Board of County Commissioners - Regular Meeting

My name is mass all County Commissioner. I like to call this planning meeting to order. It is September 15 2026 It is 10 a.m. Commissioners.

Please introduce yourselves County Commissioner reporter Norton La Plata County Commissioner Lynn Hyde Community Development Director Mark Bamer assistant county attorney great.

Thank you. Let's all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance All right, we'll move to today's agenda. There are two main sections on our agenda. One's the consent agenda and then the decision agenda. The consent agenda is designed to approve projects in a single motion that, while important, do not require board or staff discussion. Do either of the commissioners wish to remove anything from the consent agenda?

No, Mr. Chair. No, Mr. Chair.

All right, hearing no changes, I would entertain a motion to approve today's agenda.

I move to approve today's agenda.

There's a motion. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, identification of any potential or perceived conflicts of interest?

Chairman Sulka.

Yes.

I am going to recuse myself from the Doyle subdivision preliminary plan. And I want the public to know exactly why. I am going to state my comments in a way that doesn't tilt the scales one way or another. But the most important part of being a county commissioner is being impartial. We sit up here as the judge and jury on projects. And we have it in our code. It's in the US Constitution, actually, that applicants need to come forth and be able to have a fair hearing. I had conversations with a neighbor about this project and have for a while. I was unaware that it was an active planning project. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A LESSON THAT IF WE HEAR SOMEBODY IN CITY MARKET SAY SOMETHING OR AT THE HEALTH CLUB OR WHEREVER WE'RE AT AND SOMEBODY RAISES A CONCERN, IMMEDIATELY WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S AN ACTIVE PLANNING PROJECT. I DO NOT FEEL THAT I CAN THEREFORE SIT IN AN OBJECTIVE ROLE. AND I FEEL LIKE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR ALL INVOLVED, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMENTING AND FOR THE APPLICANTS. SO I AM GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THAT ITEM.

So when that item comes, Commissioner, if you can please step out, and then we'll have a staff member get you after that one.

Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Philbrick, do you have any? No. Neither do I. All right, thank you. All right, next is the approval of minutes. We have four sets of minutes. All three commissioners were in attendance. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion to approve the four sets of minutes.

Chairman Selkow? Yes. I move that we approve the four sets of minutes stated in the packet for February 10th, February 17th, March 17th, April 21st, all 2026, and all of the commissioners were present at all meetings.

Great. Thank you. There's a motion. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. Minutes are approved. Thank you. All right. Again, as stated earlier, the consent agenda is designed to approve projects in a single motion that, while important, do not require board or staff discussion. I would entertain a motion to approve today's consent agenda for one item, approval of project PL2025-0053, Petrella boundary adjustment.

Mr. Chair, I move to approve project PL2025-0053, the Petrella boundary adjustment consent agenda.

Thank you. There's a motion for the consent agenda. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. Let's get into the meat and potatoes here, and that is decision agenda. Consideration of project PL, thank you, Commissioner, PL2024-0026, Doyle subdivision preliminary plan. Staff report, please.

