Gallagher also had some questions. Chairman
Stone asked if they had more questions about the irrigation plans for dry years and average years that
were presented.
Boots Ferguson, Attorney for the applicant, stated they had gotten to the cross examination.
Ms. Caloia asked Mr. Arian to take the stand. She recapped that they were talking about the
water irrigation necessary for the Mill Park development. She reviewed the water rights for Mill Park or
what is now known as the Bluffs, for non-potable irrigation system and they would have to purchase
water rights. She questioned the 1983 agreement specifies that .59 acre feet per EQR of water right
dedication was necessary for the Mill Park Dedication.
Michael Arian stated that was correct. He spoke to the water rights owned by Adams Rib in the
lower basin.
Ms. Caloia asked to the excess consumptive use on the Frost Creek property, 185 acre feet and
95 acre feet will be transferred to the Ranch property, leaving 90 acre feet of excess consumptive use at
this time
Mr. Arian stated that was correct.
Ms. Caloia stated if you calculate there are 200 EQR's at the Mill Park property and each EQR
uses .59 acre feet and there are 225 EQR's, knowing that each single family home will use 1.2 EQR's
based on the lot size, there would be 133 acre feet of water for this development. Is this correct.
Mr. Arian stated that is correct, based on the numbers quoted.
Ms. Caloia stated that would leave a deficiency of 43 acre feet of water.
Mr. Arian stated that is not correct. Adam's Rib has a number of water rights in the basin
including The Ranch, which could be utilized to meet the Mill Park requirement.
Ms. Caloia stated however based on testimony, the Frost Creek property has 185 acre feet and
based on the plans at the current time, that is what is proposed, transferring that to the Mill Park site.
Mr. Arian stated that is one alternative that is being looked at.
Ms. Caloia asked if the irrigation plan used in testimony the other day, this plan represents an
integrated plan for the domestic, lawn and golf course irrigation for both Frost Creek and The Ranch
property .
Mr. Arian stated the exhibits that are shown do show both properties but the golf course property
1
10-24-2000
could stand alone.
Ms. Caloia stated all the calculations contained on that exhibit, as well as the diversions and the
tables that were referred to, all represent a unified system and they have accumulated all of the
diversions for all of the ditches for both of those projects.
Mr. Arian stated this was developed with the negotiations with the Town of Eagle, which did
involve all of the properties.
Ms. Caloia stated in the first meetings with the Town both the Frost Creek and The Ranch
irrigation and domestic water plans were analyzed together as in integrated system.
Mr. Arian stated in negotiations with the Town they did look at all of the properties.
Ms. Caloia asked ifthis document had been changed since the last meeting with the Town of
Eagle.
Mr. Arian stated he believes it to be the same.
Ms. Caloia asked ifthe stream flows drop below 12 CFS, below the Love White Ditch, at a gage
to be installed by Adams Rib, then 50% of all of the irrigation on the golf course roughs would be
curtailed.
Mr. Arian stated that was correct.
Ms. Caloia stated so the ditch associated with The Ranch property, the Love White Ditch, is a
key to initiating curtailment at Frost Creek.
Mr. Arian stated that would be a condition assumed under this plan, that the wastewater goes
down to the Town of Eagle, as compared to the plan for Frost Creek which returns the wastewater to the
stream.
Ms. Caloia asked about the tables associated with the irrigation plan.
Mr. Arian stated there are several tables associated with the plan. There are seven shown on the
drawing. The draft stream enhancement management plan that Resource Engineering put together there
were four shown.
Ms. Caloia asked if he was aware of any document in which Adams Rib commits to adopt the
diversion limits as outlined in Mr. Pfeiffer's diversion limitation schedules.
Mr. Arian stated it is his understanding that Adam's Rib committed to this plan in the PUD
hearings for Frost Creek. He is not personally aware of any written documents but they may exist.
Chairman Stone asked about the document being referred to.
Ed Sands, Attorney representing the Town of Eagle, stated it is a rebuttal document.
Mr. Ferguson stated they did not intend to include this as part of the exhibits.
Ms. Caloia stated they would offer this as Town Exhibit E46.
Chairman Stone asked to have the blue prints which say Adam's Rib Dry Year Irrigation Plan
and Adam's Rib Average Year Irrigation Plan and the two pages of four tables. It was labeled E46.
Chairman Stone suggested that most of the questioning this morning has to do with the Golf
Course. He stated they will be reviewing another 1041 later this morning which also has to do with the
raw water irrigation. He asked how this is pertinent information.
Ms. Caloia stated it is the Town's position that the plan that was offered for irrigation is one
integrated plan and that it must be seen as having cumulative impacts and it can not be isolated to say
that one works independent of the other. She suggested it is important to consider the effects of this
development and The Ranch to determine if this development will have any adverse impacts on Brush
Creek.
Mr. Ferguson stated Mr Arian's testimony is that the component of Frost Creek can stand alone.
Discussion took place on the scheduling of the file for later in the day.
Ms. Caloia asked about the irrigation plan submitted being only a portion of the plan and there
are other items to protect stream flows and the Town's water rights, such as the curtailment of 50% of
the golf course rough when stream flows drop below 12 CFS and some pump ax systems.
Mr. Arian stated he does not believe those are necessary to protect the Towns water rights.
2
10-24-2000
Ms. Caloia stated those were components of the irrigation plan to protect stream flows that were
agreed upon by Adam's Rib and the Town of Eagle, as testified to earlier.
Mr. Arian stated these stream flows were developed to enhance Brush Creek stream flows. This
plan was also developed in the context of water service by the Town, where all of the diversion of the
water is up high and the return flow is to the Eagle River. In order to accomplish that with the water
rights, a plan needed to be formulated in which to protect the Town's water rights and a commitment to
12 CFS right below the Town's intake. The remainder of the plan is to enhance Brush Creek to the
extent possible, utilizing some of these items. This was developed with Eagle Ranch in mind and that
they had components that also fit into this overall basin plan.
Mr. Ferguson pointed out that this 1041 is independent and should be reviewed singularly.
Ms. Caloia questioned Mr. Arian about duplication of service.
Mr. Ferguson stated the wastewater facility will treat all of the lots.
Mr. Arian stated there is not an overlap of service on lots.
Mr. Ferguson asked if the waste water discharge is done as proposed, will that enhance the
stream flows of Brush Creek over those set forth in the irrigation plans.
Mr. Arian stated it would.
Chairman Stone stated they have twenty minutes left and Ms. Dean has kindly shown up to give
her testimony. He stated David Carter is present as well.
Ms. Caloia stated she has no further questions of Mr. Arian.
Mr. Sands stated they would like to have sur-rebuttal testimony from Mr. Pfeiffer.
Mr. Fritze stated they should continue with testimony from David Carter or Roxie Dean and that
sur-rebuttal comes after other testimony.
Mr. Sands stated the authority has required written proof on the issue of cumulative impacts of
the two projects. He presented that offer of proof.
Mr. Sands called David Carter to testify and asked him to review his experience and position
with the County.
Mr. Carter explained the nature of his employment.
Mr. Sands asked Mr. Carter to turn to page 48 ofthe Eagle County Master Plan. He asked if the
Frost Creek application has satisfactorily met the requirements of the Master Plan.
Mr. Carter responded in the Master Plan some of the terms are not defined such as what is
moderate and low income housing. He stated there is some nebulousness in the Master Plan. He stated
in general this application does not conform. He spoke to the transfer fee set aside by the applicant and
it does represent a commendable effort on the part of the applicant, but still does not believe it meets the
requirements of the Master Plan.
Mr. Sands referred to Resolution 98-01 and asked ifMr. Carter is familiar with it.
Mr. Carter stated he is and it is the resolution that adopted the Eagle County Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Sands spoke to the testimony of Stan Bernstein and the expectations that homes will range in
the $1,000,000 range. He asked if this price meets any ofthe housing definitions oflow, moderate or
medium housing.
Mr. Carter stated the short answer is no. He explained the Comprehensive Housing Plan and to
meet any of the categories the sale would have to be less than one quarter of a million dollars.
Mr. Sands asked about the location of affordable housing being close to community centers, jobs
or resorts.
Mr Carter stated this is a planning concept rather than a housing concept. From a housing
concept, it is his opinion the answer is no.
In implementing number 3, it states, locate affordable housing on the same site as commercial
and visitor accommodation uses whenever possible and appropriate. Does this relate to that
implementation.
3
10-24-2000
Mr. Carter stated no. The County has historically pursued a policy that 20% of employees be
housed on the site. However, the transfer monies could be applied and the housing located else where.
Mr. Sands asked about Exhibit E38 and if Mr. Carter was familiar with it.
Mr. Carter stated yes he is familiar with it.
Mr. Sands stated this is the Rural Resort Region Benchmark 2000 and he believes Commissioner
Phillips was a member of the steering committee.
Mr. Carter answered yes.
Mr. Sands read from the document "Eagle, Pitkin and Summit Counties continue to import major
portions oftheir work force, with as high as 44% ofthe resort employee base commuting from adjoining
counties. The cost to rent or purchase housing continues to rise, vacancy rates for multi-family rentals
are less than 1 % in some areas, many families are priced out of the housing market unless costs are
shared by multiple job holders. While wage scales in the region sometimes exceed State wide averages,
most jobs are in lower paying retail and service sectors leaving workers ill prepared to deal with the high
cost of living in resort areas." He asked Mr. Carter, in his professional opinion, will the Frost Creek
project be likely to create additional low paying service worker jobs because of the nature of the
development.
Mr. Carter answered yes. Typically service workers here usually earn more than service workers
elsewhere. In some ways we think that those jobs pay better, but if we look at the total makeup of the
weight structure, despite the fact that service workers earn more here, an economy based on service
workers does not have as high a weight structure as an economy such as manufacturing and other sectors
that tend to generate higher employment.
Chairman Stone stated the Board needs to break here and return to this item later in the day. He
asked if Mr. Carter would consider a home valued at $160,000.00 to be affordable.
Mr. Carter answered yes.
Chairman Stone asked if they could return at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Fritze stated Mr. Carter has a closing this afternoon and will not be present this afternoon.
Chairman Stone stated the Board will continue to hear testimony from Roxie Deane and Mr.
Pfeiffer for a couple of hours beginning at 1 :30 p.m. And on next Monday they will hear testimony from
Mr. Carter only at 9:30 a.m., then have closing arguments in writing and findings of fact will be due
from both parties on Monday afternoon by 5 :00 p.m. The Board deliberation will take place on Tuesday
morning at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Sands stated their closing argument will be a lengthy document and stated he wanted to
assure there will be adequate time for the Board to consider this document.
1041-0031, SSA-OOll, Red Sky Ranch
Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented file numbers 1041-0031 and SSA-0011,
Red Sky Ranch. He stated Vail Associates obtained sketch plan approval of file PDS-OOO 17 from the
Board of County Commissioners on March 13,2000 for the Red Sky Ranch PUD. Red Sky Ranch will
consist of 87 residential units, 40 caretaker units, and 2 employee-housing apartments. Additionally,
Red Sky Ranch has two 18-hole championship golf courses which will include a clubhouse, driving
range and golf course maintenance facilities.
Wastewater disposal will be accomplished on-site. The on-site wastewater disposal systems
proposed will consist of both clustered and individual systems which include ammonia removal and will
all be engineered. Clustered systems larger than 2,000 gpd will require State Site Approval and
groundwater discharge permits.
Red Sky Ranch has formed a new metropolitan district to supply potable water to the
development. With the exception of 4 wells dedicated to irrigating outlying areas of the golf course, the
entire development is served by a raw water diversion and pump station which is located in the Eagle
4
10-24-2000
River near the junction of CO-131 and HWY -6 at Wolcott. A single line from the surface water
diversion proceeds to the treatment plant where the flow is split between the water treatment facility and
raw water storage for the golf course. Although the golf course irrigation is part of the development's
infrastructure it is not subject to the 1041 application process or part of this application. The
preliminary plans for the water treatment system and distribution system include three water storage
tanks and three booster pump stations.
The Planning Commission approved the project unanimously but did share the NWCOGG's
concern regarding the 6-year "sunset clause" for groundwater monitoring. The commissions concern
was that build out of the project would go beyond the 6-year period.
The applicant has submitted a memorandum from Golder Associates addressing location of
septic systems with respect to geologic development constraints. (Memo Attached)
Thirty two copies of the application were sent to referral agencies for assistance in making the
specific findings, or approval criteria, in the 1041 regulations. The only responses for this application
came from the North West Colorado Council of Governments (NWCOGG) and the Colorado Geological
Survey.
The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) was complementary of the
Applicant's thoroughness of the project description and analysis of the impacts. The NWCCOG did
present some mitigation techniques that will insure protection of groundwater and surface water quality.
Of primary concern was the long term efficiency of the wastewater infiltration systems. The
NWCCOG's recommendations are outlined below:
1. Location of wastewater systems to insure that infiltrators are not crushed or that soil
compaction occurs.
2. A Fluidine Engineer, or other qualified agent, be on site during construction of the systems to
insure proper placement, construction, and installation of the systems.
3. That appropriate provisions be established to ensure that the District will continue to provide
the level of oversight necessary to insure proper performance of all systems as long as they are in use.
4. The six year "sunset" clause for ground water monitoring may not be adequate to assess long-
term water quality impacts.
5. Other concerns and recommendations of the NWCCOG included stormwater flow
management. This concern has been withdrawn. See NWCOGG memo dated September 15, 2000.
The NWCCOG also complemented the applicant on the integrated golf course management plan
and wetland permit. (Comments Attached)
The Colorado Geological Survey expressed concern regarding stormwater retention and slope
stability associated with the sub-surface water discharges from the clustered and other septic systems.
The respondent cited the ineffectiveness of silt fences and straw bales in controlling sediment
transportation associated with the large disturbed areas such as has occurred with the current golf course
construction. The respondent recommended that the detention basin or basins serve as sediment basins
during all phases of construction.
