Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.02 BOCC Meeting Minutes 11.13.2007q ro X17 ZIP 4-L NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO BUILDING AND PLANNING - CONSIDER A PRELIMINAY PLAN APPLICATION AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD. APPLICANT IS SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC. — FRED JARMAN Fred Jarman. Jim Lochhead, Mr. Tom Gray, GM for Spring Valley Holdings, Rick Kelley from Gamba and Associates and Carolyn Dahlgren were present. Carolyn reviewed the noticing requirements for the public hearing and determined they were timely and accurate. She advised the Board they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin stated he needs more time to review the application and submittals and would like to request the Board postpone this until the 6th of December and put this in the form of a motion. Applicant Tom Gray — no objections — did provide a lot of information and went back to ` ground zero and this is different from the prior approval. Chairman Martin showed the four (4) notebooks full of information. Commissioner Houpt seconded the motion. Applicant is willing to postpone. A date of December 7th — 9:00 a.m. was agreed to by the Commissioners and the _ applicant. Chairman Martin and Commissioner amended first and second. In favor: Houpt — aye; McCown — aye; Martin — aye This is a continued meeting. �►•� The Board requested the Clerk put something in the paper and the applicant should contact all of the neighbors that it would be continued. CThey will send notices to the neighbors of the date certain. Rick — as you review this, if you have questions, please pass those on the Fred and he will pass them onto Rick. v DECEMBER 7, 2007 PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SPECIAL MEETING GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO � C ,N) The special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 9:00 A.M. on Friday, December 7, 2007 with Chairman John Martin and Commissioners Tresi Houpt and Larry McCown present. Also present was Don DeFord, County Attorney and Jean Alberico Clerk & Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Martin called the meeting to order at 9:00 A.M., this is a continuance from November 13, 2007. BUILDING AND PLANNING - CONSIDER A PRELIMINAY PLAN APPLICATION AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH PUD. APPLICANT IS SPRING VALLEY HOLDINGS, LLC. — FRED JARMAN Fred Jarman, Jim Lochhead, Tom Gray, General Manager for Spring Valley Holdings, Mike Gamba and Bill Lorah were present. Noticing had been accomplished at the last meeting, November 13, 2007. Tom Gray — General Manager Spring Valley Ranch, to my right Jim Lochhead and Mike Gamba on my left. Why did we file an amendment at all? We already had existing approval and it is really because we believe that we could create a far better community and reduce the impacts of the existing project. He gave a slide presentation. Based upon the golf course and the road alignments we've reduced environmental disturbance; basically the grading by 35%. We have cut back the water use by about 41% and we have reduced traffic by about 26%. We believe that through our wildfire management and fuel management programs it will decrease the wildfire risk in the area. We moved the village up into the community. That will also be available to our neighbors in the area if they want to come up and use the convenient shopping. We have increased diversity in the housing product and price points on the project and we have reduced the market rate density. Important issue here is the operating costs because after the developer finishes the owner has to start paying for things. By reducing the golf course, centralizing the village, consolidating the Metro district (at the bottom of the hill), and we have also created some on-site employee rental housing. We will make temporary improvements to County Road 114 to mitigate construction traffic. We will also repair the pot holes, and we are still planning on paving County Road 115. We have moved the fire station up into the center of the property to coordinate to the metro district and also with the volunteer staff that will support the full time staff. We are building about 104 residences from about 1,200 square feet to 3,500 square feet. We are trying to create a diversity of the housing stock in addition to the custom lot product that people build on themselves. In Phase I we would be dedicating the 800 acres of Spring Valley Meadow as permanent open space. We have dedicated public trails within the Meadow. The Meadow to us is the iconic image of Spring Valley. On the property we will have monthly guided nature hikes and walks, there will be a semi -private equestrian center where one can rent a stall and about 100 scheduled golf course tee -times for local residents per month. He displayed the zoning map and pointed out the main thing the map shows, which is the various zoning districts that have been organized together in the clusters rather than scattered. He showed where building envelopes were located and talked about a number of phases up in the mountain district that is relatively small. The purpose of that is they have a very difficult infrastructure cost in that area. They have no idea how fast these lots would absorb and they created the number of phases so that they wouldn't have a tremendous front end low trying to develop 20 lots. That would mean extending a lot of utilities and roads prior to sale. Jim Lochhead said he would venture to say this is the most studied water system that has come before you. Everything has been found both in the physical and legal stand point to be adequate both in the State and from the consultant's reports. In terms of physical water supply, the water supply comes from three basic different sources. The project does own all of the senior water rights in the Spring Valley area. There is an existing agricultural system in place that irrigates both the middle bench and the meadow area. Previous plan was not to irrigate the meadow however, they would like to continue to irrigate the meadow. There will also be wells located in the middle bench area and we will have wells in the bottom area. There is a diverse source of supply for water that I think mitigates some of the concerns that are there. Gamba and Associates did a hydro geologic study of the water supply in the area. That study was peer reviewed by HDR Water Consultants. A water balance analysis was done for the entire system. Basically I'm not aware of any piece of evidence that is in the record that would indicate anything other than there is an actual water supply for this project. Just in the last few days we have received a number of well permits from the State that takes care of that issue. For the record I want to mention those and put into the records. We have two monitoring well permits, permits for well ASR 13 which is 100 gallons a minute, ASR 14 which is 100 gallons a minute, ASR 16 which is 50 gallons per minute, SVH 6 which is 100 gallons per minute, SVR 17 which is 75 gallons per minute, SVR 18 which is 300 gallons per minute, SVR 19 which is 300 gallons per minute and SVR 20 which is 75 gallons per minute. This was entered as Exhibit TT. Bill Lorah — Consultant — You need two things for your water, physical supply and a legal right to take it. He explained how the water drains through Red Canyon which is about 15 square miles. It turns out the development consists of about 60% of the entire basin. He talked about the precipitation that falls on thel 5 acres; 15 square miles is about 20,000 acre feet per year. About 25% soaks into the ground, no major streams up there. The water goes into the ground and recharges the local aquifers. The development will have two basic water systems, one is the potable water system which serves the houses and shows the diversions at about 380 acre feet per year. Most will return back to the system through the waste water treatment plant. This also includes 44 acres of irrigation of lawns and gardens around the houses. He talked about depletion for the portable system. The non-portable is basically for the golf course, some open space and a few ponds on the property. Here you have less return flow because of the irrigation and the total depletion to the system is