Thank you, Commissioners. My name is David Barnett, Senior Planner. This is the Doral Subdivision, preliminary plat and plan, Project PL2024-0026. Brief overview of the project. We have a four-lot subdivision proposed. Two lots have two dwellings each. There's a shared water system proposed. This is approximately 29 acres on County Road 207, a half mile north of the intersection with Highway 160. Some context maps for you. The subject parcels here in red. Here is the land use map, the West Durango District Plan. This has a land use classification of suburban density residential. Here's an aerial view looking from the east into the property. Here's a street level view that shows, I believe, three of the four existing dwellings. And then here is the proposed preliminary plat. Again, 29 acres, four lots. Three of the lots are around three acres, and the larger lot is 18 acres, which is a density of approximately one lot per seven acres and up to two dwelling units per lot. Here is the overall site plan from the construction drawings. And then here is the water plan that actually has the structures labeled there. So if you see, here's two dwellings on lot three, two dwellings on lot two. Here's the shared spring and all the water lines to be constructed for this development. As far as code sections, chapter 70 is the development standards, which covers water sewer compatibility. Additional dwelling units is section 73-3. Chapter 74 covers the driveway and access standards. There are two components with this, the subdivision plat and the ADU plan for the accessory dwelling units. THEY'RE BOTH CONSOLIDATED INTO A SINGLE PROCESS, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 66-11 FOR CONCURRENT REVIEW. THIS IS A COMPLEX PROJECT WITH MANY CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS, INCLUDING FLOOD PLAIN, FLOODWAY, WETLANDS, GEOHAZARDS, THEIR EXISTING STRUCTURES, ALL THE EXISTING EASEMENTS. THERE'S EASEMENTS FOR WATER WELLS TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTY ROAD. and the proposed shared water system. To agency review, the state engineer's office stated that the proposed water supply is adequate. CGS recommended geohazard report, fluvial hazard analysis, erosion plan, drainage report. Staff did not require any further reports because they would be overly burdensome to the applicant. There are building envelopes that mitigate hazards and also a plot notice regarding the fluvial hazards. CPW did note the wildlife area west of the project and wildlife human conflict and high priority habitat and that Lightner Creek water quality is a main concern for them. The reviewing surveyor outlined some corrections to the plat. Public Health commented on the issued septic permit, which has since been finalized. The county engineer reviewed the plans five times. First four compliance reviews had lots of revisions to the plans and the plat, hydrogeologic study, water quality, building envelopes, lots of corrections. The remaining corrections to the water model for lot four and the shared improvement maintenance plan, those will be covered by the conditions of approval for final plat and plan. La Plata Electric Association did outline signature requirements on the plats and the easements. The FPD stated that the shared driveways are allowed up to three dwellings and that you're okay to proceed. There... Were no public comments as of the staff report writing, but since the staff report was published, three public comments were received. Two are in strong opposition to the project, raised concerns about population increase, commercial use, road access concerns for emergency vehicles, the wetlands, soil erosion, impact to Lightner Creek, geohazards, the lack of studies, water supply, limited fire department review, conformance with the sketch plan, engineering compliance items, and there was one question regarding home insurance restrictions and if the applicant was aware of those on County Road 207. Staff has determined the development's impacts were adequately mitigated after review. There's minimal increase in density. This project does conform with the approved sketch plan for four lots and four dwellings. Any commercial use would require a separate land use permitting process. There are no concerns from the engineer or the fire department for road access. We are requiring additional right-of-way dedication for counter 207. Fire code review isn't applicable to a subdivision. It's just for commercial review or multifamily. That would be handled at building permit. Building envelopes are proposed that... or outside of the floodplain, the floodway, 30% slopes, 50 feet setback from wetlands, outside of any existing easements or proposed easements, all the disturbed soil from construction of the water, water system, shared water system, will have to be re-vegetated and stabilized and verified by county inspection. and the wastewater systems are all permitted and any new systems on the vacant lots will need permits of their own. As far as the review and approval process, the sketch plan was approved in January of 2024. This preliminary plat and plan is under consideration now as noted as a combined application of the plat and the ADU plan. And then the remaining process would be the final plat and final plan, which is an administrative review process. And with that, staff would recommend approval of this project with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report. And I'll stand for any questions.

Yes. Thank you so very much for your presentation. It was a very thorough packet. I appreciate you bringing forth the last minute public input and feedback because it wasn't in our packet to be able to review. So I just want to make a quick note. The reason, and this is just for the listening public, the reason that we do require so much input from various agencies and the various players in here is so that we, you, the amazing staff, can address those concerns, right? So that we understand that there is, in fact, the roads can handle it and we can Understand that the water can be provided and things like that so while I very deeply much Understand the concerns of the community it is the job of our development department and our planning Approval process to make sure that we are in fact in compliance with all of those things the only The only moment there that I would ask a little bit for you to elaborate on this could you explain? What was the concern about commercial use?

That was a concern from one or maybe two of the public comments that we received. Any commercial use would have to go through a thorough land use permitting process appropriate to whatever is proposed. No commercial use is proposed with this application. Just approving the existing dwellings on the property and additional subdivision lots.

They're concerned about getting it approved now and then it being used for commercial use illegally?

I don't know. But, yeah, if commercial use or multifamily use is proposed in the future, it would, I mean, for one, it would be limited to the building envelopes that are outlined on the plat. and then would need to meet development standards in the land use code for whatever commercial use would be proposed.

If I'm correct, the Planning Commission supports this unanimously?

Excuse me?

Sir, we'll have a public comment. So right now it's questions from the commissioners to staff, and then there will be a public comment section to where you'll be able to have your moment in time. Thank you. Yes, sir.

I can look up the sketch plan minutes right now. Yeah. It was unanimous. The sketch plan.

Those were my questions, Mr.

Chair. Reviewing some of these comments here, I don't recall who sent them. One of the staff members sent the additional comments that were submitted to the commissioners on this project. I'd like to go back to the water supply. So please restate what that was again for water.

I believe it's the Titus Domestic Water Spring. I got that name wrong, but that is a... A SPRING THAT THE HYDROGEOLOGIC STUDY WAS CONDUCTED ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WATER QUANTITY WAS MET. AND I BELIEVE ON THE FIRST ROUND OF REVIEWS, THE STATE ENGINEER MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT WELL ON THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE MULTIPLE WELLS ON THIS PROPERTY. SOME ARE ACTUALLY WELLS FOR RESIDENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COUNTY ROAD. AND THE APPLICANT DID RESPOND TO THAT FIRST ROUND OF REVIEWS WITH THE COURT, THE WATER COURT CASE FOR THE TITUS SPRING AND THEN AFTER THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE STATE ENGINEER THEY

Deemed it adequate for for water supply, so it'd be just to go off some of this one Question or slash comment would be is so it is a legal water supply that would be And then the other item to as well just addressing some of these comments that were here and what the commission had received was geologic hazards Is there any concerns on this?