The construction of this PUD will occur in areas that have been identified as landslide or
potentially unstable areas. Failure of waterlines could cause slope failure in areas that have been
identified as landslide or potentially unstable areas. Main, fire and service lines should be provided with
valves that detect a sudden drop in pressure and automatically shut off or relay an alarm to a
maintenance facility. If the water lines have already been installed under a grading permit, the county
may wish to require that the applicant provide a detailed and frequent inspection program that would
discover any leaks in the systems. (Comments Attached)
Staff recommended approval with the condition that all material representations presented by
applicant will become conditions of the application.
Slope stability and landslide issues have been presented to staff since the September 13 report
5
10-24-2000
and deliberation before the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted additional engineering
analysis to address these concerns but staff encourages the applicant to discuss these issues for the
record.
The response from the Colorado Geologic Survey received September 13 has raised the concern
of staff regarding the following finding 6.03.15-t.:
The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject
to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other
disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown.
Staff finding for this approval criteria was positive in its staff report dated September 13, 2000.
The applicant has submitted additional evidence addressing the relationship of slope stability associated
with septic system groundwater discharges.
Slope stability and geologic concerns have been cause for concern for this area in the past. In the
companion file the Red Sky Ranch PUD (PDS-00016) Staffhas carried forward geotechnical monitoring
required by Resolution 98-141 for Vail Resorts development of the Jouflas Ranch Golf Course. In
addition, it has been the policy of the Department of Community Development to require a geological
investigation prior to the issuance of a building permit in the area between 1-70 and Bellyache Ridge.
The wastewater systems associated with this development produce a highly treated effluent.
However, the NWCOGG expressed concern that the 6-year "sunset" clause for ground water monitoring
may not be an adequate time span to evaluate groundwater impacts.
Mr. Merry pointed out on a map labeled Exhibit AI, the location of the property and the location
of the water service. 1041, at least staffs understanding, does not regulate irrigation waters.
Chairman Stone stated in as much as the irrigation may cause injury to other water rights it needs
to be considered in the process.
Mr. Merry stated they have handled it through the Court process.
Mr. Merry stated the applicant does have a Water Attorney that will probably give another
opinion. During the early development of this project, the applicant realized they had a low density
project in an area that did not have a regional wastewater facility. At that time correspondence was held
between the applicant and Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, whose plans were to look for other
property and at some point they would pursue an original wastewater facility in that location. The
applicant asked if they could build the facility and the Water & Sanitation District could manage it. The
District stated they would manager the water system but not the wastewater facility. He stated it was
recommended to provide open pods and staff believes it makes sense to cluster wastewater systems. He
stated they had the applicant review their ground water resources. He stated they have come up with
wastewater alternatives that will be managed by a District.
The applicant could have gone with individual septic systems but staff preferred clustered
locations. They went to great lengths in evaluating the technology. It was necessary to require they use
the de-nitrification technology. He would like the applicant to go into more detail on the geology as the
Colorado Geological Survey has stated they are a bit concerned. There is also a concern in looking at the
sampling. One of the problems in looking at a system of greater than 2,000 gallons per day is the system
has to be constructed within one year and where are the ground water locations and where are they
functioning. There will be a ground water discharge permit also associated with this application. Staff
feels that it is not appropriate to sunset that particular monitoring but to look at monitoring ground water
regime more in perpetuity. The eventual build out may not occur for ten to fifteen years. They do feel
there should be a longer term of monitoring program in place.
The Planning Commission agreed with staff they had enough information for approval of this
project. They did not recommend any conditions.
Staff findings are found on staff report and as follows:
In accordance with Section 6.03.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more
6
10-24-2000
specifically described in the application for the Red Sky Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems:
1) A permit application for site selection and construction of a major new domestic water
or sewage treatment system shall be approved, with reasonable conditions, if any, in the discretion
of the Permit Authority, if the proposed development complies with the following criteria:
a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas
which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development
of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the
development area and source development area;
Finding: Currently, no water of wastewater treatment systems exist on or near the property that
are capable of serving the project.
a. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan
or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan;
Finding: The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or
other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The project has received sketch plan
approval through the Board of County Commissioners and is consistent with the regional 20S plan.
c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water
rights of upstream or downstream users;
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that it has sufficient water rights to provide for the
development. The proposed development will not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water
rights of upstream or downstream users.
d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are
available for efficient operational needs;
Finding: The applicant has a Court approved water augmentation plan. Sufficient water supplies,
as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs.
e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near
operational capacity;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water treatment systems servicing
the area.
f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater
than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing sewage treatment facilities servicing
the area.
g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water
and sewer service or create duplicate services;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water or sewer treatment systems
servicing the area.
h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level
of treatment is such that replacement is warranted;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water or sewer treatment systems
servicing the area.
i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for
such development;
Finding: Sketch plan approval of for the Red Sky Ranch PUD by the Board of County
Commissioners demonstrate clearly a need for such development.
j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit
conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing facilities servicing the area that
require a discharge permit.
7
10-24-2000
k. Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system
that will serve existing and proposed needs;
Finding: The applicant can obtain appropriate easements for any associated collector or
distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs.
I. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or
agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development;
Findings: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources
or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. The land is not
currently used for any agricultural purposes.
m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream
surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent
standards subsequently adopted;
Findings: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream
surface or subsurface water resources. The wastewater systems associated with this development
produce a highly treated effluent that will have negligible impacts on downstream or subsurface water
resources. The systems incorporate both aerobic and anaerobic operations to reduce both nitrogen and
organic carbon concentrations by over 70% as compared to a conventional septic system.
n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards;
Findings: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards.
o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas,
steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game
migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and
endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or
archaeological importance;
Findings: Referral responses and evidence submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed
development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic
habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain,
forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory
ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and
unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance.
p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other
nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors;
Findings: The project construction and installation will be routed along roadways and developed
areas and will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics or create blight. No noise
impacts or other nuisance factors are anticipated.
q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and
the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and
future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue
financial burden" will result;
Findings: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the
source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water have been borne by the
8
10-24-2000
developer. Costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the facilities proposed will be
allocated through the metropolitan districts no "undue financial burden" is expected to accrue to the
existing or future needs of the residents of the County.
r. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection
6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees
associated therewith, if any, have been paid.
Finding: Advanced wastewater treatment will occur at the on-site wastewater treatment facilities.
No offset plan for this development is necessary.
s. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed
development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
t. The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not
subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches,
rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown.
Finding: Wildfire is not anticipated to be an issue in this development. The development area is
not subject to significant risk from earthquakes or other natural hazards. Nevertheless, all designs within
the development area will be earthquake resistant in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
Seismic Risk Zone 1 (UBC 1997 Edition).
In accordance with Section 6.05.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more
specifically described in the application for the efficient utilization of both municipal water systems to
serve the Red Sky Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems:
1) A permit application for development of a municipal or industrial water project shall be
approved, with reasonable conditions, if any, in the discretion of the Permit Authority, if the
proposed development complies with the following criteria:
a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated;
Finding: Population growth in the area indicates that the need for the proposed water project can
be substantiated. The project is an integration of residential and recreational uses consistent with other
developments in the Eagle Valley.
b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with federal, state, regional
and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources;
Finding: Referral response from the NWCCOG indicate that the proposed water project is
compatible with federal, state, regional planning policies. The Board of County Commissioners
approval of the sketch plan and preliminary review process will insure that the project proposed is
consistent with the County Master Plan.
c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,
including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban
development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation
systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge
areas;
Finding: The Golf Course Management Plan and Water Conservation Plan designed for this
project will be effective in conserving water. In addition, utility extensions will be metered and fixtures
will conform to Uniform Plumbing codes. Site layout and design will prevent pollution to the aquifer
recharge areas. The applicant intends to use "Environ Drains" in maintenance areas to prevent
contamination from fuels, etc.
d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water
9
10-24-2000
resources;
Finding: The applicant's construction, post construction and golf course management plan insure
that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources
e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the
Colorado Department of Health;
Finding: The proposed water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water
meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. The proposed water treatment facility
will serve at lease 25 people daily and thus be considered a "public water system" subject to Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the
quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source
development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May
22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted;
Finding: The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease
the quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source
development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
g. The proposed development and the potential diversions of water from the source
development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands,
groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical
wildlife habitats, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and
the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas
of geologic, historic or archaeological importance;
Finding: Referral responses and evidence submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed
development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic
habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain,
forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory
ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and
unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance
h. The salinity and advance wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsections
6.05.13(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated
therewith, if any, have been paid;
Finding: Advanced wastewater treatment will occur at the on-site wastewater treatment facilities.
No offset plan for this development is necessary.
i. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Kent Crane, Alpine Engineering, pointed out on the map, Exhibit AI, vicinity map, the location
of the property. He referred to Exhibit A2, preliminary plan drawing, illustration of the golf course
configuration. Exhibit A3, Red Sky Ranch water project. He pointed out the location ofthe intake
structure on the Eagle River and the Raw Water Pump Station, showing the lines of pumping to the golf
course irrigation. From there the treated water is pumped up to three different tanks and then to the units
for domestic use and fire protection. He pointed out on a map, Exhibit A4, pump stations, drain fields
and the areas of clustering. He pointed out the clustering of the homes.
Chairman Stone asked how many clustered and individual systems are there.
Mr. Crane stated there are four clustered systems, and 41 individual systems. He spoke to the
10
10-24-2000
maintenance of the system. This is very important and the applicant agreed that the Metro District to be
formed will maintain all the systems and will provide a qualified person during construction to assure
the construction is as planned. The applicant will extend the longer monitoring of the system as needed.
Nancy Dusenberger, Golder and Associates, described what the geologic issue are. The east and
west sides of the property are different. The east side is covered with landslide debris and they have
submitted their findings to both staff and the Colorado Geologic Survey. The residential area is planned
to lie outside the area of concern and only golf course areas will be in those areas. At the beginning of
the project there was a lot of site preparation. Since 1998 the instruments have not shown an indication
of movement. The west side of the site is much different. There are small limited places where they
could have some ground water movement but again the residences are located outside those areas. In
terms of the concerns of the Colorado Geologic Survey, one was that all building envelopes be located
outside the area of concerns. The applicant has relocated those. Two, regarding the septic discharge
field which needs to be located outside of the areas of concern. The current plan does show those
locations being moved.
Glen Porzak, Water Attorney, spoke to the augmentation plans. The first augmentation plan was
case number 97-CW-298 which decreed the augmentation plan for domestic water for lawn irrigation
and for the first golf course. He stated there was a second case adjudicated, case number 99-CW -168
which approved the augmentation plan for the second golf course. There is primary reliance on use of
the Eagle Park Reservoir water. The use of water for domestic, lawn irrigation and two golf courses will
not injure any water rights.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the 35 acre use of wells.
Mr. Porzak stated the property originally had exempt domestic wells and when the property was
acquired by Vail Resorts it picked up those wells. The second augmentation plan specifically included
that property so there was some confusion by the State Engineer's Office as to whether that property was
covered and if the applicant was going to continue to use those wells. He stated they wrote a letter
indicating when the development moved forward those wells would not be used.
Chairman Stone asked if there was any public comment.
Paula Dennison, resident at Wolcott, stated in regard to the 1041, there is a large pond above her
property the Jouflas' put in quite a few years ago. She stated the water table has been lowered two to
eight feet and there is virtually no flow coming through there any longer to get water to the cottonwood
trees and the wildlife. She is concerned for the wildlife and wants to assure there is enough water for
them and the trees. She stated this important water way should be kept in place.
Chairman Stone asked if those are spring fed.
Ms. Dennison stated there is year round flow. She stated the applicant has indicated it will be
protected but just wanted assurances.
Mark Thorne, Vail Resorts Development Company, pointed out on a map the location of the Jan
Jouflas Pond. He stated that is defined as a wetlands area, and they used water out ofthat area for
construction and will be re-establishing the water level of that pond.
Mr. Merry asked ifthat was the area that was damaged by the wildlife.
Mr. Thorne stated that was correct.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to go through the findings and determine if the applicant
has met the criteria.
Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, asked if the Exhibits have been entered into the record.
Chairman Stone stated the Exhibits, AI, A2, A3 & A4 shall be accepted into the record.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he can ask his questions during the findings.
Commissioner Phillips stated she had questions with the presentation on the recommendations
from NWCCOG.
Mr. Merry stated everything has been addressed except for the first concern and someone will be
on site from Fluidine to assure everything gets done right. He explained the containers for the Board.
11
10-24-2000
They were concerned with the construction of those filters in assuring there would be no crushing of
those containers. He spoke to a dosing chamber.
Mr. Crane stated it was the applicants intent to have a qualified expert present.
Commissioner Phillips stated she did not think it was necessary to have someone on site but
checking the progress during the construction process.
Mr. Merry stated it goes without saying that it will be checked and certified.
Mr. Crane stated the first recommendation was that the wastewater infiltrators would not be
crushed. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation. The second recommendation is that
someone be on site during the construction and they agree with that and assume it will be periodically on
site. The third recommendation was that the District would continue to provide a level of over site
necessary to insure proper performance of all systems as long as they are in use. The Metro District will
take on that responsibility and follow up on all the maintenance. The fourth recommendation is the six
year sunset clause, "ground watering monitoring may not be adequate to access long term water quality
impacts." The Metro District will also take that on in perpetuity. The fifth recommendation was
withdrawn.
Chairman Stone asked about 6.03.15 and 6.05.15. He questioned 6.04.
Mr. Merry stated 6.04 concerns the extension of an existing structure, which is not the case in
this application.
Mr. Merry started with 6.03.15, findings:
1) A permit application for site selection and construction of a major new domestic water
or sewage treatment system shall be approved, with reasonable conditions, if any, in the discretion
of the Permit Authority, if the proposed development complies with the following criteria:
a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas
which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development
of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the
development area and source development area;
Finding: Currently, no water of wastewater treatment systems exist on or near the property that
are capable of serving the project.
b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan
or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan;
Finding: The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or
other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The project has received sketch plan
approval through the Board of County Commissioners and is consistent with the regional 208 plan.
The Board concurred with this finding.
c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water
rights of upstream or downstream users;
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that it has sufficient water rights to provide for the
development. The proposed development will not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water
rights of upstream or downstream users.