about 220 acre feet. A lot of the depletions we are talking about were also historically depleted through the agricultural activities on the ranch. So these are not necessarily brand new depletions. He talked about allowed depletions through contracts and decrees. One of the water rights we have to deal with right now is the irrigation to Grand Junction. The big insurance policy for water up there is the big 300 feet deep reservoir. This is basically the valley bottom. There are probably about a dozen large capacity wells already drilled there and our wells permits when it says 300 gallons per minute, those are in the bottom. We have pump tested those wells and that aquifer is really a wonderful resource. There is more than adequate recharge to supply everything historic plus the proposed new depletions. There will be a minimal impact including other developments that are proposed up there. There is no way you could totally deplete that Spring Valley aquifer. Most of the neighbor's wells are not drilled into the deep big aquifer, they are on the small aquifers on the sides of the hills. When you pump the lower aquifer there will not be any affect on the higher aquifers. The recharge we believe is more than adequate. Tom Gray — Let's assume all this science despite all its peer review turns out it is not really the way this works underneath here and somehow the aquifer in which our well is meeting the neighbors well is tapped and goes dry through no fault of ours. This issue was raised at the Planning Commission and we said we have always had a condition in the project that said we'd hook everyone up to the Landis Creek Metro District water supply. The question was if my well goes dry what is that going to cost me? We will hook you up to the system with no cost. Dave Hadden — High points: Trip reduction is 26%, this is the traffic generated by the project. The construction of the road improvements they would be timed to correspond with the recording of the final plat. Those final plats will be determined by market conditions and when the home is built. Finally the most important improvements will be built and open to traffic before the homes that were approved are occupied and therefore generating trips. During the construction there will be short climbing lanes so traffic can go around the trucks going up the hill. During the project, while we are building it, there will be repairs to the pot holes and whatever damage is caused by the trucks. Permanent improvements cost on CR 114 is about $6 million for the reconstruction of the lower mile; the steep part will have a climbing lane. So it will be a three lane section, three twelve foot lanes with six foot paved shoulders. He continued to explain the lanes, bicycle paths etc. He also explained how County Road 115 from Landis Creek cost about $1 million dollars; same type of construction and the same type of improvements, and continued to explain lanes and shoulder types. Intersection at 82 is operating at level of service B and in the future he showed the growth CDOT has forecasted along 82. Access permit at 82 and 114 was filed and received October 30t. This is the initial for Phase I of the approved project. He discussed there wasn't County participation in the improvements that are required nor was funding required and it was discussed with Fred Jarman. CDOT wanted more control over the ultimate improvement so that it better responds to future traffic conditions. He showed the intersection and how they would improve it. Also stated the permit, as it is written, once the traffic from the project increases above 20% of what was applied for then we have to get a new permit with further improvements. Mike Gamba talked about internal road designs. The engineering basis for the design criteria that we used on all of the internal roads is American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and that is basically the engineer's bible of road design criteria. Those designs have been reviewed by Chris Hale, the County's Engineering Consultant as well as Mike Piper, the Glenwood Fire Chief and Lou Vallario the Garfield County Sheriff. This plan, compared to the approved plan, there was a focus on modifying the plan so that it better conformed to the topography up there thereby substantially reducing the over all earth work and disturbed area on the side. As a result the internal roads they oftentimes have the slower design speed. Instead of going 36 mph through the ranch you may be going 20 mph, etc. You would typically have safer conditions for wildlife, children, bikers, etc. Another issue we looked at is to try to mitigate construction traffic and during construction we are going to implement a traffic management plan that will not allow a contractor to have as many trips as they want up and down CR 114 including their actual work force. We are trying to provide incentives for people to car pool, they will coordinate delivery of supplies so that it does not happen in peak hours and they will modify the shifts of the construction so that people aren't approaching or leaving the site during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours on County roads. They plan to offer shopping to the neighbors so they do not need to come down the hill thus reducing traffic. Finally we propose to restrict the hours of heavy trucks and equipment on County Road 114. There will be a prohibition on any construction traffic using Red Canyon Road. All these will be written into our contract with the contractors and enforced through that contract. We will proportionally participate in improvements to the RFTA park -n -ride at the intersection of 82 and 114. Eric Petterson — Wildlife Management — Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, provided a slide presentation. Unique to this project is that there have been two other wildlife consultants who prepared reports for this and I felt that both of those reports did a good job of assessing the current/existing conditions on the side so I incorporated those reports by reference. I prepared a new impact assessment report because of the changes in the plan. Spring Valley asked me to discuss what I would term as their best management practices for the project on how they would like to approach minimizing impacts to wildlife and habitat. The project has quite a bit of open space remaining on the property after development. There will be no construction outside of the building envelopes; Spring Valley Ranch has incorporated a wildlife fencing policy across the property to allow for movement within the property. They have also incorporated some fairly robust pet management including leash laws, pet restrictions and also unique to this project that I really think is a good program is the 2% transfer tax to be used on the property for habitat improvement and wildfire management. In the plan they have attempted to minimize impacts to the elk calving habitat on the north end of the property. They will have seasonal closures of trails in the upper areas to minimize potential impacts to disturbance of fawning and calving areas, seasonal closure of trails adjacent to deer/elk production habitat, closure of all trails generally from sunset to sunrise, no motorized vehicles on trails, except for maintenance and emergencies. He talked more about the 2% fee and how they plan to use it. He explained it is already in place in Eagle County and continued to go through what they would do to help wildlife. Commissioner Martin asked if the management practice permitted hunting? It is prime hunting. Are you going to curtail all hunting? Eric — My recommendation was to incorporate some kind of hunting program into the property to keep it from becoming an elk refuge where you would have quite a bit of damage and it would also limit his ability to manage elk herds. Commissioner Martin — Who is going to collect this fee or tax on transfer of sales, who is going to administer the tax and who is going to distribute it and account for it? Go ahead with your presentation first. Chris Wait with Anchor Point — Anchor Point also conducted a wildfire plan for all of the Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District and this plan therefore is in concert with what you have essentially as a County wildfire plan as well. It is possible with good guidelines