So there are geologic hazards on the west side of the creek, and that's far away from any of the building envelopes that are proposed. That's actually dedicated open space on the plat area. And the building envelopes are outside of... those geologic hazards and as well as the floodway hazard and the floodplain. And I believe the other concern that CGS had was for the fluvial hazard. There is no fluvial hazard regulations in the land use code currently. We don't regulate that. SO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR ANY STUDIES OF THAT PARTICULAR HAZARD. AND IT IS ALSO NOTED AS A PLAT NOTICE FOR FUTURE OWNERS.

AND THEN I SAW IN HERE, I BELIEVE THE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, ARE ANY OF THOSE IN THE FLOOD PLANE?

Don't know the answer to that, but they're all permitted systems from public health. So I'm not sure if that's...

So there's no red flags on that? No red flags. Okay. All right, thank you. All right, so then we'll go on to the next step here, and that is we will, let me get my cheat sheet here, and that is, is there any additional questions you may have before I?

My final question, and I apologize to have to step back a few. Regarding the shared water system, what is required for the, what will have to happen on the property to trigger that system actually being in place? Because right now it's suggested that it will be built before X, Y, and Z. At what point in this process does the shared water system get? Right.

And my understanding is, is this on? Maybe not. There's a mic above you, so I'll pick you up. So the microsystem standards are the standards that are triggered and have to be met. Also, the county engineer is online and might be available to make further comment to this.

At what point, because it's not built yet, right? So at what point is that built out required before whatever next step? Is it required to go in before building permits? Is it required to go in?

So the process is after preliminary PLAT approval, the applicant has one year to submit their final PLAT plan with all the corrections needed as a condition of approval. ONCE THAT IS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY, THE PROJECT IS VESTED FOR THREE YEARS, AND THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE THOSE THREE YEARS TO INSTALL ALL THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN COME BACK WITH THE SIGNED PLAT, WITH ALL THE CORRECTIONS, AND SAY, OKAY, I'VE GOT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT ARE REQUIRED, REQUEST AN INSPECTION BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER, AND THEN THE COUNTY ENGINEER WOULD INSPECT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS AND SAY, OKAY, THESE ALL LOOK GOOD. THE PROJECT ENGINEER WOULD SUBMIT A SIGN-OFF THAT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS MET ALL THE PLANS AND ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANS. I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO some testing of the water system to make sure it's got adequate pressure, things like that. And then at that point, everybody signed off on everything and the plot can be recorded.

Thank you.

Because what I'm saying here is that we've got a total of A through I on findings and a total of 10 conditions that need to be met before they can proceed to, if approved on the preliminary, to proceed and move forward with. That's correct. All right. Thank you. All right. I'll go on to the next step. Thank you very much, staff. Will the applicant or agent please state your name? Please come forth and state your name. And are you in agreement with the A through I findings and the 10 conditions?

Good morning Chris Hawkins with planning my client is an agreement to the the findings and conditions as stated in the memo of record If I could be promoted to a panelist or whatever it is so I could also share my presentation.

I'd appreciate it Should be just Chris Hawkins Sarah if we could promote please Thank You Chris you'll have to accept your promotion I

In addition, commissioners, the county engineer has been made a panelist if you have questions directly for him.

Thank you. We may. And after all this, thank you.

As well, Mikey with Site Development Solutions is on and would like to make a few comments in regard to your question on the water system status and septic permits, if that's okay.

Sarah, if we can promote Mikey. Is it Valencia?

Yes. All right. Thank you. So the site you're familiar with, I don't want to be repetitive in terms of what's already been presented. I did want to point out this is in a fairly developed area of the county with the mobile home park over here kind of to the northwest. And then there's 20 condo units basically to the east of the property. Staff went through this West Durango district plan. This is a guiding document overall. And the density on this site is one of the highest in the suburban density residential. It can be one unit from 0.5 to three acres. Then the surrounding lighter kind of tan colors, residential three, which is one unit per three acres. And so this was a site that was identified for potentially higher densities. So it gets four lots on 27.93 acres. It's overall, if you take two dwelling units per lot, which is what's allowed, that equates out to roughly one unit per 3.5 acres. So we're well above what's allowed by the master plan. The lot size ranges were already covered earlier. And then the vacant rural lots that are kind of more on the east side are basically 3.3 to 12 acres in size. The subdivision itself, I did want to go through this a little bit on the existing conditions because this is probably one reason it took so long. Like my client said, it's been six years. I didn't get pulled into this until like two or three years ago. But it's been a long time. But it took a lot of time and effort to get to these building envelopes. And I'm sorry, this isn't turning out really good on the graphics, but the steep slopes The wetlands were mapped by a qualified consultant. Those, again, consultants have to map those based on state and federal regulations. And so the wetland buffer is provided for each of these building envelopes. This is the building envelope for lot one. Again, this is about an 18-acre lot, and you can see the building envelope right in this area. There could have been another building envelope down here. But my client just wanted one envelope on the property to keep that really open character that kind of when you go in there, this is just a beautiful area of the county. This is lot two. Again, a really small building envelope. That shaded pattern is steep slopes, so we're avoiding that. And then this is lot, basically, sorry, lot one again. Sorry, this is lot three. This is going up towards the north. Again, this is a really small building envelope for lot three with most of it in what will effectively be private open space. And this is lot four. With this lot, all the lots have a lot of constraints, but this building envelope avoids all those constraints overall. As far as land use code requirements, staff's done a great job and I really appreciate their help on this. All the code requirements have been met in regards to the subdivision overall. As far as the compatibility criteria, I know this is one of the subjective tests, but if you look at the proposed density versus the surrounding density and what's proposed on this site, there's basically four units today. that exists on the property. And so we're just, in essence, adding two more lots for four more units total. So it's not this huge density increase like is the 20 condo units up the hill or even close to what's over at the mobile home part. So with that, I'm not going to go into public comments as much, just because I think those have been addressed adequately, unless you had questions. I would like Mikey to address your two questions on the water system and septic system, if that's okay.