Mr. Porzak stated settlements were reached with all of those parties in the first case and everyone
agreed with the second case.
The Board concurred with this finding.
d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are
available for efficient operational needs;
Finding: The applicant has a Court approved water augmentation plan. Sufficient water supplies,
as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs.
The Board concurred with this finding.
e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near
12
10-24-2000
operational capacity;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water treatment systems servicing
the area.
The Board concurred with this finding.
f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater
than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing sewage treatment facilities servicing
the area.
The Board concurred with this findings.
g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water
and sewer service or create duplicate services;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water or sewer treatment systems
servicing the area.
The Board concurred with these findings.
Mr. Merry stated the Upper Eagle Water and Sanitation District also agreed
h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level
of treatment is such that replacement is warranted;
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing water or sewer treatment systems
servicing the area.
The Board concurred with this finding.
Chairman Stone questioned other proposed development in the area and what areas will these
systems be servicing and will others be able to hook on to this system.
Mr. Merry responded as far as wastewater systems, they will suffice as they are not central
systems. He stated there have been discussions and negotiations between the applicant and Bellyache
Ridge to eventually supply service to that area if needed.
Mr. Crane stated as part of an agreement with the Bellyache District, the domestic water facilities
were up-sized to accommodate those homeowners who wanted to hook onto the system.
Chairman Stone asked what area they cover and who would they serve.
Mr. Crane stated all that is contemplated is the Bellyache Ridge area. If anyone else wanted to
hook into the system they would have to come through the 1041 process.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the system was designed to be expandable to accommodate
other homeowners who want to hook onto the system.
Mr. Crane stated yes. He stated this system was not designed to accommodate the individual
home owners on private wells.
Mr. Merry asked about extending the lines to accommodate a home or two if someone desired
not to use their wells any longer.
Mr. Crane stated the district would enter into discussion with any request for service.
Mr. Merry asked if there is any provision in the document to prevent that.
Mr. Crane answered no.
Chairman Stone gave examples of failing sewer systems and encouragement to hook onto the
neighboring system. He stated he is just trying to allow to a homeowner to hook onto the system if that
could be a possibility.
Mr. Crane stated some of those things are common sense.
Alex Siscandarian, Vail Resorts, summarized the agreement with Bellyache Ridge. He stated the
system has been oversized now. If someone wants to deliver the lines they can hook into the system.
They do have a time limit in which to do that. If they do it within that time frame, other homeowners
can apply to hook to the system.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is anything other than capacity that would cause the
applicant to refuse service.
13
10-24-2000
Mr. Siscandarian answered no.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to see some sort of wording in the document to allow for
those negotiations.
Mr. Merry stated this is being recognized as being a water treatment facility and a district that is
in the region, willing to work with neighboring properties in using these facilities, based on capacity and
reasonable conditions.
Mr. Siscandarian stated in the metro district document there is language for cooperation with
other districts.
i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for
such development;
Finding: Sketch plan approval of for the Red Sky Ranch PUD by the Board of County
Commissioners demonstrate clearly a need for such development.
Chairman Stone stated he does not believe the applicant can rely on the approval of sketch plan
as an indication demonstration of population trends.
Peter Jamar, Jamar & Associates, stated this goes back to the situation they are faced with the
zoning of this property in that a large part of the eastern portion of this property is zoned one unit per ten
acres density. A large part of the project is zoned one unit per ten acres and another portion is zoned
one unit per thirty five acres. This system is merely is an alternative system to serve that development.
This is a piece of property that would develop eventually. He does not know if that addresses the issue,
in terms of population trends, this is in that area and is in the FLUM to be developed for future
populations.
Chairman Stone stated it is the Town of Eagle's objection to the Frost Creek development that
has raised the level of awareness of the Board's findings that he cannot ignore. He suggested the Board
move on to allow the applicant to give compelling evidence to address this finding. What the applicant
needs to give to the Board is something that can demonstrate a need for this development concerning
population trends and development.
j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit
conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
Finding: This finding is not applicable, there are no existing facilities servicing the area that
require a discharge permit.
The Board concurred with this finding.
k. Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system
that will serve existing and proposed needs;
Finding: The applicant can obtain appropriate easements for any associated collector or
distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs.
Commissioner Phillips stated this has been researched.
Mr. Merry stated they would also have condemnation powers.
The Board concurred with this finding.
I. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or
agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development;
Findings: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources
or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. The land is not
currently used for any agricultural purposes.
The Board concurred with this finding.
m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream
surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10,1979, or more stringent
standards subsequently adopted;
14
10-24-2000
Findings: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream
surface or subsurface water resources. The wastewater systems associated with this development
produce a highly treated effluent that will have negligible impacts on downstream or subsurface water
resources. The systems incorporate both aerobic and anaerobic operations to reduce both nitrogen and
organic carbon concentrations by over 70% as compared to a conventional septic system.
The Board concurred with this finding.
Chairman Stone complemented the applicant and staff on the design of this system.
n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards;
Findings: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards.
The Board concurred with this finding.
o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas,
steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game
migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and
endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or
archaeological importance;
Findings: Referral responses and evidence submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed
development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic
habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain,
forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory
ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and
unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance.
Commissioner Gallagher asked the geologist to indicate which is up and down on the map.
Ms. Dusenberger pointed out the slope of the property.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about a response from the Colorado Geologic Survey.
Ms. Dusenberger stated she does not have a written response but has a verbal response that
indicates this would be satisfactory.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about water line valves.
Mr. Crane stated they were looking into an automatic valve but decided to go with a restrained
joint hite but it is also their intent to follow up on that.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about a response from State Geologic.
Mr. Merry stated he does not know.
Chairman Stone stated Commissioner Gallagher's statements will also be pertinent to finding t.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is concerned that the applicant is addressing this matter and
there is no response from the State. He suggested the applicant be given time to address this issue later.
p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other
nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors;
Findings: The project construction and installation will be routed along roadways and developed
areas and will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics or create blight. No noise
impacts or other nuisance factors are anticipated.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like assurance there would be no odors.
Jamie Papas, Vail Resorts Development, stated one of the advantages of the de-nitrification
systems is the chance for the water to trickle over an aerobic environment which will give the system
the chance to release the sulfur dioxide and create a little wastewater treatment plant to get rid of the
odors on a continuing basis rather than locking them up in a septic tank.
15
10-24-2000
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is concerned with so many systems and someone forgets to
flush the enzymes.
Mr. Papas stated it is a rather low maintenance system and only requires flushing every five years
but they would have someone out there every year.
Mr. Merry stated it will be managed by a district. If there is a problem, notification will be made
to both the district and the manufacture that the system has failed.
The Board concurred with this finding.
q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and
the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and
future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue
financial burden" will result;
Findings: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the
source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water has been borne by the
developer. Costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the facilities proposed will be
allocated through the metropolitan districts no "undue financial burden" is expected to accrue to the
existing or future needs of the residents of the County.
Chairman Stone asked about the projected costs of water and sewer service and how do they
compare to other costs in the County.
Rick MacCutcheon, Vail Resorts, stated the monthly rates are in accordance with the regional
costs. There will be rates for the maintenance of the septic system. In the homes that will receive the
water it is approximately $85.00 per month for water and $8.00 per month for sewer.
Chairman Stone asked how that is compared with other systems.
Mr. MacCutcheon stated these costs are equivalent. The range is between $360.00 to $1,000.00
per year in Arrowhead.
Chairman Stone stated the financial burden will be borne by the residents of this area.
Mr. MacCutcheon stated yes.
The Board concurred this finding is positive.
r. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection
6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees
associated therewith, if any, have been paid.
Finding: Advanced wastewater treatment will occur at the on-site wastewater treatment facilities.
No offset plan for this development is necessary.
The Board concurred with this finding.
s. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed
development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Chairman Stone asked how the Board obtains information that this is adequately addressing this
finding.
Mr. Jamar referenced back to the findings for the sketch plan findings. He stated there will
submitals
Mr. Merry stated in looking at what alternatives are available, the Board could prohibit upgrades.
He stated the Board has the option to move the facility.
The Board concurred with this finding.
16
10-24-2000
1. The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not
subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches,
rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown.
Finding: Wildfire is not anticipated to be an issue in this development. The development area is
not subject to significant risk from earthquakes or other natural hazards. Nevertheless, all designs within
the development area will be earthquake resistant in accordance with the Uniform Building Code
Seismic Risk Zone 1 (UBC 1997 Edition).
Chairman Stone stated the Board will hold off on this finding as with other findings until later in
the day. He would like to continue to approximately 3:00 p.m. today.
1041-0030, Adams Rib - Frost Creek
Chairman Stone reconvened the meeting stating this is the continuation ofthe Adam's Rib Frost
Creek being file number 1041-003 I accompanied by files SSA-0008 and SSA-0009.
Mr. Sands stated they have some brief sur-rebuttal of Mr. Pheiffer. He then spoke to the
questions that the Board may have for Roxie Dean and Willie Powell.
Mr. Ferguson stated they have one question to ask as well. He also understands there may be
questions for Mr. Arian by Commissioner Gallagher.
Chairman Stone asked how they wish to proceed.
Mr. Ferguson called Randy Cloyd back to testify. Mr. Ferguson asked after the map with the red
line on it. He asked for that to be produced.
Mr. Cloyd stated it is Exhibit 42.
Mr. Ferguson stated in reference to this exhibit a red line was drawn on the exhibit that
demonstrated the difference in the property owned in 1983 and that which was brought subsequently.
Mr. Cloyd stated he did.
Mr. Ferguson asked him to draw the line on the map.
Mr. Cloyd did so.
Mr. Ferguson asked what he reviewed to make the determination.
Mr. Cloyd stated the 1992 sketch plan and this is consistent with the description given by Mr.
Lockhead. Mr. Cloyd explained the acreage.
Mr. Sands asked if Mr. Cloyd knows in what year the additional property was acquired.
Mr. Cloyd responded he does not.
Chairman Stone asked what the next order of business will be for them to take up and
specifically regarding Mayor Roxie Dean and if she should come before the sur-rebuttal.
Mr. Fritze stated it makes no difference.
Roxie Dean came to the microphone.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if she could provide the density of the old portion of the acreage.
He stated his other questions have to do with water and water rights. He stated he would like to see
those on the map. He would also like to see what water rights are adjudicated and what water rights are
pending.
Mr. Ferguson stated with respect to the water rights, they've listed in the exhibit book submitted
by the applicant, A18, a list ofthe water rights that are associated with the project. He stated the water
rights on page one through the reference to Adams Rib Augmentation Plan, about 2/3rds of the way
down, at that point and above are all decreed. The next page and ~ are water rights that are associated
with two water right applications that have been referred to in this hearing. 99-CW -194 is pending in the
Water Court. It is to provide the domestic supply for the additional 115 units. On page two there is a
reference to 99-CW-195 is also pending and it involves the water for the clubhouse and for the
administrated offices in the water and wastewater treatment facilities. The next two cases referred to,
99-CW-242 & 99-CW-243, are junior water right filings that are also currently pending. The 242 cases
17
10-24-2000
refer to the junior water rights described as being applied for are outside the irrigation season. They are
enlargements of existing ditches. He stated 99-CW-243 is an application for the golf course ponds to be
used for esthetics and a non potable system. It is also for augmentation. He stated there is a reference to
the last water rights on page 3.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he does not see acre feet for Wolford Mountain or the OIF Ditch.
Mr. Ferguson stated they've applied for between twelve and thirteen acre feet.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if these are all pending.
Mr. Ferguson explained there are decrees for the two river district reservoirs in place. The
reference to the OIF Ditch is that it is the senior ditch they picked out as the appropriate senior ditch to
be used.
Commissioner Gallagher asked where the ditches are and their diversion points.
Mr. Arian stated this map, labeled Dry Land Irrigation Plan, shows primarily the ditches and
ponds that will be used as part of the irrigation system. He explained the ditches, their locations and the
diversion points and head gates.
Mr. Ferguson stated those project lands that were the subject of the 1983 agreement result in a
density of 1 unit to 3.025 acres.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about density today.
Mr. Ferguson stated 1 unit per 3.52 acres.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is trying to understand how at one time the Town of Eagle
gave passive approval to a density of I unite per 3.025 acres by granting taps and also as late as approval
of the Ranch project, specified a 21 inch sewer line anticipating uphill use. He surmised there was
preparation for development upstream. Now, more than 1 unit per 35 acres is a problem. He stated the
questions is what appeared to be approved historically.
Willy Powell, Eagle Town Manager, stated in 1983 there was a Master Plan and approvals that
indicated there would be two community centers in the Brush Creek Valley. One would be in the East
Brush Creek Basin, which would be the proposed ski area, and the other community center was the
Town of Eagle. He stated the golf course was an adjunct to the ski area proposal and existed as a part of
that community center. He stated the general concept in those days was there would not be a lot of
development in the mid Brush Creek Valley but rather there would be the ski area and the Town of
Eagle growing outward, as is now proposed in the current Master Plan. It is the Town's view the Master
Plan changed drastically in 1996 with the adoption of the Eagle County Master Plan, FLUM and the
incorporation of the Eagle Area Community Plan into the Eagle County Master Plan. That plan assumed
there would be one community center, which would be the Town of Eagle, unless the resort came along,
was approved and constructed. The applicant was not able to reach sketch plan approval. It is their
belief that a project this size and this location does not meet the current Master Plan. They have said
they will honor the contract and sign an agreement to transfer the 200 EQR to a project in a location
lower down in Brush Creek and which meet the goals of the community.
Mr. Powell stated the Town of Eagle took over wastewater operations by election. The sewer
district was out of capacity and out of compliance with State Regulations. They got in there through an
RFP process, chose new engineers and designed the plant, provided for a 201 facility plan which
designated the service area. All of this was done at the same time as the Master Plan development
process. The plan is consistent with the Master Plan. They built a new plant and increased the capacity
and have designed the plant to allow additional capacity in the future. With the Eagle Ranch
subdivision, it was determined that a new wastewater main extend all the way through the plant and all
the way to the property, which should service the Eagle Ranch property and any future development in
the Brush Creek Valley, that is consistent with the Master Plan and consistent with the 201 Facility Plan
planning area. He stated they asked Eagle Ranch, during their process, to up size the sewer line to
accommodate densities they foresaw in the Brush Creek Valley that were consistent with the Master
Plan. He stated they don't have concerns with the densities in the Ranch but with the location of the
18
10-24-2000
densities.