to reduce the spread of fire in an area if it is designed appropriately regardless of the people. To protect residents, neighborhoods, maintain the value of the property and do that through the management of fuels takes quite a bit of science behind these recommendations. Wildfire mitigation in particular has to be managed in perpetuity and there are wonderful guidelines in the CCR. One of the most important elements is educating the homeowners. Good wildfire mitigation also enhances wildlife habitat. The Fire Chief is in support as well as the County Sheriff. There is a plan in the CCR for annual updates and then an update every three years as phasing occurs. Responsibility is both through the Metro District and in participation with the Fire District. The fire station on site will be equipped appropriately and trained. Regarding the golf course, it was leveraged to create a fuel break from the southwest to the northeast which is essentially uphill. Instead of creating an administrative fuel break we incorporated the road, over lot thinning, the golf course itself and then a thin fuel break down to the bottom. A healthy riparian corridor is also a fuel break. By improving the riparian or the wet areas by eliminating some of the invasive species in there we create additional fuel breaks. We used many tools to create a net effect of fuels reduction in such a way that hopefully it will never be obvious to the development. He addressed an educational plan for the homeowners for lots that have exhibited the most extreme fire behavior. Those landowners will have the option to either limit the fuel, reduce the fuel and therefore reduce the overall hazard or if they elect not to do that there will be more intensive building requirements, construction material requirements for those homes and that will be in concert with the International Wildlander Interface Code. The sprinkling of occupied structures over 500 feet essentially eliminates the possibility of a structure fire being the catalyst of starting a wild land fire which is one of the more likely scenarios for the area. Tom Gray gave a quick review of the open space and trails and spoke as to when this open space gets created and when these trails are put in place? The first thing that will be done in the project is the permanent dedication of Spring Valley Meadows. Phase I is just the entrance of the property and then the dedication of the Meadow, which will keep it from ever being subdivided and also provide for trail easements in the Meadow for public use. Based upon my experience it will be where most of the people will want to go walking or hiking. We are going to maintain the agricultural use and the grazing in that Meadow. It's historic, it's pastoral, and it's really part of the characteristic of the area. Commissioner McCown asked if he had heard the comment that there would be no livestock on the project. Tom Gray — That would be in the residential component, not in the Meadow. The Meadow allows livestock. Really the issue is pasturing horses and they will be pastured in the Meadow area. What we are requesting is to record the open space lots within the adjacent residential phases. In doing that we always maintain a constant 25% of the property in open space and also meet the County requirement of not more than 40% over 25% slope. The same thing is true of the trail easements; we will be recording those within each phase. There was a question of who is going to own the open space. It would be dedicated to the Homeowners' Association and we are under discussions talking to some other partnerships particularly with respect to the Meadow. The trails would be dedicated to the Club that runs all of the recreational facilities and the trails as their responsibility. The issue of "early" dedication of open space and trails - technically the open space policy is a zoning regulation not a subdivision requirement so therefore it pertains to the PUD. Extraordinary engineering and survey costs and expenses for recording prior to the applicable phase and then when you go to record the base regardless of how good Mike is, there are going to be problems. It places an economic and legal burden on property that hasn't been platted yet. This is the condition that we would request that the open space parcel and trail easements are dedicated at the recordation of the final plat and all times we will file an open space calculation that shows we are staying in compliance with the County's regulations. He went on to explain some examples of possible phasing, recordation and sequencing and showed a space summary by phase spreadsheet. As to housing diversity, we have the on site employee rental housing of twenty units, four more in duplexes only for employees and restricted for twenty years, maximum rent increases, limited to CPI and owned by the owners association. Community housing program, seventy-five for sale residential units are priority for working families in Garfield County to be located at the intersection of County Road 114 & County Road 115. Actually this is an area you can't see it from 114 and you can really only see it for a short time going down 115. It is a perfect place for seventy-five residential units and it doesn't have a significant adverse impact on the view shed. Certainly not on the view shed from CR 114 looking out over the Spring Valley Meadow. We are going to offer these at prices that qualify buyers for mortgages at 30% of income, they will be required to spend 22% of their household income on housing and they can't have a net worth above $100,000.00. He showed the diverse mix of housing size and prices. Pete Simmons — I've been to every one of these hearings. All the possible uses that these 1500 acres could go to this plan is the very best and beyond the wildest dreams than any of us ever had. I think it's a marvelous job that Spring Valley Holdings has done and I hope you will approve it. Michael Sullivan — 3780 County Road 115 — I would like to compliment the developers for their communication effort. They have done a great job with us. I would also like to compliment them on making water available to us which was a key issue. I feel so much better that I know when I turn on my shower in the morning that there will indeed be water. I believe this new plan is a better plan. I would like to have the Commissioners if you would please take a close look at the phasing and look at the road improvements on the phasing that is essential. As you know those are dangerous roads. I would like to mention that the stop signs and I know this is not a commission issue, but the stop signs and the signs and the turning lanes at 82 and CMC road are inadequate to handle the development and the additional traffic. Last if there is someway we can indeed be sure that the valley floor at times of drought is irrigated that would be wonderful as well. Linda Helmich — I basically said what I wanted to in the letter that we submitted. I'm encouraging you to vote for approval and we just love as neighbors that we have been included in the process and have been able to give a lot of input to the developers. If there was no development at all that would be first choice but we are glad to see that they want to do a really good job. Kelly Wood — Division of Wildlife — I've been reviewing this project from the '98 version. This is definitely an improvement over that and everyone is agreeing. It is kind of the worse of the two evils in my mind that this is less. There are still some concerns I have and I've tried to make notes as much as possible. Being aware that the Division of Wildlife is supported by hunting and fishing licenses only, there's no property tax, there's no income tax, there's no taxes that would help with wildlife in this area. So when we look at this project, I'm looking at how much more of my time is going to be spent on this project. It is not going to be funded from the Division of Wildlife stance. They mentioned the elk management plan, what actually is that plan how is that defined? Is there hunting going to be allowed and what parameters, that type of thing. I haven't' actually seen the plan so I am concerned when they talk about that well, what does that really mean? If you approve this plan and then that goes by the wayside what can we go back and do? I would like that