Yes, please.

Mikey.

Are you there? She's raised her hand. Oh, okay. Maybe it was the other one. If we can... She may have called in for that. Sarah, if you could do the other. I see.

Thank you. Yeah. All right. Can you unmute yourself to speak? Yeah, I see that you're still on mute. Your second one is anyway. I'm wondering if you want to try to call in using a phone and then we can invite you in to speak that way if you just don't have sound on whatever device you're on.

We have a Mikey Valencia as well as a Michael Valencia.

Uh-huh.

However, M-I-C-H-A-L. Yeah.

Yeah.

Just to move this forward a little bit, hopefully she can jump on here. The water system has already been constructed to three of the lots. There are some improvements that still need to be completed, including a few cisterns, as well as the extension of the water line to lot four. So that has been met in terms of that. The septic systems all have been designed and exist by Colorado PE. And any future septic systems will need to be designed by PUD and meet the OUTS requirements, the On-Site Basewater Treatment System requirements. My guess is those are going to be in the building envelope, but that was the main thing I wanted her to address. But in the end, they have to meet your requirements, the state requirements for septic systems. So I would like to reserve the right to provide additional comments. If any new public comments are raised, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

I have a phone that's dialed in. It's last four digits 6767. Mikey, if that's you, I did give you permission to speak. You'll have to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

You're unmuted. You can please proceed. Okay.

I simply finally got it.

There you go. Thanks.

Okay. Sorry. My microphone would not work, but I called in. Thank you for getting to that. So, yeah, kind of what Chris has mentioned is that all the septics that are there are, you know, have already been approved, that have permits. Any new septics that would be needed for a new house would have to be out of the floodplain. That is one of the requirements. And then the water system, this one's a little different in that a lot of the pieces are already there. He has a lot of water lines that have already been installed. The spring is there. What is needed to bring it into compliance for a microsystem is one is water storage. So it needs two days of storage for all the homes. So that's on the water plan. So he will need to add that. They also need to add meters at each of the homes. So everybody knows who's using how much water. And then I believe lot four needs a water service ran out to it and then a meter at the future home when that comes. So part of it's there. Part of it would be installed. Like our planner said that it would all have to be county approved when they get it installed. And then we would have an approved water system.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any additional questions until I switch to the next step? Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll go ahead on to the next section of this agenda item. That is, I'll open this up to public comment portion of this project. Anyone wishing to address this project, please limit your comments to three minutes and I'll hand it over to Sarah.

Thank you so much, commissioners. So if anybody in our virtual audience would like to make comment, if you could please raise your hand for me in Zoom. And if you're on the phone, if you could please press star 9, and that will let me know that you'd like to speak. While you raise your hands, I just want to let you know that if you'll get three minutes to speak, and I will put a time clock on MyView that can help you gauge your time.

So during that time while we're waiting online, sirs, any one of you would like to go first? Please come on up. And you just have to stage. Sir, you'll have to come up here, because it is recorded. And so you'll have to state your name. And then you have the floor for three minutes.

Thank you.

And then actually, we have a new system now. So we actually, Sarah will be having a timer. Yeah. And then it has like a Jurassic Park theme.

So it's going to. Now? Yes, sir. Yes. I feel like that valley is overstressed. It's overdeveloped. Our water levels have dropped significantly. I just live out there. I don't own any property. And I don't want to quash anybody's dreams. But if you, I think that, and it's all going to contribute to urban sprawl. I mean, can you see that coming to Durango? Because that is the seed for it. And we've got to respect our past, right? And that valley is full of history. And the wildlife has dissipated significantly in the short nine years that I've lived there. And there's too many people coming. With the trailer park and that wonderful campsite, which I found out was world famous recently, with all the traffic and stuff, especially on holidays, it's ruining the valley, really. I mean, where it is is fine, but if you, I'm sorry, but if you try to make it grow more, your plant's going to die. Thank you so much.

I apologize. I can't recall if you said your name. I did not.

I apologize. Neil Hathaway. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, sir.

Yes, whoever's next.