Chairman Stone stated it seems to him they entered into an agreement, took Mr. Kummer's
money and now are not honoring the contract.
Mr. Powell stated they have always agreed to honor the contract.
Commissioner Phillips stated she thinks he is contradicting himself. She asked again if he will
honor the contract with Mr. Kummer.
Mr. Powell stated they will honor their contracts which provides for the 200 EQR's.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the 21 inch pipe and that density was not an issue. He stated
nothing was said about he Frost Creek parcel. He asked if there are circumstances that he could present
to the Eagle Town Board that they would approve this density at that location.
Mr. Powell stated the circumstances would be a public process that would go through the
regulatory requirements that would amend the Master Plan that would allow for development in that
location. His personal view is that may be appropriate many years from now.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is a way for Mr. Powell to recommend approval of Frost
Creek as it stands now.
Mr. Powell answered no.
Chairman Stone stated there seems to be some confusion as to whether the Town of Eagle will
serve this area or not. He stated the Planning Commission in its deliberation found this application
approved by a vote of 4 to 1. He asked if the Town of Eagle is willing to serve water and sewer to this
area or not.
Mr. Powell stated they are willing to do so when the projects are in compliance with the Master
Plans.
Chairman Stone asked if they are willing to serve this area with water and sewer as the plan
stands now.
Mr. Powell stated they are willing to service these lands at the appropriate time and under the
appropriate circumstances when the Master Plan allows for a project like this to occur.
Chairman Stone asked if the Town is ready to serve Frost Creek today in its current plan.
Mr. Powell stated no, not in its current plan. This is for water only, the Town has never been
asked about wastewater.
Mr. Powell stated he believes the applicant must ask for that service.
Chairman Stone asked for advice from Jim Fritze in how he can ask the question.
Mr. Fritze stated if requested by the applicant, ifthe Town would be willing to provide
wastewater treatment service to the current Frost Creek plan.
Mr. Powell stated that is a evaluation they would have to make. Their Master Plans are
synonymous and they believe they will serve all lands in the Brush Creek Valley when projects meet
those Master Plans. He stated they do not believe this plan meets the Master Plan. That is the Town's
position. Projects must meet the Master Plan.
Chairman Stone stated since the plans are synonymous, the Town would refuse to serve this area
because it does not meet the Master Plan.
Mr. Powell stated when the Master Plan allows for development on this property they will serve.
Chairman Stone asked if that would be true of the additional water service.
Mr. Powell stated that was correct.
Commissioner Phillips stated except the 200 they have committed to.
Chairman Stone asked Mayor Dean to come forward.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is anything the Town Mangaer has said that she would
disagree with.
Ms. Deane responded no.
Chairman Stone asked what the Board could do to facilitate an agreement between Adam's Rib
and the Town of Eagle to come to an understanding. He stated they attempted this previously with Mr.
19
10-24-2000
Fritze as the facilitator and it did not work. He stated if this Board were able to take some kind of action
beyond saying go back and talk to the Town.
Ms. Deane stated she believes they can work with Adam's Rib as they have on the Bluffs. She
stated it is the same Board, the same people. She would like to sit down at the table and would like a
clean slate. She spoke to East and West Brush Creek. She stated she would like an application to come
in that is in compliance. It can not be the same project they are proposing now. They are not messing
with the density and want it to be in compliance. She wants to work with them.
Chairman Stone stated he is concerned by the comments the other day and when asked some
questions, she said that East and West Brush Creek is no longer there as a carrot. He suggested she said
they are not quite so motivated. That concerned him in trying to put himself in the Town's shoes and the
applicant's shoes, the applicant would be wondering what hoops they would have to jump through. He's
wondering what are the hoops they will have to jump through to get this thing done and what would be
the prospect of entering into successful negotiations.
Ms. Deane stated she believes Adam's Rib has it made in a lot of ways and that they can see
from what they have required from Eagle Ranch. She spoke to the annexation agreement. She stated the
only access to this project is through the Town of Eagle and she knows they will see the impact fees and
the services. She is concerned the Town of Eagle will not get the financial help they need to deal with
such a large project. She stated the Town needs to deal with this as it will change everything for the
Town of Eagle.
Chairman Stone asked if the County approved the same plan that the Town of Eagle did.
Ms. Deane stated the plan before them today does not meet the Master Plan.
Chairman Stone asked what the problem was.
Ms. Deane stated the Town gave Adam's Rib a huge amount ofleeway because of the East and
West Brush Creek purchase. The plan was denied, the price was upped to $14,000,000 but he still wants
the same plan for the $10,000,000 deal. They need to have a more in compliance plan.
Chairman Stone asked what Ms. Deane's general feelings about how the Brush Creek Valley
should be phased and if Adam's Rib were to come back with a similar plan or the same plan, what
would be some of the conditions on that plan.
Ms. Deane responded Mr. Kummer has suggested no more than 200 units per year.
Mr. Powell stated that is incredibly fast build out. He stated more important was the location of
the phasing.
Chairman Stone asked if Adam's Rib were to come back to the Town of Eagle today and enter in
to good faith, better faith, what is the shortest time period they will need to go through the approval
process.
Ms. Deane stated the only thing she has to compare it to is Eagle Ranch and that took about
eighteen months. She stated she is really not sure.
Commissioner Gallagher asked would part of the negotiations require are-write of the Master
Plan to permit this density. He stated it is his understanding that Chairman Stone asked about the
process and the length it would take to go through this application.
Ms. Deane stated if the applicant would come back to the Town of Eagle and follow the Master
Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan.
Mr. Ferguson asked ifthey have a right to cross examine the witnesses the Commissioners have
called.
Jim Fritze stated he believes the proper order is to let Mr. Ferguson go first.
Mr. Sands asked Ms. Deane to describe the process applied most recently.
Ms. Deane stated they asked for another group of planners to review the plans to determine if theoproject was in compliance or not. That is why Clarion was chosen.
Mr. Sands asked if Larry McKensie was involved.
Ms. Deane stated he was not.
20
10-24-2000
Mr. Sands asked what the Board was prepared to do as far as a charge to Clarion to take it a step
further.
Ms. Deane stated they were going to ask Clarion to come up with a plan that was in compliance
and include some of what the applicant is wanting to do. The town was going to pay for this.
Mr. Sands questioned how Adam's Rib responded when they learned of this plan.
Ms. Deane stated she was surprised the report had come out as the Town Board had not seen the
report. The applicant immediately pulled the plan.
Mr. Sands asked if Ms. Deane has talked with Mr. Kummer about Master Plan compliance.
Ms. Deane explained he was upset over the Clarion report and she suggested they find another
group of consultants to submit a plan that would comply.
Mr. Ferguson asked if the report was done by Clarion and if a copy was delivered to Adam's Rib.
Ms. Deane stated she knows it was done but has not seen the plan.
Chairman Stone stated the final testimony for today is with Mr. Pfeiffer.
Mr. Sands stated what they are passing out they would ask it be admitted into the record. There
were some questions ask by Mr. Powell, an affidavit concerning questions about the Town being
involved with the Attorney nor the citizens who were at the hearing.
Chairman Stone stated he doesn't think it relevant for approval criteria and will not accept it into
the record.
Ms. Caloia called Scott Pfeiffer to the stand. She asked if the irrigation plan marked Exhibit E46
has been integrated with The Ranch.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated they have always considered the impacts from the two plans were cumulative
and therefore the irrigation plan was designed accordingly. By way of illustration one of the key
components of this irrigation plans as was discussed this morning, was that if the stream flows in Brush
Creek drop below the Colorado Water Conservation Board minimum flow levels, the applicant had
verbally committed to curtail 50% of the irrigation on the golf course roughs. The trigger for that to
happen is on a gage to be constructed below one of the diversion points that service the lower Ranch
project. In other words, it is the diversion and ditch on the lower Ranch that is the trigger. He stated
these have always been discussed together but at no time were they looked at separately.
Ms. Caloia asked why it was important to evaluate all the aspects of a project based on water
rights.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated what is very critical to the Town on this project is that this project proposes
seven points of diversion in a reach of Brush Creek that will also contain the residential lawn irrigation
and therefore there will be a cumulative effect on the river. More importantly for him, someone who is
charged with providing information to decision makers, he knows there is a project right down the road
or right next door that is proposing to use the exact seven points of diversion for the in-house
components of the Ranch project. He testified earlier that these diversion were 10 fold greater than what
is before the Board today, which is accurate. He stated his information is derived directly from the
applicants application. If he was advising the Board he would relate there is a project that is diverting 10
fold from the same diversion points and cumulative impacts must be looked at. There is a water court
application that has been filed this year which describes those additional diversions at those same
locations. That application is not in the application currently before the Board. He related testimony
was heard that are a couple of ditches that are located above the Towns water supply may be transferred
down in a water court proceeding at a later time. There are going to be 58 acres of land removed from
irrigation under the senior water rights to make way for this lower Frost Creek project. Those cases have
not been filed.
Mr. Ferguson stated Mr. Pfeiffer is familiar with land use proposals in various jurisdictions and
the process for those. The Ranch project may not be approved. For purposes of evaluating Frost Creek
component for this hearing, and if the Ranch wasn't pending, there would be no cumulative impacts. He
asked if that was correct.
21
10-24-2000
Mr. Pfeiffer stated that is not correct.
Mr. Ferguson asked ifthe Ranch stayed a ranch would there be cumulative impacts.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated certainly there would be a cumulative impact on Brush Creek. He stated the
impact he was speaking was residential lawn irrigation in addition to the Ranch project.
Mr. Ferguson asked can the Frost Creek irrigation component of this plan operate separate from
the other properties?
Mr. Pfeiffer answered no.
Mr. Ferguson stated if this page was cut off below the Frost Creek project, we could not operate
that irrigation system separately.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated the irrigation separately.
Mr. Ferguson asked if the fundamental premise of this plan is the provision of wastewater
treatment service by the Town at its existing facility.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated at the time that plan was negotiated and discussed that is correct.
Ms. Caloia asked if they can operate the Frost Creek plan separately from the Ranch plan in the
manners they propose.
Mr. Pfeiffer stated the place where it cannot be done and where they overlap and are dependent
on one another is the trigger that would initiate action to preserve flows in Brush Creek.
Chairman Stone stated they are finished for today, continuing this hearing with testimony from
David Carter at 9:30 on Monday morning. He stated we will take a quick break and prepare for the next
file.
File 1041-0031 Red Sky Ranch
Chairman Stone stated they had gone through all of the findings they need to find in
conformance. He stated there were two of the findings they skipped over for the applicant to provide
information on letter I.
Peter Jamar apologized for his previous response for this issue as it was more directed to the
need for the water and sewage system. He stated they have spent time in the application on the
community need for this project.
Mr. Merry asked if this is an additional exhibit.
Chairman Stone stated it will be called Exhibit A5, Overnight Visitor Rounds.
Mr. Jamar stated he has handed out four sheets that explain their stand on this. He stated
basically they reminded them that the Planning Commission and the Board made a finding that the
proposed zoning change meets a community need. He stated basically their research shows that 178,000
rounds of golf are played in this market area per year. He stated the estimate of the over night visitors
124,840 rounds of golf.
Turning to the second sheet the estimate potential demand is about 165,825 rounds of golf which
is the equivalent of about two golf courses in 1999. He spoke to the significant growth between 1999
and 2010. He stated the County's Master Plan predicts a continued growth in both permanent and
seasonal development. He stated based on that information they were able to make the finding on
community need.
Chairman Stone asked the Commissioners if they can find in favor of finding I or not.
Commissioner Phillips stated she would be able to do so.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the seasonal population and the seasonal development if
these are for ski lift operators.
Mr. Jamar stated they are not proposing these as seasonal.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are equating seasonal with second homes. He asked if the
need is in seasonal homes and are those second homes.
Mr. Jamar stated there will be continued demand for both.
22
10-24-2000
Commissioner Gallagher stated he can find it positive.
Chairman Stone stated he can as well. He asked they address items 0 and T.
Mr. Jamar suggested those comments came from some concerns voiced by the Colorado
Geological Survey about the suitability of those locations and those individual sewage disposal systems
relative to slope stability issues. He referenced the PUD process and that they have agreed as a condition
of approval that prior to final plat and if the County Staff prefers, the Colorado Geological Survey sign
off on the location of those separate septic systems relative to the slope stability issues. He stated they
have to demonstrate that the ISDS systems will be addressed. He stated they would be happy to deal
with this in that light as well.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if that would be part of the approval. He stated the applicant
suggests that they look to these qualifiers as part of the PUD. He stated he can find those positive for
items 0 and items T.
Chairman Stone read findings 0 & T into the record.
Commissioner Phillips stated that she can also find these positive.
Chairman Stone agreed as well.
Chairman Stone read item T.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he can find it a positive item.
Commissioner Phillips stated she can as well.
Chairman Stone concurred.
In accordance with Section 6.05.15 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more
specifically described in the application for the efficient utilization of both municipal water systems to
serve the Red Sky Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems:
1) A permit application for development of a municipal or industrial water project shall be
approved, with reasonable conditions, if any, in the discretion of the Permit Authority, if the
proposed development complies with the following criteria:
a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated;
Finding: Population growth in the area indicates that the need for the proposed water project can
be substantiated. The project is an integration of residential and recreational uses consistent with other
developments in the Eagle Valley.
The Board concurred this finding is favorable.
b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with federal, state, regional
and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources;
Finding: Referral response from the NWCCOG indicate that the proposed water project is
compatible with federal, state, regional planning policies. The Board of County Commissioners
approval of the sketch plan and preliminary review process will insure that the project proposed is
consistent with the County Master Plan.