to be addressed before the approval of this project. Also clustering, we've talked about that before. I don't see as much clustering as I would like to see in this project of the home sites. When Eric did his presentation of how much habitat will be disturbed he didn't include roads and roadways in that disturbance area, which does increase the acreage of unusable portions to wildlife. So I think that needs to be addressed as well as easements, things that decrease the overall open space so to speak for the wildlife. What if this project goes bankrupt, i.e. the Bair Chase project? What happens to the wildlife habitat if it has been decimated and just left there? Is there any plan in place? I think we all see the visual effect driving Highway 82. This won't be on Highway 82 and I don't think as many people will see that but it is a concern of mine of how that is going to be affected. Roadways, you talked about improving the safety of the roadways. Will you pave things, you make more lanes and that just increases the speed of people. Everyone here can attest that drives Highway 82 knows that the majority of the people do not even obey the speed limit. It's 10 over, 15 over. I've seen people going 90 mph now with the wildlife on roadways; sign flashing and they are still going 90 mph. So when you increase road widths and road speeds that does have an impact on wild life. Personally I'd like to see everything stay dirt but I know that is not going to be an option. Lou LaGiglia — I've probably been to every meeting here within the last six or seven years. We are making some progress not so much with the spring but what has happened is that Spring Valley Holdings has agreed to put in a well and share it with us. At this point in time the test well has been dug and part of the pipe has been laid. We don't have it finalized because we don't have our agreements in place for easements and things of that nature. Unfortunately the well was drilled within 600 feet of mine so that is another issue we have to address. This is just so different and you know over the last 8 years of coming here pleading and Tom has sat down with us and worked with us and it just tells you about the kind of people you're dealing with and they are willing to work out these problems. I think this plan is a much better plan and it should be approved. One other point, either Spring Valley Holdings or the LaGiglia are giving up their water rights in the BR Hopkins Spring. We are not by passing that we are just doing something different and we think this will work. Jim Austin — Decided not to speak Lois Veltus — During the break I had the opportunity to talk with Mike Gamba and he answered the questions and the point I was going to bring up so I think it's covered. It was an item I brought up before the Planning Commission about the office zone district and the number of acres which was supposed to be reduced. Mike showed me on the map that indeed that had been reduced in size. Priscilla Prohl — I think everyone of my neighbors have answered all of our questions about the water issues which is my greatest concern. I really urge everyone to support this new plan; it seems to be much better and improved from the last one. Robert L. Arrington — I had taken issue along with Jim Austin and other neighbors. We had to go to water court to fight the development people on supplying this water to the neighbors if they run it out. I'm very happy to see that they have taken it upon their shoulders to supply people with the water. I would like to remind everybody that there are other costs that come into this type of annex and we need to define who is going to run what pipe where and where it's going to be connected. However, going back to the water analysis I believe they put a slide up there showing 25 inches of precipitation and 20 some acre feet of water that percentage was going back into the recharge. What they didn't put up there was the dry year's scenario and they have that in their possession. This is from their Gamba water study and the precipitation in the dry year ranges from 17.7 at the high elevations down to 11.8 inches at the low elevations which is pretty far cry from 25 inches. You have this big beautiful plan, a pyramid and it's all lynched at the bottom by how much water is available. If that average is down they're at the 15 or 16 inch which also is the number, 16 inch was precipitation for the 6900 foot level and if it's down there, their water usage of 970 acre feet gets up above what is available for recharge. Well we say this is worse case scenario or what not but I draw the Commissioners attention to what occurred over in Missouri Heights with their build-up and they had to go on water rationing over this last dry year. So bear that in mind that this is not quite as rosy as it is presented because it was a rose color glass look at this thing and in the study the water court found that in this presentation we did have reason enough to cause the issue to be said that we would have to be fixed if they damaged our well. During their pumping test we were one of the only wells, we monitoring our well with the same people that was doing monitoring on their wells. And we had a very sharp drop in our well level during their pumping tests and we did not get full recovery, which means that some place along the line something collapsed, the quantity of water was not available. In their pumping tests they actually burned up a pump because they started pumping sand. Some of this stuff is not backed by seismic study or other studies. A lot of it is just statistical data that the people are extrapolating. I would like to warn the Commissioners of that because the County may find some joint liability in this. Thank you. Commissioner McCown asked Mr. Arrington if he realized there was currently a plan in place for this sub -division; there is currently a PUD with a plat already approved? Bob Arrington — This plan will go thru and I don't see anything deviating from that. I want the County to be aware of some of the things they are assuming by approving this thing. All the numbers are not quite as glossy as they appear when you get into the detail depth of it. Mike Berkley —I own the Lake Springs Ranch to the south and the west of Spring Valley Ranch. I like the project, I'm happy the way it has turned out. I urge its approval. Thank You. JeffNieslanik — I don't need to duplicate what has already been said. Tom Gray — While it is fresh in everyone's mind I'll try to respond to comments made. I appreciate Michael's compliments that we have been working hard with neighbors and we have. Regarding the phasing of the road improvements, the real improvement is at the intersection of 82 and 114 and that has a governor on it that if traffic increases 20% over the daily hourly volume, we have to make improvements. The reality is that's what is going to generate the necessity to make improvements is the traffic impact at that intersection. One thing we can say about all the traffic studies and the water studies in general they're accurate, informative, but specifically in terms of how many trips are going to wind up at that intersection whether it is background traffic or from this project; or from other build out up in the Missouri Heights area these are a good estimate but they're wrong. There is no way to absolutely predict what's going to happen at those intersections out in 2027. That is why I frankly agree with the position that CDOT is taking, lets move at this incrementally, let's make improvements that are smart improvements to the intersection as the traffic comes into play. We have no idea whether ten trips per household is going to be the right number in 2027. It is impossible to tell. Regarding Kelly Woods comment on DOW, we are happy to work with DOW and I think there is actually a condition somewhere in the approvals that says we are going to work with DOW in particular with hunting and elk management on the property. The project is very clustered and you can see that from the plans. We have made every effort to create wildlife corridors coming down through that clustering that will get the elk from up on the mountain. We agree with Miss Woods comments on road widths and speed. That's why we reduced the speeds on the roads on the project. As Mike said it is to protect