My name is Colin Hunt, and I'm the neighbor of this property. And my main concern is the wildlife. All the years I've lived there, it's a wetlands. It's a beautiful property and it has wonderful, fantastic wetlands that so many animals use. Just through the years, and I just made a quick note of, just as long as I can think off the top of the head, that I've personally seen, because we live kind of a hill and we look down to the wetlands. And there's frogs and turtles. I've seen lightning bugs and eagles, hawks and marmots, kingfishers. I've even seen monarch butterflies above the wetlands. Canadian geese, owls, lynx, foxes, raccoons, wild turkeys, deer, bear, mountain lions, heron cranes, and that's just on top of my head. So I worry about the animals. And I just, I love the animals. And I've noticed, like he said, they've been decreasing with all the increased traffic. And the owners of that property, they have Airbnbs and can it soak. we see the impact that they have walking through the wetlands. And so they have dogs, and we see the little ducklings, the ducks with the little ducklings, and the dogs will go running after them. It's awful. It's hard to see. So I really worry about the wildlife. And my second concern is, We've lived since the 70s there, and we remember the flood that hit that area. And all those plots that they've shown was underwater. The only thing that wasn't underwater was right up where the road where that house is. But all that was totally underwater. So it has to be consideration of having the houses be on stilts or something, because that will go underwater again. It's just nature. So that's a very big concern of mine. And the trailer park that sits across the property, we regularly see sewage, raw sewage coming out of that trailer park. And it's in violation so many times for that trailer park. And we'll look and we see raw sewage coming down our creek. And so I just think about just the impact of that. So just with all those issues, that area is so – I wish you guys could see that area because it's a beautiful wetland area, and that should be preserved for the animals. And that's my main concern. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the room for this matter? Yes, sir.

My name is Eric Rogan. I live directly across the street from the proposed dual subdivision at 426 County Road 207. So I look to the south of the subdivision. A few things I do want to make note of, Commissioner, you As earlier regarding the public comments, I've voiced one of those. One of my main concerns was what was the extent of this development going to ultimately look like? Was it going to be just single residence use? Was it going to be multifamily or some sort of commercial use? Because that's a huge concern of mine. I'm voicing the concerns of my neighbors. Yeah, it's gorgeous. It's the main reason I bought that property. Like this is just beautiful. There's unfettered, um, wildlife here and, um, ensuring that any development going forward, um, preserves the overall aesthetic, if you will, of the area. So that was my main concern, was that, you know, it's like, if these developments are, these new buildings, are they just going to be single family? Are we going to have this multifamily townhome, what have you? And it seems as though that is not the case, which I'm very happy about. I do have grave concern about the continued, um, unrestricted, or I don't know how to say this, but the fact that the trailer park to the north end of the subdivision still does, yes, have a septic system from what I understand is out of compliance. It's impacting Lightner Creek. It has for a multitude of years. These new residences will be perhaps directly impacted by that. I feel that the county needs to address that issue It should have already addressed that, and it has not been, and now we're looking at developing downstream of that. I do have one question because it's hard to see with the size of the presentation. Last one, two, three, and four, do they run concurrently north to south or south to north? I was unclear on that. So those are my main concerns and questions.

All right. Yes, sir.

I'm Dan Doyle. I'm the owner or co-owner of that. My wife and I bought this without the intention to subdivide at all. What we wanted to do was to build a house down below, away from the road, because since we had the motorcycle rally, it's quite noisy, right? I don't know how to wake me up all night. And subsequent to that, we've gone through a divorce, unfortunately. We actually get along better now. We're friends. So at any rate, we designed that specifically because we wanted the large pond area and that kind of thing to remain. Our plan was to donate it to the county or whoever wanted a major conservancy or whatever as a park for the public. My former wife said she's intends to do that. So I don't know. As far as wildlife, there's no impact. I saw a bear across the creek this morning. I drove down the little lane, and there was a cubby of turkeys over here, a cubby of turkeys over here. We have some domestic ducks. And as far as dogs, if there's dogs running around out there, it's from the trailer park, which I've had to run off several times. So I don't know what the complaint about the wildlife is. It's a beautiful area. I don't want to change it. If there is a new house that's built, it will be on the fourth lot, which is on the far north, for a little mini home for me because I'm currently renting right now. So at any rate, it's a great place, and we wanted to preserve it as something for the future, for the county, the people of La Plata County. I mean, I was a school psychologist here for years, and I want La Plata County to be a beautiful place. And so, at any rate, I hope I've addressed. As far as the numbering of the lots, the large lot is on the south end, and it goes to the next lot, which my wife or ex-wife is living in, and she has no intention to build anything else. And then there's another lot that my tenant really loves, and he wants to buy it. He's been saying, when is this going to be approved? I said, I don't know. And then the fourth lot would be mine. So that's hopefully that clarifies.

Thank you, Mr. Joel. Thank you. All right. Anyone else here in the room? I am not seeing any hands on the line. Okay. All right. I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of this meeting. And then... Would the agent or the applicant, would you like to address any items? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Commissioner.

I have a few more just to make sure that we're closing the loop on some of the discussions in the room. At first, it sounds like universally everyone's concerned about wildlife. We don't live in this stunningly beautiful place not to care for our wildlife. Let's be honest. CPW did have their comments. They got to have their say in this application as they do with all of these permits. Can I just real quick get from Chris, what percent of the project area is approved for the building envelope versus open space? It can be rough.