The Board concurred this finding is favorable.
c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,
including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban
development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation
systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge
areas;
Finding: The Golf Course Management Plan and Water Conservation Plan designed for this
project will be effective in conserving water. In addition, utility extensions will be metered and fixtures
will conform to Uniform Plumbing codes. Site layout and design will prevent pollution to the aquifer
recharge areas. The applicant intends to use "Environ Drains" in maintenance areas to prevent
contamination from fuels, etc.
Mr. Jamar stated he can address some of the issues. In terms of the golf course itself, use of
23
10-24-2000
water is far more efficient than flood irrigation. He explained the state of the art computer systems and
the monitoring of the soils. In addition other water conservation water methods are being used and there
is a recycle system of water used for washing the equipment. In residential areas they will be employing
water conservation techniques. He stated they actually received accolades from NWCOGG for the water
plan. He stated he is not an expert on Environ Drains and the recycling of the materials.
Mr. Crane stated they can find the information.
Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Merry has reviewed the golf course water plan and asked if it meets
the requirements.
Mr. Merry stated he is impressed by the abilities of golf management and prevention of pollution.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water
resources;
Finding: The applicant's construction, post construction and golf course management plan insure
that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources
Commissioner Gallagher asked where they will be putting their collection ponds.
Mr. Crane showed where the waters are collected. He stated they will route the water in the
spring to address that issue.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the
Colorado Department of Health;
Finding: The proposed water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water
meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. The proposed water treatment facility
will serve at least 25 people daily and thus be considered a "public water system" subject to Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the
quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source
development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May
22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted;
Finding: The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease
the quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source
development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
g. The proposed development and the potential diversions of water from the source
development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands,
groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical
wildlife habitats, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and
the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas
of geologic, historic or archaeological importance;
Finding: Referral responses and evidence submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed
development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic
habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain,
forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory
ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and
unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance
Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant to state again how they want this considered in
future process.
Mr. Jamar stated they will agree that prior to the issuance of final plat approval that the ISDS
24
10-24-2000
systems will be approved by the County to ensure they are not problematic slopes.
Commissioner Phillips stated this was a concern of a resident in the area and the concern with the
wildlife. She asked the neighbor if there concerns have been answered.
Ms. Dennison stated she believes it has been answered.
Mr. Merry stated they have the evidence but it is icing on the cake to be double sure. Mr. Merry
stated there isn't a significant risk but added measures are being taken.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
h. The salinity and advance wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsections
6.05.13(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated
therewith, if any, have been paid;
Finding: Advanced wastewater treatment will occur at the on-site wastewater treatment facilities.
No offset plan for this development is necessary.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
i. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area.
The Board concurred this finding was favorable.
Commissioner Philips moved to approve file number 1041-0031, Red Sky Ranch, incorporating
staff findings and the condition regarding material representations. They agreed that there will be no
sunset clause.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Mr. Merry explained the State Site Application is dealing with the denitrification process. He
stated it would be the State and Counties goal to be as inclusive as they can be. He stated the application
is for three attached growth recirculating gravel filters with nitrogen removal. Each having 6,000 gallons
per day hydraulic capacity. He stated it is important to Eagle County that we protect our environment.
He stated they would like to have the State consider as many systems as to know where they should
place ground water monitoring wells.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the State Site Application for Red Sky Ranch, file
number SSA-0011.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Philips moved to adjourn as the Board of County commissioners and reconvene
as the Eagle County Board of Health.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Eagle County Board of Health approve the State Site
Application for Red Sky Ranch being SSA-00l1.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Health and reconvene as
the Eagle County Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDP-00016, ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch
Chairman Stone stated they will be able to hear this file only until 4:45 p.m at which time they
will be attending another meeting. He thanked the Clerk's Office for their efforts.
25
10-24-2000
Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00016 and ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch.
He spoke to additional information being presented and asked it be accepted into the record.
Mr. Forinash stated this a residential golf development with the following features:
A total of 87 home sites, with 67 sites being located east of Old Faithful Ridge and located
generally in the vicinity of the previously approved 18 hole Jouflas Ranch Golf Course, and 20 sites
located west of Old Faithful Ridge.
Two 18 hole golf courses, including a practice range/driving facility.
A clubhouse for each course with locker rooms, a pro shop, and a grill with up to 110 seats, and
other amenities which may include cart and bag storage, a staff room for caddies, rangers and grounds
keepers, building and mechanical areas, locker rooms, a fitness facility, administration areas and a real
estate office.
A maintenance facility for each golf course.
Water will be pumped from the Eagle River to the site and a portion treated at a water treatment
facility near the east maintenance facility to provide potable water for domestic uses.
Wastewater will be treated by means of individual engineered septic systems located on site.
Other utilities, including electric power and natural gas, will also be provided.
It is anticipated that roads and the water system within the PUD will be owned and operated by a
new metropolitan district, yet to be approved by Eagle County.
CHRONOLOGY:
October 1998 - The Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for the
Jouflas Ranch Golf Course to include an 18 hole golf course and a club facility.
March 2000 - Board of County Commissioners approved the Sketch Plan for this proposed
Planned Unit Development.
REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Eagle County Engineering Department
Numerous comments (copy enclosed).
Eagle County Address Coordinator
All proposed road names appear to be unique except Night Hawk Lane, which duplicates a street
in Eagle River Village.
Colorado Geological Survey
Concerns raised during review of the Sketch Plan for this development regarding the location of
several lots and the effects of individual septic systems on the slope stability of the western portion of
the site. Certain recommended changes have not been made. It is important that these changes be made
prior to final approval of the PUD. Additional information has been requested for review.
Colorado Division of Water Resources
With 406 acre-feet of water available to augment the consumptive use ofthis development, the
plan is sufficient to augment the projected water demands. However, it does not appear that the Wolcott
Springs parcels were included in the water demands.
Well permits for two of the three Wolcott Springs parcels have expired for lack of filing
of a Well Construction and Test Permit. The third well was constructed in 1994.
Since at least some of the parcels in the Red Sky Ranch PUD are less than 35 acres, all
wells in the subdivision must either be included in an augmentation plan or plugged and abandoned.
Due to the lack of a water court approved augmentation plan to supply the three Wolcott
Springs parcels the State Engineer has determined that the proposed water supply will cause material
injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate.
Colorado State Forest Service
Wildfire hazard for this development is high.
Problematic fire behavior could be expected on the steep slope that runs north and south through
26
10-24-2000
the center of the project.
Existing vegetation is conducive to wildfire spread, but will be mitigated to a significant degree
by development of the golf course. Slash accumulation is low. Ladder fuels are low. Surface vegetation
is heavy.
Access to the subdivision is fair with respect to wildfire control and public safety. Numerous
long, dead end roads increases the potential for entrapment of residents or firefighters during a wildfire.
Water supply for wildfire suppression will be adequate as long as access is provided to ponds for
fire truck drafting sites.
Suggestions to reduce wildfire hazard include:
Implement defensible space practices around all structures.
Locate building envelopes outside of and at least 200 feet from the top of the steep slope that
bisects the center of the subdivision.
Relocate dead end roads longer than 750 feet to loop back to Bellyache Ridge Road or provide
adequate turnarounds every 750 feet.
Provide fire truck drafting sites at large ponds.
Dispose of all slash resulting from right-of-way clearing and construction.
Design of driveways to meet specified minimum standards (see referral response).
Require fire resistant roofing material to be used in building construction.
Eagle County School District
Since the land dedication of 1.261 acres would be minimal, the District will accept the cash in
lieu payment of $66,202.50 for this subdivision preliminary plan.
District requests that the Commissioners consider updating the land values under the "old
ordinance" so that the School District does not continue to lose value because of this study.
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health
Division, Eagle County Housing Division, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Surveyor, Eagle County
Regional Transportation Authority, Colorado Division of Transportation, Colorado Division of Wildlife,
u.s. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Holy Cross Energy, Avon
Fire District, KN Energy, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Bellyache Ridge Homeowners
Association.
Staff findings are shown on staff report and as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the
review of a Sketch PUD:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land
that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to
control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land
that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD.
The Applicant has demonstrated that the largest portion of the site is owned by Vail Associates,
Inc., with Parcel 20 of Wolcott Springs being owned by Gary and Margie Plath and Parcel 22 ofWo1cott
Springs being owned by David and Debra Plath. The joint application by all property owners may be
taken as written consent by all owners of the land.
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. However,
all owners HAVE joined in the application and will be subject to the conditions and standards of the
PUD.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD
shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as
a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or
Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation
27
1 0-24-2000
in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations
may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized
Most of the site is located in the Resource (R) zone district, although a portion of the southern
portion of the site is in the Agricultural Residential (AR) zone district. Proposed uses outlined in the
draft PUD Guide generally include those typically associated with a residential golf course community.
Most uses are allowed as uses by right, or subject to Limited or Special Review, in these zone districts.
Uses which are not allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the applicable
sections of the Land Use Regulations include [a] interval ownership, [b] temporary sales facility, and in
the AR zoned district, and [c] rural recreational facility.
Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, ofthe Land Use Regulations, provides that
variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan
achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for
that purpose to be achieved. Those purposes include [1] obtaining desired design qualities, [2] avoiding
environmental resources and natural hazards, [3] providing incentives for water augmentation, [4]
providing incentives for improvements to the Eagle County trails system, [5] providing incentives to
assure long term affordable housing, or [6] providing incentives to develop public facilities.
It appears that the first purpose noted above, i.e., to obtain desired design qualities, would be
satisfied by allowing interval ownership, temporary sales facility and a rural recreational facility. Under
this purpose, a variation is allowed which permits the integration of mixed uses. The uses not otherwise
allowed in the Resource and Agricultural Residential zone districts are consistent with the overall
proposed development. Staffhas determined that a variation to allow interval ownership, temporary
sales facility, and a rural recreational facility may achieve the purpose of obtaining desired design
qualities and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. Staff makes a
favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT those uses that are designated as uses
that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential,
Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the
property at the time of the application for PUD. However, pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations
Authorized, a variation to allow interval ownership, a temporary sales facility, and a rural recreational
facility DOES achieve the purpose of obtaining desired design qualities and that the granting of the
variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional
limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of
Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to
Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized provided variations shall leave adequate distance between
buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and
snowmelt between buildings.
Dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are at least as restrictive as those specified in
Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the Resource (R) and Agricultural Residential
(AR) zone districts, with the exception of minimum lot sizes, and maximum building height for non-
residential buildings. However, conceptual building envelopes have been proposed for 60 of the
residential lots, but neither building envelopes nor minimum setbacks from lot lines are proposed for 27
of the smaller lots.
A review of the conceptual building envelopes indicates that most are at least 20 feet from a lot
line, but possibly as close as 8-10 feet from a shared drive. In addition, the PUD Guide proposes that
zero setbacks from lot lines be permitted on Lots 24 through 50, which range in size from 0.341 acres to
28
10-24-2000
0.632 acres in size. Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", provides for minimum
setbacks in the Rand AR zone districts of25 feet from local streets (front yard setbacks), 50 feet from
collector streets (in this case, Bellyache Ridge Road), and the greater of 12.5 feet or half the height ofthe
tallest building on the lot from the side and rear lot lines.
The proposal to allow the lots to form the building envelope on Lots 24 through 50 raises
questions about whether adequate distances can be maintained between buildings for necessary access
and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings, as required
pursuant to this Standard. The Uniform Building Code generally provides that if a single family
residence is closer than three feet from a lot line, it must have no windows or other openings, must have
greater fire resistance walls, and may have no projections or overhangs.
Staff understands from the Applicant that the intent is to allow these lots to be developed by one
developer who would be able to coordinate types and designs of structures as well as separation between
structures. As proposed, there is no provision to require any such coordination of the development on
these lots. The Applicant should be required to include a provision in the PUD Guide that prohibits the
issuance of any building permits for the area proposed for Lots 24 through 50 until a detailed
development plan, including proposed lots and building setbacks or envelopes for these lots is reviewed
and approved by the Eagle County Planning Commission. [Condition # 1]
Additional discussion - On September 20, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission
approved the following amended Condition # 1 :
Include a provision in the PUD Guide that prohibits the issuance of any building permits for the
area proposed for Lots 24 through 50 until a detailed development plan, including proposed lots and
building setbacks or envelopes for these lots is reviewed and approved by the Eagle County staff.
Amend the Preliminary Plan map so that the general area including Lots 24 - 50 shall be
indicated as Tract AA and revise the PUD Guide to include the following: Tract AA will be allowed 27
single family dwelling units. Tract AA may be developed in a single or multiple phases and building
permits may be issued for each phase based on Eagle County Planning Staff review of a detailed
development plan for that phase. Setbacks from Bellyache Ridge Road shall be a minimum of 5 0 fiet.
Setbacks from the interior road right-ofway and from the golf course tracts shall be a minimum of 1 0
feet. There shall be a minimum separation between buildings of 25 feet.
Staff concurs.
In addition, the Applicant should be required to provide on the final plates) that the building
envelopes proposed for all lots, other than Lots 24 through 50, provide at least as much separation
between structures as required in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the Resource
(R) and Agricultural Residential (AR) zone districts or obtain a variation as provided in the Land Use
Regulations as a part of this Preliminary Plan or a subsequent amendment. [Condition # 2]
Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations" also limits building heights in the AR zone
district to 35 feet, and in the R zone district, 40 feet for all uses other than residential. The Applicant has
proposed a maximum building height of 35 feet in the PUD Residential zone district and 40 feet in the
PUD Golf Course zone district. Although it appears that the Club House structures will be located in
that portion of the site that is presently zoned Resource, the question arises as to whether the
requirements for a variation can be satisfied with respect to building heights in that portion of the site
which is presently zoned Agricultural Residential.
As noted above, Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, ofthe Land Use Regulations,
provides that variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the
Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting of the
variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. It appears that the purpose of obtaining desired
design qualities would allow for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings, provided that
structures are designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration,
with other units in the PUD and the surrounding area, as provided in the above referenced Section. Staff
29
10-24-2000
has determined that a variation to allow a maximum building height in the PUD Golf Course zone
district may achieve the purpose of obtaining desired design qualities and that the granting of the
variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved.