wildlife, kids and other people driving cars. If people drive slower there is a likelihood they could stop before they hit the elk or the deer. As far as re -vegetation, unlike Bair Chase we are moving forward in phases. And at each phase in the SIA there's a bonding requirement in order to make sure that the improvements go in and that what disturbance is created by the improvements gets re -vegetated. We won't be grading on the property for no reason and leave it. We will put up the necessary bonds to make sure the phases get completed in accordance with the approvals that the County has granted us. I appreciate Lou's comments on the water situation, we have been working with the LaGiglia and I think we have a solution. We have the well going and the tanks gong in. I think everybody will be pleased with the result. On Bob Arrington's comments, he used the dry year example. Let's assume a 12 inch rain fall in this drainage of almost 10,000 acres, that's 10,000 acre fee. 25% of that percolates, that's 2,500 acre fee. We are taking out 380 acre feet. It may be scientific but there is no question that water has its own unique way of moving around and some wells might be impacted. That's why we said if you have a problem with your well we are going to hook you up at our cost. So you don't have to worry about how we are going to get from your house to our lines, we're going to pay for it. We also said if you want to hook up, fine we will work with you to do that and you can hook up to the system. Commissioner Houpt — Your response to the intersection question, I don't know if Michael was concerned about 114 instead of just the intersection area you are working on with CDOT. I wanted to ask him if the temporary lanes and other mitigation factors you brought forward helped him with that. Tom Gray — Not to speak for Michael but to provide a little background, I've spend a lot of time with Michael and Jim talking about that road and what we can do. We drove the road to look at where we can stick in short climbing lanes? We went over it with the County's Road and Bridge Department and they said yes it made sense. I believe in that particular area, at least Michael said to me, he was comfortable with those improvements. Commissioner Martin — He wants improvements and get rid of the stop signs. They say in Phase 1 and 2 there is going to be a few trails that are going to be constructed, the ownership of those trails along the right of ways are going to be maintained by whom? And again the ownership of those, liability of those, whose assuming that? Tom Gray — The private club, which all the owners will be a member. They will have responsibility for the trails, the insurance, and the maintenance and for the ownership. Commissioner Martin — Just so again it is not dedicated to the County to maintain because we don't have trails. Tom Gray— No, nor are the trails in the Spring Valley Meadows. Those would also be maintained by the association or another land trust that might be interested in taking over. We have talked to the Aspen Land Trust and they are not interested. They don't like property that has public access. Commissioner Martin — that was my next questions, is it going to be accessed by the public but privately owned roadways. Tom Gray — Internal roads are privately owned and privately maintained. Commissioner Martin — What if someone is not a golfer but is entitled to ownership and access and use of the golf course, is that right transferable? Can he give it to a guest or another family member? Tom Gray — At least in the plans that exist right now, those people who are residents in the area, the home site, the address; whoever is owner of that property and their family would have benefit of those rights. So they transfer in affect with the title. Commissioner Martin — Just not the name, you give them an ID card and say Mr. so and so I can't give it to my son or brother and he wants to come up and play golf on Mr. so and so, he can do so? That's family. That's what I'm getting at and all these other folks in there. 100 golf days in a month or 100 golf tee times in a month is not a whole lot. I imagine a whole bunch of members are going to play golf. Tom Gray — Well that remains to be seen. The best answer I can give you is it goes with the property and the immediate family. That is our intention yes. The reason is we didn't want to pull traffic up 114 for people outside of the area to play golf. It was a benefit for the people within the local community. People living within the Glenwood Springs, Carbondale influence area. Commissioner Martin — Are you going to have staging areas for the different construction sites? One central place to put your heavy equipment, not going up and down the roadway constantly. Mike Gamba — Yes at the commencement of construction we would establish a staging area. It may move as construction moves. One staging area probably won't function for all the phases but it will be on site. Other than the need for aggregate and asphalt and supplies like that it won't be coming up and down the mountain. It will come up once and stay until the project is done and then leave or perhaps move into the next phase. Commissioner Martin — In reference to the condition of the surface of the roadway as it is now and the repairs which throughout the project you are saying you would repair, are we doing some kind of video in agreement with the road and bridge folks to make sure that we have an overall view of what it is now and how it will be into the future? Mike Gamba — I think a program as you describe would make sense so there is no disagreement. Commissioner Martin — In reference to the hunting issue, that management plan you say you're going to work with, again hunting is very important in taking care of. You can see what's happening around Boulder, they forgot to hunt and have a lot of conflicts with wildlife. How are you going to do that, who's going to handle that negotiation? Tom Gray — We would work out a plan with DOW on management of the elk population. My experience with bear and cat it really comes down to bottom line to educating your homeowners. It's a risk just like when you drive on the road and could be in an auto accident. The cats are going to be there and the bears are going to occasionally come in and you have to educate your homeowners, particularly those in the mountain region. Commissioner Martin — If they recommend hunting or removal there of would you agree to that in your negotiations? Tom Gray — That is an issue for the State. If the State would like us to hunt or like bear and cat to be hunted, fine. The existing plan that is in place right now prohibits hunting. We are not opposed to hunting. We are not opposed to prohibition on hunting. We believe a hunting program can be managed up there. It can be healthy for DOW in terms of the licensing fees and we are also thinking how we might also incorporate that into the wildlife management trust. People get big money for hunting these days and there isn't any reason we couldn't have a similar sort of program but have the money go into the wildlife trust for the benefit and maintenance of the habitat on Spring Valley Ranch. Commissioner McCown — I really see some major problems that you are trying to commit here with all the private ownerships on those small parcels. Because you are going to get involved in a severe trespass problem. You're going to spend a lot more time up there than you would controlling the wildlife. Each one of those parcels will be individually controlled by the owner of that parcel. You as a developer cannot transfer that authority to let someone come on to that property and hunt. I don't think the Division of Wildlife can mandate hunting on Jim Nieslanik ranch. I don't think it can force any hunting on any parcel and I'm not thinking that was said earlier. I think they are supporting wildlife management but as far as trying to implement a hunting program on 500 and some individual private parcels, wow. Tom Gray — Let me see if I can narrow it a little bit. I agree with you this is not an easy issue and it's going to take a lot of discussion between the DOW and us and appropriate consultants. I'm certainly no expert in hunting. I'm speaking strictly of the mountain district of the property and whether or not there is a program