If you please just come forward.

I'm just going to eyeball it, but you're probably, it's at least 80% open space compared to the building envelopes. I mean, I'm sure it's more than that, but I wouldn't want to go more than that.

I just want to just put it on record for those who are concerned about wildlife. Yeah.

The building envelopes are really tiny on this overall.

Wonderful. I know that there is some concern about the building envelopes being in the floodplain, but that all gets addressed during the application process. So if it were in the flood process, no?

Building envelopes are not on the floodplain.

Exactly. Thank you very much. And then... To Eric's concern, it does sound like we clarified today that there's the potential of four additional units. It doesn't look like a massive subdivision occurring in the area. And this is just me making sure that we're all on the same page as we walk out of this room. It does sound like it is something that the commissioners will have to do is to follow up on the septic concerns of the mobile home.

This has been a long-going issue. CDPHE is working with that lot, that property. I do not have a current update, but if anyone would like to provide one, please do so. If there is, I would like to hear.

Yeah, I would like to provide an update. I've recently spoken with the property owner of that community. And to the question that was raised, it is not regulated by La Plata County Public Health. It's regulated by CDPHE, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. DUE TO THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE SERVED. AND THE COUNTY HAS BEEN MEETING WITH CDPHE ALONG WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO DISCUSS THE COMPLIANCE ISSUES THAT WE KNOW ARE THERE. THOSE ARE REALLY SERIOUS. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, THERE'S TWO, ARE WORKING ON A SOLUTION THAT CDPHE HAS REVIEWED. HAS EITHER REVIEWED AND APPROVED OR IS IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING. I know it's perhaps not as quickly as would be desired, particularly if you live there and are seeing that, but it is something that's being reviewed and worked on with the property owner and the county showing up to participate and help where we can, even though we're not reviewing agency for that system.

Thank you. If I may, just a follow-up question. Is it?

Typically we don't, but I will allow it since it is a concerning matter and it's been a concerning matter even well before my, I mean, right when I became commissioner. So Sage, yes.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. But just so I think we all just have a little bit more clarification. So essentially due to the size of the community, it's outside of the hands of the county and it's at a state level. So the county can have some input in it, but it's essentially those decisions will be made at a state level. Is that...

I'm about to get pretty far out of my wheelhouse, so it may be best if we follow up afterwards. Sure. But having participated from the community development perspective on a couple of the projects, this being one of them, public health is in the conversations, but not the reviewing and approving agency. But I'd be happy to provide my contact and put you in contact with our public health department. I appreciate that. Who could answer it most correctly?

Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner.

All right.

I think that's it for me, Mr. Chair.

Okay. So what I'm hearing is one of those concerns was just the flooding, that it's not in the floodplain. When was the last time we did flood? It was just last year. Yeah, it was in the last four or five years. So it's been updated just recently.

It's been recently updated, yeah. Okay. Just to follow up on the math on the percentage of the property that's in the billing envelopes, it looks like 2.9%. We just did the math, so. It's going to have to be good.

I think I've got everything covered. Thank you for covering some of those questions. All right. With that then, I already closed the public comment portion of that section, so Commissioner Philbrick, I would go on to the next step here, and that is Are there any additional comments or questions? If not, I would entertain a motion.

I appreciate everyone's concerns. The packet is very thorough. If you have any additional questions, it's quite self-explanatory. So I move to approve project number PL20240026, the Doyle subdivision preliminary plot plan with the following findings and conditions. That includes nine findings and 10 conditions.

Thank you. There is a motion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Now, I want to, since that has moved forward, I want to then just recap. So the applicant will have to go through A through I on the findings and 10 conditions. And until they meet those conditions and findings, that's when they can go to the next step for an internal approval, correct?

Yeah, that's correct. So if you look at the findings, most of them are, they start with prior to plat recording. So the plat recording is what actually finalizes the subdivision and creates the lots. So they'll need to meet each of those conditions before they can even go to the clerk and recorder and record the subdivision and create the new lots. I believe there's one on there that's prior to construction. David might be able to describe what that is specifically. But this is pretty standard for subdivision processes and land use permits. There's typically these types of permits that are conditions that need to be met before actual activity can occur on the property or lots can be created and sold.

Thank you. And then, so we'll go on to the next item here, but Mr. Rogan, please reach out to Lynn. She'll be able to assist you after this meeting or later on.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, let's move on to the next item here, and that is decision item number two, consideration of project PL2026-0126, Glacier Club Tamron Development Agreement, Sixth Amendment. And if could someone please, Lynn, could you please grab Commissioner Porter?

Yes, yes.

Chair, if it's okay, I'll wait until she's here. Yeah, yeah, of course. Can I make my presentation from the table so I can go back and forth between screens?

Thank you.

Thank you all for coming in today. We really appreciate your insight.