With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(3)]
With the specified conditions and the variations with respect to allowed uses in the PUD zone
districts and building heights, the dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those
specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in
effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD.
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking
and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant
demonstrates that:
(a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the P UD that
do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents,
guests and employees of the project will be met; or
(b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less
than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus
passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard
The Applicant has indicated that parking standards in the east golf course and residential area
will meet Eagle County requirements, although there is no provision in the draft PUD Guide to that
effect. There does not appear to be a similar provision with respect to the west golf course and
residential area. What is reflected in the PUD Guide is a requirement that a residence provide a
minimum of three parking spaces, consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. The
Applicant should be required to comply with the provisions of Division 4-1, Off-Street Parking: and
Loading Standards, of the Land Use Regulations, throughout the PUD. [Condition # 3]
With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
With the specified condition, the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-
Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards.
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscapingprovided in the PUD
shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and lllumination Standards.
Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD and between the
PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive
streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area.
Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, required that a Detailed
Landscape Plan be submitted with a Preliminary Plan for a PUD. The required detail includes showing
[ a] all existing trees of a minimum size, [b] where existing vegetation will be preserved or removed, and
the type, location, size and number of plants to be installed, [c] the location and type of irrigation, [d] the
size, quantity, type of plants to be used, including ground cover, and [e] the nature of seed mixtures.
Detailed calculations of the areas to be landscaped and an estimated cost of supplying and installing the
materials are also required.
The Applicant has made the point that the level of site planning that occurs at the PUD
Preliminary Plan review is typically not sufficient to develop a detailed landscape plan of the sort
contemplated in this Division of the Land Use Regulations. Staff appreciates the difficulty and is
willing to work with the Applicant.
30
10-24-2000
A set of conceptual landscape site plan drawings have been provided which include the club
house for each golf course, snack bar/starter house, caretaker homesite, pump house/restroom building,
restroom building, teaching facility, and the maintenance facility for each golf course. It is proposed that
streetscapes be maintained in native vegetation, without additional streets cape plantings.
The Land Use Regulations do not address landscaping within a golf course, and no standards are
provided. Staff is satisfied that this element of landscaping is best left to the Applicant and the
developers of the golf courses.
In order to accommodate both the intent of the Land Use Regulations with respect to landscaping
and the constraints on the Applicant, the Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of a
final plat for each respective area ofthe PUD, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-
220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which
the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of
Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the
Applicant. [Condition # 4]
Further, the Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of a building permit for
each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers homesite), a Detailed Landscape Plan, as
provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for that site, which the Director of Community
Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 ofthe Land Use
Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. [Condition # 5]
The Application does not appear to address illumination standards in a manner comparable to
Section 4-250, Illumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. This Section provides standards
for controlling illumination to prevent intense glare or direct illumination that would create a nuisance,
detract from the use or enjoyment of adjoining property or cause traffic hazards to motorists. The
Applicant should be required to amend the PUD Guide so that the PUD is subject to Section 4-250,
Illumination Standards, ofthe Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 6]
With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
With the specified conditions, the landscaping and illumination standards provided in the PUD
DO comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD
shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D.,
Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develooment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan
for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
The Applicant has proposed a Comprehensive Sign Plan as provided in Section 4-340.D., Signs
Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). While the provisions include the purposes ofthe
proposed signs, sizes and heights (for certain signs), and illumination (project identification/entry
monument sign only), the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan does not address certain considerations
which are included in Division 4-3, Sign Rel!ulations, ofthe Land Use Regulations. Not addressed are
[1] certain exempt signs, [2] prohibited signs, [3] safety standards, [4] sign area measurement, [5]
illumination (except for the project identification/entry monument sign), [6] procedures to obtain a sign
permit, [7] nonconforming signs, and [8] violations and penalties. In order to make the proposed Sign
Plan truly comprehensive, the Applicant should be required to provide in the Comprehensive Sign Plan
that all provisions of Division 4-3, Sign Regulations, ofthe Land Use Regulations shall be applicable
unless specifically superceded by the sign provisions of the PUD Guide. [Condition # 7]
In addition, there is at least one reference in the Comprehensive Sign Plan "to allow
identification of the buildings and uses associated with the Special Use Permit. (Italics added.) The
Applicant will want to delete references to the special use permit, since it will likely expire at the
e
31
10-24-2000
approval of the PUD.
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
With the specified condition, 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 IS
suitable for the PUD and DOES provide the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within
the PUD.
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate
that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for
potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads
and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency
medical services.
[+] Potable water suoolv. - Raw water is proposed to be pumped from the Eagle River to a
storage pond near the north edge of the site. A portion of the water from the pond (untreated) will be
used for golf course irrigation, and another portion will be pumped to a proposed water treatment plant
near the east maintenance facility near the north end of the site.
An augmentation plan has been decreed which will apparently provide sufficient water to
augment the consumptive use of this development. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has
determined that the augmentation plan is sufficient to augment the projected water demands for this
development. However, the Division notes that it appears that Parcels 20, 21 and 22 in Wolcott Springs
were not included in the water demands. The Applicant's water attorneys have provided assurance that
the three parcels in Wolcott Springs are, in fact, covered by the plan for augmentation.
In addition, the water treatment and distribution system is the subject of a concurrent 1041
application. Approval of this Preliminary Plan will be subj ect to the prior approval of a 1041 permit for
an adequate water treatment and supply system. The Applicant will be required to have an approved
1041 application at the time of approval of this Preliminary Plan.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Sewage disoosal. - The Colorado Geological Survey has noted that it continues to have
concerns regarding the effects of individual septic systems on the slope stability of the western portion of
the site, including Lots 79 and 82. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the County Engineer prior to final plat approval that proposed individual septic systems will be
located in a manner that will not unduly jeopardize slope stability. [Condition # 20a]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Solid waste disoosal. - Adequate solid waste disposal services appear to be available in the
area. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Electrical supolv. - Holy Cross Energy has indicated that a reasonable level of agreement has
been reached regarding design of electrical distribution facilities for this development. However, as of
June 27, 2000, an outstanding issue was the satisfactory design of a re-located access road to the Holy
Cross Energy substation near this proposed development. Staff is aware that the Applicant has been
working on these design issues. However, the Applicant should be required to demonstrate prior to final
plat approval that access to the Holy Cross Energy substation is adequate and that electrical service will
be provided to the development. [Condition # 19a]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Fire orotection. - The Avon Fire Department has indicated it has reviewed the plans for the
proposed development and determined that both access and water supply are acceptable. However, the
development is in an area which may be served by the Town of Avon Fire Department, but only by
contract, with approval by the Town Council. The development may also ultimately be served by the
Eagle River Fire Protection District currently in formation. The Applicant should be required to
32
10-24-2000
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of the first
final plat for this PUD, that adequate fire protection services will be provided to this development.
[Condition # 19b]
In addition, one of the streets in the development is proposed to be designated as Night Hawk
Lane. Currently, a street in Edwards River Village is named Night Hawk. The potential for confusion
on the part of emergency response crews (including fire, law enforcement and emergency medical
personnel) is significant when duplicate street names exist. The Applicant should be required to avoid
duplication of any road names within the development with any other road or street names within Eagle
County. [Condition # 8]
[*] Roads. - A number of questions, comments and requested changes have been made by the
Eagle County Engineering Department. As of the writing of this staff report, those points have not been
addressed by the Applicant. The Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of the final
plat for each phase of the development, complete engineering and construction drawings which are
satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 17]
A relocation of a portion of Bellyache Ridge Road was approved in the Special Use Permit
(Jouflas Ranch Golf Course, Eagle County File No. ZS-00032). Construction of the relocated portion of
that road is underway. The intent is that the Applicant is to construct the new road and dedicate it and an
80 foot right-of-way to Eagle County and submit an application to vacate the existing right-of-way. As a
condition of approval of this Preliminary Plan, the Applicant should be required to satisfy all outstanding
conditions of the associated PUD Sketch Plan (File No. PDS-00017) [Condition # 23] and should be
required to satisfy all outstanding conditions of the associated the Special Use Permit (File No. ZS-
00032). [Condition #24]
* With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
Additional discussion - In discussions between the Applicant and Staff subsequent to the
September 18, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, certain ofthe conditions of approval ofthe
Special Use Permit (File No. ZS-00032) and the PUD Sketch Plan (File No. PDS-00017) were
determined to have been satisfied and no longer pertinent to this application. See the Staff
Recommendation, below.
[+] Proximity to Schools - School age children in the development will attend schools in other
areas of the valley. Although some distances will be involved, there is reasonable proximity to schools.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services.-
Law enforcement - The development will be served by the Eagle County Sheriff.
Fire protection - The development will likely be served from a fire station as far away as the
Town of Avon, depending on the formation and operation ofthe Eagle River Fire Protection District.
Emergency medical services - The development will be served by the Eagle County Ambulance
District.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
With the specified conditions, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed
in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage
disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and WILL be conveniently
located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards
applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards.
Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development
achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms
of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum
33
10-24-2000
design principles are followed:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access
to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be
by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No
roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of
the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for
that functional classification of roadway.
(b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and
convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages
off-site.
(c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to
all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as
applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services
and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for
smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts
a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots,
units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected
with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to
maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal
street network and from off-street parking areas.
[*] Safe, Efficient Access - As noted above, certain questions, comments and requested changes
have been made by the Eagle County Engineering Department. As of the writing of this staff report,
those points have not been addressed by the Applicant. The County Engineer noted a number of
questions and concerns, including but not limited to[l] the absence of a Signing and Striping Plan, [2]
the absence of a street lighting plan, [3] sight distances at certain intersections, [4] location of guardrails,
[5] the proposal for certain islands within the right of way, and [6] the need for certain variances.
The Applicant should be required to meet all of the roadway standards of the Land Use
Regulations (Section 4-620, Roadway Standards), or as an alternative, receive prior to approval of this
preliminary plan necessary variances in accordance with Section 5-260.G., Variance from Improvement
Standards. [Condition # 9]
In addition, the Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of the final plat for
each phase of the development, complete engineering and construction drawings which are satisfactory
to the County Engineer. [Condition # 17]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Internal Pathways - Certain trails and paths have been proposed in this Preliminary Plan,
which are similar to those reflected in the approved Sketch Plan. A significant feature of the trail along
nearly the full length of Bellyache Ridge Road that was anticipated in the approved Sketch Plan, but
which is not explicitly reflected in this Preliminary Plan, is that the trail as shown on the Trails Plan
(Figure 5) be a public access trail. The Applicant should be required to grant, prior to the Applicant's
dedication of the right-of-way for the relocated Bellyache Ridge Road, a public access easement to
include all that portion of the proposed trail along Bellyache Ridge Road which is not within the right-
of-way. [Condition # 10]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a qualified favorable finding.
[*] Emergency Vehicles - The Avon Fire Department has indicated it has reviewed the plans for
the proposed development and determined that both access and water supply are acceptable. The
Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, prior to the
approval of each final plat for the development, that adequate access easements have been granted for
34
10-24-2000
emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for
the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
[Condition # 20b]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a qualified favorable finding.
[*] Principal Access Points - A number of questions, comments and requested changes have
been made by the Eagle County Engineering Department. As of the writing of this staff report, those
points have not been addressed by the Applicant. The Applicant should be required to provide, prior to
approval of the final plat for each phase of the development, complete engineering and construction
drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 17]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Snow Storage - Planning for the development has not progressed to the point at which the
adequacy of snow storage can be determined. Snow storage along internal roads will largely dependent
on the width of the rights-of-way. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the County Engineer, prior to approval of the final plat for each phase of the development, that adequate
right-of-way exists for snow storage along all internal roads. [Condition # 20c]
Adequacy of snow storage for off-street parking areas may best be determine when the Detailed
Landscape Plan is approved for each non-residential site, plus the caretakers homesite, within the PUD.
See the Standard for Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)), above. The Applicant should be
required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval
of a building permit for each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers homesite), that
adequate snow storage for off-street parking areas is provided in accordance with Section 4-140.K.,
Snow Storage, of the Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 11]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
With the specified conditions, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the improvements standards
applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards
regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Internal Pathways.
( c) Emergency Vehicles
(d) Principal Access Points.
(e) Snow Storage.
STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The
development proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
To the east ofthe site of the proposed Red Sky Ranch PUD is the Wolcott Springs Subdivision
(zoned Resource and Agricultural Residential) which consists of a number of 35 acre single family lots.
To the south, much of the area is zoned Agricultural Residential, which permits residential development
on lots as small as 10 acres. Further south is the Bellyache Ridge Subdivision, zoned Rural Residential,
which includes residential development on lots as small as 2 acres. The areas to the west and north (the
latter lying between this site and Interstate 70) are zoned Resource. Ranching occurs in these areas. To
the north of 1-70 is the area generally referred to as the Wolcott Community Center.
The overall density of Red Sky Ranch would be approximately 9 acres per dwelling unit, with the
residential development being somewhat clustered throughout the development, and with two golf
courses and other open space running through the development. Given the relative densities and
locations of the existing and proposed uses, it may be found that the proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding land uses. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land
35
10-24-2000
uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be
consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FILUM).
The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual
level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves
from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master
plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER
THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.
Affordable Housin~. Development proposes a limited amount of affordable housing. It is
generally proposed to be located close to jobs, but not close to public transportation.
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is generally consistent
with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map.
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is generally consistent
with the Wolcott Area Community Plan.
36
10-24-2000
II.. ./NIi*E!o .................................................1
C6nf!irmailee . ...
II
~
x
x
Develovment Patterns. The proposed development is not in and around an existing community,
but the development of the Wolcott community center is contemplated in the Master Plan and the Future
Land Use Map.
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is generally consistent
with the Eagle County Open Space Plan.
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is generally consistent
with the Eagle River Watershed Plan.
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There
should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior
citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are:
Housing is a community-wide issue
Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the
Eagle County master plan. . .
Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes
Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of
government, there will be only limited success
It is important to preserve existing local residents housing
Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the
county
Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should
be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are
evaluated for other infrastructure needs
POLICIES:
ITEM
I YES I NO I N/A I
1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit
organizations to develop housing for local residents
37
10-24-2000
ITEM
I YES I NO I N/A I
2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to
address in collaboration with the municipalities. . .
3.
Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local
residents and workers in Eagle County
Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be
brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income
equivalent to or less than one average wage job
Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed.
It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . .
New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for
local residents
x
x
4.
x
5.
x
6.
7.
Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating
increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first
preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the
nearest existing community center . . .
x
8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in
proximity to community centers
9.
Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged
x
10.
Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock
x
11.
There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect
local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where
public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should
generally be limits on price appreciation. as well as residency
requirements
x
12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing
issue
With recommended conditions of approval, the proposed development is generally consistent
with the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan.
[+] 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 (FILUM).
STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include
a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then
guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable
for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall
be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as
is reasonable.
The Applicant has proposed that the development occur in two phases. The first phase would be
the east golf course and the associated 67 residential homesites, currently being developed pursuant to
the Special Use Permit for the Jouflas Ranch Golf Course approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in October 1998. The second phase would be the west golf course and associated 20
residential homesites in the western portion of the property. The Applicant will be required, prior to
approval of the initial final plat, to detail the public improvements associated with the development and
provide appropriate guarantees, as required in Section 5-240, Planned Unit Development (PUD) District.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
38
10-24-2000
A general phasing plan HAS been provided for this development. Appropriate guarantees for
public improvements WILL be required prior to approval of the initial final plat.
STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD
shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be
devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every
one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of
residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three
hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle
County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan.
Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-
ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space.
Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat
areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use
Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when
they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be
conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be
shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the
development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD.
Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any
common open space.
Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an
association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and
recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the
maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly
owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land The association or nonprofit corporation
shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association
or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
The requirement for common recreation and open space is 195 acres (780 acres X .25) plus 2.3
acres (87 dwelling units X 2.63 persons per unit / (10 /1000)), for a total of 197.3 acres. The Applicant
represents that over 70 percent of the 780 acre site (546 acres) will remain in native vegetation and open
space, although there is no specific delineation of how the identified open space conforms to the
corresponding definition in the Land Use Regulations. On the other hand, the east golf course will
consist of 245 acres and the west golf course will consist of at least 115 acres, for a total of 360 acres. In
addition, other designated open space areas are proposed, although the total area is not clearly specified.
Consequently, the minimum area requirement will be satisfied.
The Applicant proposes that the development consist of two phases, one around each of the
respective golf courses. Assurances have been provided by the Applicant that the proposed common
recreation and open spaces will be developed as shown on the Preliminary Plan (Figure 4). It appears
that the improvements requirement will be satisfied.
Given the nature of the proposed development, it is implied that provisions will be made for the
continuing use and maintenance of the common recreation and open spaces, as proposed. However, the
Applicant has not clearly specified how, and by what entity, that will be accomplished. The Applicant
39
10-24-2000
should be required to provide, prior to approval of each final plat, information and documentation to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that all proposed common recreation and open
spaces will continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD, and to
ensure its on-going maintenance in accordance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations.
[Condition # 12]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
With the specified condition, the PUD DOES comply with the common recreation and open
space standards with respect to:
Minimum area;
Improvements required;
Continuing use and maintenance; or
Organization.
STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall
consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the
recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection
Standards.
Based on the information provided in the application and referral responses, Staff makes a
favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been
considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the
review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FILUM of the Master Plan.
See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(FILUM).
STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The
proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of
these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
Article 3, Zone Districts
For the most part, the proposed subdivision appears to be in compliance with the applicable
standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, with certain exceptions. As noted above, certain uses which are
not allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the applicable sections of the Land
Use Regulations include [a] interval ownership, [b] temporary sales facility, and in the AR zoned
district, and [c] rural recreational facility. Variations will be required.
Dimensional limitations for the existing zone district which differ from the provisions of this
Article include [1] building height (40 feet in the PUD Golf Course zone district compared to 35 feet in
the Agricultural Residential zone districts) and [2] certain setbacks (zero on Lots 24 - 50 compared to
setbacks of up to 25 feet in the R and AR zone districts). Variations will also be required in these
instances.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
40
10-24-2000
[*]Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
The applicant proposes to provide a minimum of 3 parking spaces for each residence, apparently
meaning each primary residence. This is consistent with the requirements of Section 4-120, Number of
Required Parking and Loading Spaces. However, permitted uses include accessory dwelling units. No
provision has been made for parking for residents of the accessory dwelling units, as required in Section
3-310.AA., Parking for Accessory Dwelling Units, which requires one space for a studio or one-
bedroom unit or two spaces for a unit with two or more bedrooms. The Applicant should be required to
revise the PUD Guide to be at least as restrictive as the applicable provisions of the Land Use
Regulations with respect to the number of parking spaces for primary and secondary dwelling units.
[Condition # 13]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
See the discussion above regarding Landscaping [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)].
As recommended above, the Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of a final
plat for each respective area ofthe PUD, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A.,
Landscape Plan Required, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the
Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division
4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant.
[Condition # 4]
Further, the Applicant should be required to provide, prior to approval of a building permit for
each non-residential site within the PUD (plus the caretakers homesite), a Detailed Landscape Plan, as
provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, for that site, which the Director of Community
Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use
Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted by the Applicant. [Condition # 5]
The Application does not appear to address illumination standards in a manner comparable to
Section 4-250, Illumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. This Section provides standards for
controlling illumination to prevent intense glare or direct illumination that would create a nuisance,
detract from the use or enjoyment of adjoining property or cause traffic hazards to motorists. The
Applicant should be required to amend the PUD Guide so that the PUD is subject to Section 4-250,
Illumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 6]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
See the discussion above regarding Signs [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]. As noted, the Applicant
should be required to provide in the Comprehensive Sign Plan that all provisions of Division 4-3, Sign
Regulations, of the Land Use Regulations shall be applicable unless specifically superceded by the sign
provisions ofthe PUD Guide. [Condition # 7]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[*] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) provided
referral comments at the Sketch Plan review for this development regarding such issues as when golf
course maintenance may occur, the location of building envelopes and homesites, fencing, and the
funding of wildlife mitigation measures. To one degree or another, many ofthe suggestions have been
reflected in this Preliminary Plan. Given the stage of the review of this proposed development, the lack
of response by the Applicant that is most troublesome is related to the CDOW suggestion that the Red
Sky Ranch Wildllft Mitigation and Enhancement Plan go into effect "only upon Eagle County approval
andfull development ofthe Red Sky Ranch PUD." (Emphasis added) See Section 4.0 Additional
Comments, on page 19 of Appendix G of the application.
The necessity for an effective Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will be from the
41
10-24-2000
beginning of the development, rather than at completion, assuming it is ever fully developed. Many of
the provisions of the Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan will be critical during the build-out of
the development. The Applicant should be required to revise the Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan to reflect that it will be effective in its entirety no later than the approval of the first
final plat for this development. [Condition # 14]
Additional discussion - On September 20, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission
approved the following amended Condition #16:
Revise the Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan to reflect that it will be
effictive immediately upon Preliminary Plan approvalfor the portion of the property east ofGld
Faithful Ridge and, for the portion of the property west of Old Faithful Ridge, upon the approval of the
first final plat for that area.
Staff concurs.
The Applicant reports that it is the policy of CDOW that it will no longer be a signatory to
Wildlife Mitigation Agreements. Whether executed as a contract between the Applicant and CDOW or
regarded simply as a Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the Red Sky Ranch pun, the
Applicant should be required to attach the approved Red Sky Ranch Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan to the PUD Guide and record it as a part of the Board Resolution approving this PUD
Preliminary Plan. [Condition # 15]
* With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The site has been identified early on as one in which a
significant risk of landslides is present. Conditions of approval for both the Special Use Permit (File No.
ZS-00032) and the PUD Sketch Plan (File No. PDS-00017) have addressed the need for certain geologic
studies and continuing geologic and geotechnical characterization of the "zone of influence" identified
for the site.
Testing is required to continue for as long as five years from November 1998. However, the
results of testing to date have been provided with this application. The County Engineer has not yet
commented on the adequacy or the results of the geologic studies and/or geotechnical analyses, nor has
the Colorado Geological Society completed its review. The Applicant should be required demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD that
required geologic testing has been completed in a satisfactory manner and that the proposed
development may proceed without undue risk of geologic hazards, or that appropriate mitigation has or
will be provided. [Condition # 20d]
Conditions No.2 ("Zone ofInfluence" Geologic and Geotechnical Studies), No.3 (Other
Geotechnical Studies), No.4 (Water Management Plan), No.5 (Golf Course Management and
Monitoring Plan), No.6 (Final Routing Plan) and No.8 (Site Specific Plans) of the Special Use Permit
for Red Sky Ranch (Eagle County File No. ZS-00032; Board Resolution No. 98-141), and Conditions
No.1 (Continued Geologic and Geotechnical Studies), and No.3 (Golf Course Component
Requirements) of the PUD Sketch Plan (Eagle County File No. PDS-00017; Board Resolution No. 2000-
47) specifically address these geologic considerations.
Given the nature of the concerns regarding geologic hazards, the Applicant should be required to
continue to be subject to all of the conditions of approval of for both the Special Use Permit (File No.
ZS-00032) and the PUD Sketch Plan (File No. PDS-00017) after approval of this Preliminary Plan.
[Conditions # 23 and # 24]
* With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Avon Fire Department has indicated it has
reviewed the plans for the proposed development and determined that both access and water supply are
acceptable. In addition, the applicant has indicated in the PUD Guide that all habitable structures will be
sprinkled and have installed and maintained a central alarm system with 24-hour monitoring.
42
10-24-2000
However, the Colorado State Forest Service has reviewed the proposed development and
provided a number of suggestions intended to reduce the wildfire hazard. The suggestions include [1]
implementing defensible space practices around all structures, [2] locating building envelopes outside of
and at least 200 feet from the top of the steep slope that bisects the center of the subdivision, [3]
relocating dead end roads longer than 750 feet to loop back to Bellyache Ridge Road or provide
adequate turnarounds every 750 feet, [4] providing fire truck drafting sites at large ponds, [5] disposing
of all slash resulting from right-of~way clearing and construction, [6] designing driveways to meet
specified minimum standards, and [7] requiring fire resistant roofing material to be used in building
construction. The Applicant should be required to adhere to the suggestions of the Colorado State Forest
Service (Letter dated August 25, 2000) to reduce the wildfire hazard. [Condition # 16]
Additional discussion - On September 20, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission
approved the following amended Condition #18:
Adhere to the suggestions of the Colorado State Forest Service (Letter dated August 25,2000)
to reduce the wildfire hazard, with the following exceptions: The applicant shall consult with the
Colorado State Forest Service and the Avon Fire Department to determine appropriate locations and
design for emergency turnarounds and for specific driveway designs and these shall be indicated
upon the Final Plat and be submitted to the County Engineer for review and approval prior to Final
Plat.
Staff concurs.
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The PUD Guide is silent with respect to wood
burning controls. Consequently, the PVD will be required to be subject to the provisions of Section 4-
440.C.4., Maximum Number of Wood Burning Devices in New Structures in an Approved PUD. Staff
makes a favorable finding.
[*] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The applicant has provided a series of eight
, photographs depicting views from 1-70 toward the proposed development, with simulated structures
added. The simulations indicate that structures will result in little or no penetration above the ridge line.
The Applicant acknowledges that the accuracy of the simulation is 2 to 5 feet, and indicates that
additional field testing will be continuing throughout the application review period. Height restrictions
on certain lots may be necessary. The Applicant should be required to confirm to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development, prior to approval of each final plat, that no penetration above the
ridge line, as viewed from 1-70, will occur, or to propose appropriate lot-specific height restrictions to
preclude any such penetration. [Condition # 19c]
The simulations also indicate that buildings will be of generally earth tone colors, with roofs
being dull, rather thall bright, colors. However, the Applicant has not specifically indicated that this will
be the case. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development, prior to approval of each final plat for this PUD, that exterior colors of
buildings, including roofs, will be compatible with the natural characteristics of the site. [Condition #
19d]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] E1-vironmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - Staffhas determined that the Applicant has
satisfied tht>requirements of this Section regarding an Environmental Impact Report.
[n/.t] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
OVen the nature of the proposed development, the standards of this division are largely not
applicaHe. To the extent the standards are available, the Applicant will be required to comply with the
provisbns of Division 4-5.
[*] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[*] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - A number of questions, comments and requested
charges have been made by the Eagle County Engineering Department. As of the writing of this staff
43
10-24-2000
report, those points have not been addressed by the Applicant. The Applicant should be required to
provide, prior to approval of the final plat for each phase of the development, complete engineering and
construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 17]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - This Section provides that trails contained
within a subdivision and for the exclusive use of its residents are to be designed in accordance with the
standards also provided in this Section, with the t>,xception that the width of paths may be reduced if it is
determined that, with a combination of trails and attached sidewalks, adequate pedestrian facilities will
be provided. The determination was made during t!:l~ review of the Sketch Plan application that trails
which differ from the standards of this Section were appropriate for this development. The Applicant
should be required to conform to the standards of Section 4-630, Sidewalk and Trail Standards or as an
alternative, obtain a variance pursuant to Section 5-260.G., Variance from Improvement Standards.
[Condition # 18]
* With the recommended condition, Staff mak~s a favorable finding.
[*] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The Applicant has submitted information in
the application regarding irrigation system standards, ind\'ding a Water Management Plan for the site
(See Appendix B - Water Management Plan: Red Sky Ratl\~h). Related considerations are discussed
under Geologic Hazards above. However, the County Engi\'eer has not provided a complete evaluation
of what is being proposed. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat fl'r this PlJD that all requirements of the
Land Use Regulations with respect to irrigation system standard, will be satisfied. [Condition # 20e]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favora~le finding.
[*] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The referral res~mse of the County Engineer does not
indicate conclusively that the Applicant will fully satisfy the requirements of the Land Use Regulations
in this regard. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to 11\, satisfaction of the County
Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD tha~all requirements of the Land Use
Regulations with respect to drainage standards will be satisfied. [Conli:tion # 20e]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable findi~g.