you can implement in the mountain district. I believe we can do that as the phasing takes place. That is going to be a much easier solution because we will own the property. You're right, once it is all sold out, even if we had a blanket easement over the mountain district that says hunting is allowed up here you need to understand that when you buy the land it's in the disclosures. We are still going to have problems because people always initial that they read the stuff but they never read it. Commissioner Houpt — I do think that I would be very careful with the whole discussion of hunting in this development. We are talking about a lot of homes. We are talking about a change in use and certainly you need to get together with the DOW and put together an animal management plan. But don't commit today to opening up your development for hunting. Tom Gray — I appreciate the advice and my comment is we are not opposed. We are willing to consider it and see what kind of program can be implemented. Commissioner Martin — The transfer fee to manage everything in reference to all of the programs on the property that was mentioned, wildlife management etc. how is that actually going to work? Who is going to collect that fee or tax? How is the distribution to the County going to be to the homeowners? Tom Gray — It would be operated by the HOA and they would be responsible to publish audit and financial statements on an annual basis and they would go out to all the owners. It would be collected out of escrow. That is a pretty standard procedure including any back dues the people didn't pay or fees or fines those get collected out of escrow too. Jim Lochhead — I might mention also that all the provisions concerning the transfer fee and what we would propose to set up, what we are calling a wildlife/wildfire trust, which is an appointed group by the HOA who would manage the funds. The funds would be collected by the HOA and given to the wildlife trust and that whole structure is set out in the CCNR's which are part of the package that we submitted to you. Commissioner Martin — I'm just bringing the issue out because a lot of folks here didn't know that. I have one other, water in reference to the Meadow and that is you're tying that water to Meadow itself or to the lower area so that it cannot be pulled out and it can be used for agricultural purposes down there. Did I hear that correctly? Jim Lochhead — No. Commissioner Martin — So at that point if the water is available it can be used down there? But you're not tying it to the land? Jim Lochhead — No we are not. Commissioner Martin — The other is in reference to the lease for the agricultural purposes and yet it is going to be open to the public for public viewing and walking. How is that going to be used for agricultural purposes if it's going to be a congregation, a view point, and a picnic area whatever? Even though it's big your still going to have human beings there and disturbance, what kind of agricultural uses are you going to be looking at using in that area? Tom Gray — Cattle operation such as it occurs now which is not a large cow calf operation. And that would be a private lease to an individual like it is today. Simple agricultural uses that are the historic uses in the region. The trails will be organized so that they fit out of the way of the agricultural uses. They are primarily going to be on the perimeter of the area not running through the middle of the agricultural area and of course there will be fencing to separate the pastures. It would be more managed. Commissioner Houpt — I like to talk about the phasing schedule. I'm looking at one of your amendments, supplemental information, Exhibit X. The dates you give for estimated start of construction, I need you to speak to that. For example with Phase II it could start in April, 2008 or April, 2014 and it goes on in the same pattern through this chart and I want to get a better sense of what your thinking is and what that means to this project. Tom Gray — Let me speak to it from a marketing perceptive. We would like to build this project out as quickly as possible and make all the improvements to 114 and 115. However, if I could predict what markets were going to do, we have no idea and right now we are in a very unstable market. Everybody knows real estate goes through cycles. All we are trying to do with the phasing plan is to give us as much flexibility as you would allow us to develop these phases in appropriate sequence as far as the extension of infrastructure. But develop the phases in accordance of marketing. It might be we come in and say we want to plat phases II, III, IV and V because things are going so good. We never want to have something on the shelf. In terms of the relationship of the market and the lots we are just looking for the maximum flexibility in order to make our improvements and not get too far out in front of ourselves which is how developers go bankrupt. Building too fast, too soon and then they are left with a big overhand of capital they put into the deal and they're not making any sales. In addition to the capital drain you know what happens when a project all of a sudden gets the story around town is oh yeah they are in trouble up there. You try to minimize the amount of inventory that you are putting on the market to match it off with how much market demands you have so that you always give some urgency so people look at it and so I have to buy one of these. We allow people to buy a trade. If you buy a lot from Phase II and you decide in Phase V you like that lot better you can trade into that lot. We'll take back your lot in Phase II. The same thing is true on the road improvements. The traffic on those roads is going to be dependent on houses being built. We would obviously like the houses built as quickly as possible. That's good for the County in terms of property taxes, it's good for us in terms of sales and we'd love to be making these road improvements because we are selling lots and people are buying houses. We are just trying to allow ourselves the flexibility so that the actual impact on the roads and the amount of money that we spend on the roads is consistent with the lots that we are selling and it is warranted. Commissioner Houpt — One of the needs we have in this County that is talked about daily is affordability in housing and your community housing units are proposed to be built, starting in Phase VII. I do have a concern about that, the amount of time that could pass before we see any affordable housing come out of this project. I do recognize that your work force housing is in Phase IV. And I have to say I really appreciate the fact that you are focusing on this need in our County too. It is a definite need and we all know affordability and the definition of affordability has changed dramatically over the past year. Which means we can locate affordable housing in different areas because the work force is looking for housing. What would your reaction be to having that in an earlier phase, having a portion of those community housing units built? Tom Gray — We're fine with that. If you want to move them up two phases to Phase V, VI, VII and VIII that's fine with us. Commissioner Houpt — So financially that wouldn't be too great a hardship for you? Tom Gray— No, again it will be market driven. If we can build this housing and it sells quickly we are not going to worry about phases. We're going to go build it all. Commissioner Houpt — I would feel better about that. I'd like to ask Don DeFord and Fred Jarman to respond to the discussion on phasing of open space and trails. And I really want to look at them separately. The phasing of building trails as the development progresses makes more sense to me than the phasing of designating open space. Because you have a complete plan in place. I know there has been a recommendation that it doesn't occur, that it occur at the beginning of the project. Don DeFord — Fundamentally I don't view the decision on whether or not the phase trails or open space or to require them in the first phase as a legal policy issue. It was left unaddressed and so if you go back in time to other projects where we had the question of dedication of open space and trails we had no specific representation of what phase they would come in and no direction from