Please. All right. Thank you, Commissioners. Dan Armentano, Deputy Community Development Director. This is a DA development agreement amendment for the Tamron Slash Glacier Club. I'll start with a little bit of background for you. This is a pretty minor amendment. To this da it's related to caretaker slash guest units I'll go into what that means a little bit more in a couple slides, but it's essentially Glacier called this version of an ad you The Glacier Club da has been in place since 2002. There's been five prior amendments most recently in 2015 this is being considered as a county initiated amendment staff has really brought this up with Glacier staff, and then we worked together collaboratively to come up with the actual text of the language itself. And these amendments do require approval from the board, following the PC's recommendation, which occurred a couple weeks ago. It's just a context map showing the area of the Glacier Club. It's close to 1,000 acres.

I think most folks know where that's at.

Up off of Highway 550. And the original DA allowed for up to 880 units. It's not fully built out at this point. So a number of different subdivisions occur within this area as well. OK, to go into a little bit more detail about what the caretaker units are. So the DA defines them as a fully functional living unit, which includes a kitchen, bathroom, et cetera. And then it has some occupancy restrictions that are placed on there. It may be occupied by family members, guests of owners, caretakers, or employees that work within the property. And that's the broader Glacier Club property. And then there's some language within the DA that's more specific, and some of these are the ones that we flagged for as problematic, perhaps. The first must be located within single-family dwelling units within the property. That language, staff finds to be somewhat poorly worded, so that's one of the items that we're proposing to change. Secondly, must be plat restricted for use by family members and guests or employees, again, of either the property owner or the business of businesses within the Glacier Club. So that's a plat restriction that goes on the subdivision plat itself that states who can occupy these caretaker units. And then there's requirements for design. They must be within 400 and 1500 square feet in size. Just for some context, ADUs elsewhere in the county can be up to 2,000 square feet as long as they're not larger than the primary unit, so a little bit smaller than that. Only one caretaker dwelling unit is allowed per lot. They must be located on lots with appropriately sized building envelopes, and they cannot be used for short-term rentals. The DA states they cannot be rented for a period of less than 30 days, and I actually understand that the Glacier CC&Rs are more restrictive even than that. Okay, so what is staff seeing on these? We've had some inquiries about these units over the past couple years. Not a ton, but enough for this to be highlighted as an issue. Most glacier owners that inquire about these units want to build them to be detached. So the wording in the DA that they must be within the single family dwellings sort of implies that they have to be part of or attached to to the existing dwellings. So we've taken the position that that detached structure option is not allowed. Secondly, the plot restriction that's on there, that, for whatever reason, hasn't been included on a number of the subdivisions that have occurred up in the Glacier Club over the years. So if owners want to build these, they have to go through a process to add that plat note to those subdivisions, which is a lengthy and difficult process. You've got to get approvals from the other property owners in there. So that can be challenging. So the current standards, those two in particular, broadly are prohibiting owners from building what they desire. So what we're seeing instead is detached additional living spaces. So I've included a couple examples of plans. So this looks like what could be an ADU. But on the inside, it's got a wet bar area instead of a full kitchen. This conforms with what county code allows for. Basically, you can't have a full kitchen, and then it's not considered to be a unit. But again, of course, it doesn't meet what the property owners are desiring to build up there. And it's broadly inconsistent with our ADU standards elsewhere in the county. That's the issue that we're trying to address. And here's the proposed red lines that accomplish that. So it's the two sections within the DA. The changes to section 3.6, accessory structures and uses, is more just clarifying the process. Right now it says these are permitted subject to administrative review and approval by county staff. ADUs are typically approved as a director determination, which is an administrative review, but we also have an admin permit. So we've intended to change these to be reviewed by Director of Determination, which is a simpler process. So we've changed the language to Director of Planning Approval. The reason it's Director of Planning and not Director of Determination is because elsewhere in the DA, it uses that specific language. So we're just being consistent with the language already in the DA. And then in 3.7, it's got a bulleted list right now that's going to change to just be a paragraph, essentially describing the restrictions. So we're removing the language that prevents these from being detached so that within single family dwelling units is going to go away. And then we're removing the plat restriction requirements as well. Since it's somewhat redundant, it's already provided for within the CC&Rs up there. The other requirements are pretty much remaining, including the size restriction, not more than one per lot, and that they have to be on appropriately sized properties, and then keeping the short-term rental prohibition as well. So broadly, just to recap, these amendments allow for similar flexibility as what the county allows for for secondary units everywhere else. It keeps those specific standards that are applicable only to the Glacier Club. And as I mentioned, again, we've worked with the Glacier Club staff on this and they're in favor of it as well. So it's been a useful collaboration between those folks and us. The State Commission considered this on August 27th. Pretty minimal discussion on their end. Just one question about short-term rentals, and they unanimously recommended adoption on a 5-0 vote. We did get one somewhat late public comment, sort of in response to a question that came up from the Rockwood Estates homeowners about whether the properties that were adjacent to that subdivision would be impacted by this. Broadly, it would not be impacted because it's not slated for future development. So that comment is in support of the change and it's not included in the packet, but it will be publicly available after this hearing, just for the record. So to conclude, staff is recommending approval of this project with, I believe, just two findings in the staff report and no conditions. So happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Commissioners, questions? More of a comment. I really appreciate the proactive amendment. I think that this is a wonderful thing. You all saw an issue. It wasn't working for you. It wasn't working for them. And you just went to fix it. And I appreciate that. It's very simple.