[*] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - This application has been referred
to the Eagle County Engineer and to the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS). Additional information
has recently been provided to CGS and the response is not available at the tin\~ this Staff Report is being
prepared. Comments of the County Engineer to date do not indicate conclusivt',1y that the Applicant will
fully satisfy the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in this regard. The A~'plicant should be
required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than t~ approval of each
final plat for this PUD that all requirements of the Land Use Regulations with resp~~t to grading and
erosion control standards will be satisfied. [Condition # 20e]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The referral response oftht County
Engineer does not indicate conclusively that the Applicant will fully satisfy the requirenl.~nts of the Land
Use Regulations in this regard. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to the ~isfaction of
the County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD that all requl'ements of
the Land Use Regulations with respect to utility and lighting standards will be satisfied. [~')ndition #
20e]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - The Applicant proposes a water treatmentfacility
on-site. The water for all uses within the development is to be pumped from the Eagle River and
initially stored in a pond near the northeast corner of the site. A portion of this water is to pumpe~ to the
water treatment and then distributed throughout the development. The pond will also be the sourCt of
non-potable water for irrigation.
44
10-24-2000
Final plans for this development are required to contain a design of the system at an engineering
level sufficiently detailed to permit cost estimates. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than the approval of each final plat for this PUD that all
requirements of the Land Use Regulations with respect to water supply standards will be satisfied.
[Condition # 20e]
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Wastewater will be treated in
individually engineer-designed septic systems located on-site. The Applicant maintains that soil
conditions are such that use such systems is feasible. However, questions remain regarding locations of
individual septic systems that will not contribute to potential soil instabilities. The Colorado Geological
Survey has not completed its response in this regard. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD
that all requirements of the Land Use Regulations with respect to sanitary sewage disposal standards will
be satisfied. [Condition # 20e]
Given the nature of the concerns regarding geologic hazards, the Applicant should be required to
continue to be subject to all of the conditions of approval of for both the Special Use Permit (File No.
ZS-00032) and the PUD Sketch Plan (File No.PDS-00017) after approval of this Preliminary Plan.
[Conditions # 23 and # 24]
Additional discussion - On September 20, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission
approved the following amended Condition #23:
Satisfy all outstanding applicable conditions of the associated the Special Use Permit (File No.
ZS-00032 / Board Resolution No. 98-141).
And the following amended Condition #24:
Satisfy all outstanding applicable conditions of the associated PUD Sketch Plan (File No.
PDS-00017 / Board Resolution No. 2000-47).
Staff concurs.
* With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[*] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
Section 4-700, School Land Dedication Standards, requires that dedication of land for school
sites, or alternatively, cash-in-lieu of land, be made at the time of approval of a final plat. It appears that
the intent ofthe Applicant is to make a payment of cash-in-lieu of a land dedication. However, the
Applicant has not provided input from the School District what it might prefer. The Applicant should be
required. no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD, to provide a response from the
School District regarding its preference for a land dedication or a payment of cash-in-lieu, and to make a
dedication or cash payment which satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Regulations with respect to
school land dedication standards. [Condition # 21]
In addition, it has been the practice of Eagle County to receive payment for off-site road impacts
which can reasonably be expected as a result of new residential development. The amount has
customarily been in the amount of$l,OOO per residential unit. The Applicant should be required to
provide, no later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD, a payment for off-site road impacts
in the amount of $1 ,000 per residential unit, or some other amount which may be determined by the
Board of County Commissioners. [Condition # 22]
* With the recommended condition, Staff concurs and makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
With the specified conditions, the proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards
of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the
applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed
45
10-24-2000
subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in
the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or
result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's
service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed
road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Imvrovements Plan.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(e) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
There will be no extension of water and wastewater treatment facilities as a result of this
development. Other service providers have indicated an ability and willingness to serve this
development. In addition, no road extensions are contemplated that would be inconsistent with the
Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed
to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources
and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and
existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
Certain potential problems have been identified with respect to geologic stability within the site.
It appears that appropriate measures can be taken which will sufficiently mitigate the potential hazards.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] 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.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
To the east of the site of the proposed Red Sky Ranch PUD is the Wolcott Springs Subdivision
(zoned Resource and Agricultural Residential), which consists of a number of 35 acre single family lots. .
To the south, much ofthe area is zoned Agricultural Residential, which permits residential development
on lots as small as 10 acres. Further south is the Bellyache Ridge Subdivision, zoned Rural Residential,
which includes residential development on lots as small as 2 acres. The areas to the west and north (the
latter lying between this site and Interstate 70) are zoned Resource. Ranching occurs in these areas. To
the north ofI-70 is the area generally referred to as the Wolcott Community Center.
The overall density of Red Sky Ranch would be approximately 9 acres per dwelling unit, with the
residential development being somewhat clustered throughout the development, and with two golf
courses and other open space running through the development. Given the relative densities and
locations of the existing and proposed uses, it may be found that the proposed use is compatible with the
surrounding land uses. No adverse impact on the future development of the surrounding area is
expected. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
46
10-24-2000
WILL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant
shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD Guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions."
The conditions of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan for this development required that certain
provision be incorporated, including [1] restrictions on the size ofthe club house buildings, [2]
applicability of the Wildlife Mitigation Plan, [3] terms and conditions of public play on the golf courses, ,
[4] individual lot site disturbance, and [5] a requirement for sprinkling/central alarm systems. All have
been addressed in the PUD Guide or elsewhere in the Preliminary Plan.
Another requirement is to set forth [1] the site-specific location and description of two housing
units and [2] the allocation of a specific number of off-site seasonal "employee housing" units in other
Vail Associates "employee housing" projects. Although the first part of this condition has not been
fully satisfied in this Preliminary Plan, the Applicant has identified certain options for locations of the
required units, and has proposed that the specific locations be determined within six months of the final
plat for Red Sky Ranch. See Section 6.14, HOUSING, in the proposed PUD Guide.
Since the proposed provisions would be included in the PUD Guide and would be enforceable as
zoning requirements, Staff is willing to delay the designations of the site-specific locations and of the
allocation of other employee housing units. However, the Applicant should be required to designate the
site specific locations of the on-site housing units no later than six months after the approval of the first
final plat for this PUD, and to designate in writing the off-site housing units for seasonal employees no
later than the approval of the first final plat for this PUD; and to notify the Director of Community
Development within 30 days of any change in the designated off-site housing units. [Condition # 25]
The Applicant is also required under a condition of the approved PUD Sketch Plan (Eagle
County File No. PDS-00017; Board Resolution 2000-47) to submit terms and conditions of any
"affordable housing" plan with this Preliminary Plan. The Applicant has provided a proposal (See Letter
in this regard dated May 3, 2000, in Appendix I of the application) by which it would [1] set forth (a) the'
site-specific location and description of two housing units and (b) the allocation of a specific number of
off-site seasonal "employee housing" units in other Vail Associates "employee housing" projects, as
noted above, [2] guarantee to cause to be developed four new affordable housing units within Eagle
County within five years or pay a monetary sum, and [3] permit up to 40 caretaker units on the larger
lots east of Old Faithful Ridge.
Staff finds the proposed affordable housing plan acceptable, but sees a need for clarification of
what constitutes an "affordable housing unit" for the purpose of the units to be developed (e.g., size and
amenities, sales price, continued affordability), and of an "affordable home" for the purposes of
determining the amount of any cash payment at the end of a five year time period (e.g., minimum
payment). The Applicant should be required to revise the proposed affordable housing plan to the
satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners to be more specific about what constitutes an
"affordable housing unit" and how any cash payment at the end of a five year time period might be
calculated, and provide a revised copy to be recorded with the Board Resolution approving this PUD
Preliminary Plan. [Condition # 26]
With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
Termination of Special Use Permit (Eagle County File No. ZS-00032)
Notwithstanding the continuing applicability and obligation on the part of the Applicant to
adhere to and fulfil the conditions of the Special Use Permit previously approved per Board Resolution
No. 98-141, said Special Use Permit should terminate at the time the Preliminary Plan for this PUD is
approved. [Condition # 27]
[+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)]
Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions.
47
10-24-2000
Requirements for a Zone Chan~e In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map
incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of
County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other
available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this section of the Land Use
Regulations:
Consistencv With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD IS
consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FILUM of the Master Plan.
Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it IS an
appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the
proposed zone district.
Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the
present zone district and/or its density/intensity.
Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment DOES NOT result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current
zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat,
vegetation, and wetlands.
Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
community need.
Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, DOES logically be provided with necessary
public facilities and services.
Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed or IS
changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Peter Jamar representing the applicant, stated both the planning staff and applicant are in
agreement with the conditions of approval. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval as has staff. He stated one thing that is significant is that there is only one adjoining property
owner here today as they have worked diligently to satisfy all concerns.
Mr. Jamar stated they are proposing one dwelling unit per ten acres which is consistent with the
Wolcott area. He stated that golf is clearly the driving force and they looked to meet the unmet demand
for overnight visitors and seasonal residents. He spoke to the physical layout and that only 3% ofthe
700 acres is occupied by very defined building envelopes. 70% is open space. He explained the ridge
with 67 lots being east of the ridge and 20 to the west. He reminded them that through the sketch plan
process significant changes have been made. He showed those lots on the map that were eliminated due
to conflicts with the Division of Wildlife. The lot sizes range from a 1 to 3 acre average with larger
acreage on the Plath property. They have worked hard to cluster the development. He stated one of the
key features is the issue of central water service as opposed to individual wells. He stated another
significant issue is staff s recommendation they add forty secondary or caretaker units east of the ridge.
That has been done in response to also providing a locals housing component. Staff is recommending
approval as has the Planning Commission. He would be happy to entertain questions.
Commissioner Phillips asked why staff recommended accessory units and asks if that causes
problems.
Mr. Jamar stated a fair amount of these sites will end up being second homes and the approach to
affordable housing is a menu approach. This is one piece of the puzzle to integrate people into the high
end residential areas.
Commissioner Phillips asked about the size of an accessory unit.
Mr. Jamar stated they will be included within the building envelopes. Architecturally they may
48
10-24-2000
try to separate some of those. He stated they wouldn't exceed 1,500 square feet which would be on the
large size. He asked if there were any more questions.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they propose the accessory units as compliance with the
housing requirements.
Mr. Jamar stated they have employee housing and then they have the County's housing policy
that speaks to affordable housing. Mr. Jamar suggested the forty caretaker units be in response to the
affordable housing. He stated they are also looking at 11 dedicated affordable housing units.
Chairman Stone stated the normal course of business is for them to take public comment. He
asked if there is anyone who would like to comment.
Paula Dennison, 0117 Wolcott Springs Road, stated she became concerned when thirty survey
stakes appeared on her property. She stated she has concern with the utilities being placed on her
property. She is concerned about the destruction as any homeowner would be. She would ask that her
stretch of 37 acres would not be impacted so greatly. Rather than having the utilities on both sides of the
road, she would recommend them on one side. She stated Vail Resorts stated they would be happy to do
that but the County requires the utilities be on both sides.
Commissioner Gallagher asked whether they had permission to enter her property.
Ms. Dennison stated no one asked but she was informed Bellyache Road was a collector.
Kent Crane, Alpine Engineering, apologized and said an error was made that the stakes were
placed in an then off set. He stated the water line itself goes in the established right of way of Bellyache
Ridge Road and not on the Dennison's property.
Chairman Stone asked they show the more detailed plans and where the dedicated easement is.
He stated he would like to research and discuss what might be done to not disturb old growth trees.
Mr. Crane showed a copy of the water system plans and the Bellyache Ridge right of way. He
stated they can take the opportunity to push that over a bit.
Chairman Stone stated he can understand the desire to separate water from sewer lines.
,Mr. Merry stated there are state requirements but there is leeway on the setbacks.
Mr. Crane stated they have several different utilities but there are no sewer lines. He stated they
will revisit what can be accomplished there.
Chairman Stone asked they come back with an alternative option before the end of the hearing be
it today or the next time the file is heard.
Chairman Stone asked to continue on with the affordable housing proposal.
Mark Thorne, Vail Resorts Development Company, spoke to a letter to Jean Garren of May 13,
2000. He summarized they agreed to allow up to forty caretaker units on the east side of Bellyache
Ridge. In addition they are asked to find employee housing. They have allowed up to two employee
housing units on site with a detached single family home unit and a unit near the main entry.
Chairman Stone asked how many employees would this accommodate.
Mr. Thome stated as few as two or possibly higher.
Chairman Stone asked how may employees will be employed.
Mr. Thorne stated at peak season it will be sixty to seventy employees. He stated they will also
commit to five additional units off site.
Chairman Stone asked about the for sales units.
Mr. Thorne stated this will be off site and the intent is to build four of those units in five years.
He explained they will use the area medium income and taking 75%, multiplying that.
Chairman Stone questioned if Vail Resorts Development will subsidize this down to a particular
level. He asked if there is any idea to the number of bedrooms or size to these units and wants to know
what can be purchased today.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to provide some specificity so they can achieve this goal
and actually getting a for sale unit that somebody would like to own.
Commissioner Gallagher asked again for the categories.
49
10-24-2000
Mr. Thorne stated they have off site for sale for four units. On site employee units, owned or
leased, off site leased five units and forty caretaker units.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how they will maintain the financial affordability.
Mr. Jamar stated in their experience it has been that maybe a third or half of these homes will be
constructed as secondary caretaker units. He stated they are responding to the County's request. They
would have done them on all the lots. It is one piece of the puzzle to allow local people to live in
another type of atmosphere.
Commissioner Gallagher questioned if they can guarantee affordability.
Mr. Thorne stated they lumped all of their housing together.
Chairman Stone asked for further suggestions about assurance
Chairman Stone stated the Board has another meeting.:o attend at this time.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to continue this file and the Variance to Tuesday, October 31 st at
11 :00 a.m.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Bt);ud the meeting was adjourned until
October 30, 2000.
~~~
Chairman
Attest:
Clerk to the Boar
50
10-24-2000