the Board. Staff took the position that we would assume that since it was unaddressed that it was represented that these amenities would benefit all residence of property that we would require them to fill in the first days. In other projects the Board has also adopted that philosophy as a requirement. But that is a policy decision to make. What the staff is looking for is clarity both from the developer and the Board of what you want to see. I guess from my perspective if we get that we certainly want to enforce the policy that you want to put in place. We have had developments in which that requirement has been in place and we have some successful dedication of those amenities right from day one. So it can occur whether this Board thinks that is the appropriate way to approach it for this project or not. Fred Jarman — The only thing I can recall and Don has more history as do you to some degree on other projects. This I think is "the" largest project that this has been applied to by leaps and bounds. As far as the size there is no question that the development team has expressed either market challenges that a project of this size is faced with. We understand that and we wanted to let you know that was where our thinking was. Don — As you approach this there are some mechanical issues you need to consider. When you are going to do a segmented dedication of trails and particularly you look at this project in the mountain lots where there is a lengthy and extensive trail but many phases you could be looking at incrementally adding a few hundred feet of trail at a time because of the phasing. I don't know how much sense that makes in terms of getting an amenity available for the people who move into this area because that trail will be available for all residence of the subdivision not just the mountain lots. The other issue is given the length of some of some of the trails in this project if there are no connecting links on that trail, if you have a trail that runs out five miles and ends, is that an issue? Maybe it's not an issue to turn around and come back. But you might want to ask some questions and think about that. I do have some questions on this issue for the developer in terms of what the club is and when that will come into place. Commissioner Houpt — I'd like to ask you your thoughts on what it would look like to dedicate that open space and then what the mechanics of the hundred foot trail system might look like. Tom Gray — We provided a phasing plan that spoke to the question that Don raised. There is no question in our application in what phase the open space would be dedicated. It's a corporate phasing plan and it shows when we are dedicating each piece of open space and in an attempt to show good faith in phase one before we sell anything we're dedicating the most important piece of open space - the Meadow. The rest of the open space is interior to the project and it makes every bit of common sense to plat that when you're platting the phase in which that open space occurs. Commissioner Houpt - Did I misunderstand you I though you said that potentially at some point that open space could be reconfigured depending on the market or the plan. That sent a red flag up for me. Tom Gray — We have to amend the PUD to do that. Let's just take for example; I'm just making this up, and let's assume we take that whole area that is northwest of Landis Creek. Somebody comes in and says, you know what I'd really like to do, I'd like to buy that whole section. We say great. Depending on what that owner wants to do; say he just wants to put his house there and donate the rest of the lots. If I had platted that open space up there already and had trails through there, I would now have a problem. I've got to get rid of the open space that is now recorded and I would have to get rid of trails. What this provision does quite frankly is it creates a significant economic damage to the owner of the property. Commissioner Houpt — Could you talk about the mechanics of the trail? Tom Gary — The great virtue of this property is its almost 6,000 acres. It is the biggest amount of open space that has been proposed by a development in Garfield County. If it was a 200 acre project I would say fine and plat all the open space. The environment is going to change on us. In our experience what we do is we dedicate the trails to the club. The club will have all the facilities. They will have the golf course, it will own the village, the sports center, and the only thing they won't own is the corporation. That will be owned by the Metro District. And the fire station by the Fire District. The recreational packages and the service packages will be owned by the club. It will maintain the trails and that gives it a funding source because that is part of the dues. Joining the club is a mandatory part. The community housing down in the lower area, if somebody wants to buy into the club they can but they don't have to. Everyone up in the core of the property has to be a member of the club. From a practical stand point what will happen is the improved trails within the phases will have loops. Once we get out of the platted phase, there are ranch roads that run all over the place and people will hike those ranch roads. It will be disclosed to them and they will acknowledge the disclosure that the trail is not committed its not dedicated but they are welcome to hike the ranch roads. Commissioner Houpt — Going back to Don's point and without pulling out the phasing maps have you accounted for the potential that having a 100 foot trail that leads nowhere because that's the trail that fits into that phase. If not how would you deal with that and link it to the system? Tom Gray — Two thoughts there. Most of these will connect to ranch roads. Frankly this trail system is driven off the existing roads. Why tear things up any more than you have to. In the mountain district I don't see it as a problem because we've got pioneered roads that were done as part of the ranching operation. The people are going to have the availability to go hiking whether we formally dedicate it or not. If in fact the project were to halt at that point somewhere up in the mountain district were we had a stub trail, we would have to figure out how to make that trail more effective. He showed a number of loops that already existed. Even in the smaller phases you have loops that can get you back and some could easily be connected back into the core property without a lot of work. Commissioner Martin — Something that is easy in Phase I, you're going to build a couple of buildings which are going to be the gate house and the sales office. When are you gong to build the club? In Phase II we are going to build the fire station, improvements to the road and after that Phase III there are no other construction of the village itself or the facilities from pool to tennis courts etc. Do you know when you are going to phase those in and when they are going to be built? Tom Gray — At this moment in time, no. It is a marketing decision. Commissioner Martin — The golf course was the next question when are you going to start that? I think the least disturbance until the project is going is best. Tom Gray — We are probably on the same wave length, when you're disturbing a lot of dirt your spending a lot of money and generally I'd prefer not to spend a lot of money up front in the project. Commissioner Martin — I don't have anything else other than I am worried about the water. I don't think Hopkins has that much and I still don't believe the studies when it gets dry, it gets dry. Tom Gray — We do have a number of backup opportunities here that didn't exist in the prior plan. So we have created fail safe mechanisms here, trip wires if you will that will carry us through a lot longer in a drought. Commissioner McCown — Earlier when we talked about the 100 per month tee times, is that a minimum of 100 or that is a maximum or is that both? Tom Gray — It is a minimum and lets assume everybody up here wants to play golf, which would be quite unusual. We are going to want people to come up here and play. We won't turn people away. Commissioner McCown — It is a cash flow issue and I understand that. I think we have really beat this horse to death but I have to ask the question, based on the Planning Commission recommendations on the phasing of the open space and the trails, is there an adverse hardship doing it all at one time or not doing it all at one time? Are we at any risk as a County permitting this action to go ahead if we don't plat that open space and trail up front? I don't feel we are. Fred — No I don't think you are. Tom Gray — The Planning Commission rejected the staffs recommendation and suggest to you that the open space be platted with each phase. Fred Jarman — At one point early in the process, even before this came to the Planning Commission, there was a question of ADU's. For the record my understanding is there aren't any ADU's primarily because that tips the scale as a matter of density. I just wanted to make sure that was everyone's full understanding. And everyone said it was correct. The other question that came up was the issue of pasturing and where are the horses going to get pastured throughout the project? How is that going to work? Tom Gray — As a generalization pasturing of livestock including horses will not be allowed within the project. The pasturing for the horses will in general be down in the Meadow area. There is no horse keeping in effect really allowed up on the project. In the mountain district owners would be allowed to have a barn, have their horse there but no permanent boarding of their horse. Fred Jarman — Do you envision that all of those improvements have to be within that building envelope. Tom Gray — Correct, everything that goes on has to happen in that building envelope. Fred Jarman — The other question, how do you legally envision to dedicate those public trails, public usage of the Meadow component? It's a public dedication how do you envision doing that? Where does the liability rest? Jim Lochhead — It would not be a public dedication per say of those trails for public. It would be a right -of -access that would be granted by the club which owns the trails to the public to come on. Just like if you owned a piece of property and you said the public could come and use this property. Fred — To clarify, when the final plat comes in for Phase I for example what won't be in that language would be a public dedication of the trails that are on this map? Everyone said correct. Don — And that is controlled by what to make it available to the public? Jim Lochhead — By the club which would own the trail. The open space would be owned by the homeowners. The club would own and maintain the trails through the open space and the club would allow public access on those trails. Don — What are you going to show the County that will assure the in perpetuity there available for the public? Jim Lochhead — We could handle that in the CCNR's Fred Jarman— Should the Board move in the direction of approval, the requested changes to the PUD conditions and the preliminary plan conditions, we would recommend that you do that. Don — Going to the affordable housing and the timing of that and I guess this is an issue for the preliminary plan and potential final plat. What assurance are you going to give the Board when you come in with a final plat for let's say Phase VII, that the affordable housing you represented here will actually be built? Tom Gray — I'm very comfortable with putting it in the SIA and with appropriate bonding to assure it is going to get built. Commissioner Houpt — When you think about the affordable housing community do you categorize them as members of your community or neighbors to your community? Tom Gray — It's a two pronged answer. One prong is we want to keep the HOA's obligations as low as possible on those units. So in that respect they will not be a member of the community and not be burdened with the HOA dues and costs. They will have a separate association so they have their own governance. The in all probability will be significantly lower. They would have the option to become a member of club. Commissioner Houpt- As with the other neighbors they would have access to the village? Tom Gray — Absolutely. Don — On the internal roads I believe you said they want them to be private as part of the PUD approval, is that from the gate in? is it from the County Road in all private, is that the intent? Tom Gray — Yes. Priscilla Prohl — For the HOA that is going to own the open space, is it going to be dedicated in the CCNR's that it can never be resold? Jim Lochhead — Yes. Julian Hardaker — In term of the affordable housing, it seemed there was still some question whether it would definitely be up there or in another location, at this point is it decided it will definitely will be up there? Susan Shirley, are they in favor of that or would they rather see it in another location? Commissioner Houpt — The housing authority is in favor of having it be with the development. Commissioner McCown — The main reason for that is we don't have a long line of receptors for this affordable housing to occur somewhere other than this site. Commissioner Houpt — Affordable housing has changed. We are looking at different types of affordable housing in our County. People can now commute from affordable housing because affordability has taken on a new definition. People who work and the income cap is $100,000.00 will typically own a car so that they can commute. The way affordable housing used to be constructed was within an urban area because affordability meant a different thing. Tom Gray — I would add I've had this discussion a number of times with Fred and he made exactly your point Commissioner Houpt. This is going to be a place that people will want to live. Kelly Wood — Thank you for addressing the hunting issue, it's not a matter if you have a bear or a lion problem it's when you will have a lion or bear problem. Also geese on the golf course you have a lot of wildlife issues that are going to affect that community up there. Not tying the hands of your methods that could alleviate some of the problems and I'm not asking that everyone has to allow hunting. I'm just asking that they can allow hunting if I own 40 acres or even two of the lots and I want to hunt on my own land in a safe manner. Commissioner Houpt — Question for staff: If the others agree with this change in phasing for community housing where does that need to show up? Commissioner McCown — You would just include it in your motion that it be moved up to those appropriate phases and it would take it away from the phases it was in. Fred Jarman — Specific to the PUD verses the preliminary plan. A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Houpt to close the Public Hearing. In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin — aye Commissioner McCown — I make a motion we approve the PUD amendment with all of the testimony given today by the applicant as being fact and the conditions recommended at the onset of our presentation today by staff be included in those conditions of approval also including the portion of the statement from the Planning Commission that open space and trails would be dedicated and shown at the time of the phasing. Given the fact that seventeen (17) through twenty-one (21) is no longer valid I would like to add 17 to include in the phasing plan that the affordable housing aspect would be moved up from Phase VII to Phase V to begin in the process and would be so noted as it proceeds it would come off of the other phases where it is now showing. Commissioner Houpt — Second. In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin — opposed Commissioner McCown — I make a motion we approve the request for the preliminary plan application with the same conditions applying as presented in the staff packet and those recommendations that were presented earlier by staff be incorporated into those. Also including as fact all testimony given by the applicant today, that would be one (1) through thirty-one (31) Commissioner Houpt — Second — Thanked the applicant for working so closely with the neighbors. Commissioner McCown — I think it is only fair to acknowledge that in my career I've looked at this project several times myself and I sincerely hope this will be the last time on this project. Anytime you come before me with a better plan, a reduction of impact, a reduction on our natural resources, water everything else you have proposed here; I going to support it. In favor: Houpt — aye McCown — aye Martin — aye