Thank you.

Yeah, chairman's welcome.

Yes.

Yeah, ditto. This is not coming from a place of concern. It's more curiosity. And if you don't have the numbers off the top of your head, don't worry about it, as well as the applicant. But of all the homes up there, how many may... How many are doing this now and how do we do we know how many how many of the thousand? There's a nearly a thousand acres and X units how how many homes will this apply to? and the only thing I'm thinking about is traffic, but I know that has been studied and assuming that would be part of it, but I just I'm just curious about the impact of

Yeah, it's a good question. I think we've had about four increase in the last two years about this. I can't speak to prior to that how many of these have been built. I don't think the number is very many. We can ask that question to the Glacier Club folks that are here. And then the Glacier Club is varied in terms of the unit mix. So typically, these would be allowable on single family properties, not obviously within condominiums or townhomes. So I'm unsure of the exact percentage of the lots up there that are single family homes as opposed to the other unit types. BUT I COULD DEFER THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL.

IT'S AGAIN MORE CURIOSITY. I WAS WONDERING ABOUT IMPACT. AND THEN JUST A NOTE AND THIS AGAIN DOES NOT I DO NOT BELIEVE IMPACTS TODAY IS THE COMMISSIONERS ARE INTERESTED IN SHORT-TERM RENTAL POLICY. AND SO I JUST YOU KNOW WE I DON'T I THINK PART IT RAISED FOR ME A POLICY QUESTION OF LIKE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE AN HOA OR IN THIS CASE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT That has their own set of policies around occupation of second units whether that's a the typical granny flat although there's got to be a better name for that, but You know detached units or whatever so what happens with our policy Which we're going to be starting to talk about next year when there are existing policies in place So it has really nothing to do with the Glacier Club It's just something for our big hopper of policy issues to look at so those are my only two questions

Yeah, I would assume that it would be HOAs or Glacier would override any of our policy. Yeah, I would like a legal review on that. Thank you.

Yeah, we'll get a legal review on that.

Yeah, exactly.

That's very true. All right.

So I call them mother-in-law suites, is what I call them.

Mother and father-in-law, but we'll talk about that later.

Just stick with ADU. ADU works. There you go. But with that ADU, I think what I was reading in the packet is family and friends will be able to use no less than 30 days. But their friends and family visiting is obviously less than 30 days. But they can have the ability to rent out for greater than 30.

That's my understanding of the regulations. I believe the CC&Rs are more restrictive even than that. And that would be a good question for the Glacier Club folks. So, yes, that's correct as far as my understanding. And then, yes, if it was to be rented out, it could be rented out to an employee of the Glacier Club or to a caretaker of the property owner.

I've got a quick question. This is really more about our internal processes so that I can better understand part of how we are. I can see very much how this helps Glacier and anyone who wants to develop an ADU up there. But internally, the shift from administrative review to director of planning approval, can you walk me through what actually changes for the applicant?

Yeah, so the administrative, if we think about just what our code has for processes, so we've got an administrative permit and then we have a direct determination permit. The difference between those two process-wise for the county is public notice and typically agency review. um we're have the ability to send director determinations out for agency review as well but it's um typically you know depending on the circumstance of course it's it's maybe not as robust or you know we do we do require that sometimes for adus if they're on like public water we want to make sure we get uh confirmation from the water provider that they're they would uh you know sign off on this and that would be the case up here as well because there is public water in the glacier club But yeah, the public comment piece is and that you know requires Some timeline a posting so it's it's mostly a timeline difference. So and it just clarifies it for staff Yes 15 days I think is the required public timeline I I'm looking at Lynn, too.

What I would share is that when we pull the metrics, we see director determinations consistently over the years take three weeks to get from submittal, a complete submittal, to approval. And when we look at administrative permits, we're looking at them on average, and that's an amalgamation of all the projects that fall within that. They're more in the three to four month timeline. So I think you could say on average, going from admin to director shortens a three to four month process to three weeks, if you look at the amalgamation over the years of those project types.

Thank you very much. I appreciate all of the internal efforts that your departments are doing right now. Thank you.

Any further questions for staff? All right. We'll go on to the next step here, and that is please step forward, state your name, and are you in agreement with the two findings?

Good morning, Commissioners. Dan Burkhardt, Burkhardt Planning and Permitting. Jim Goodman, the COO of Glacier, is also here. If he can help answer any questions. First and foremost, yes, we are in agreement to the findings. If I can jump back about five minutes and add a ditto, anyone else's ditto, that'd be great. Again, we appreciate this being kept simple by staff for a simple amendment. A lot of these things, and I think the same would hold true for the land use code. when everybody's in agreement let's just get them through get the get the amendments through um on that point i guess uh one of the issues here kind of back to that director of planning question is that things start to snowball all of a sudden if we try to change the name director of planning to planning director or community development directory then all of a sudden We're making 19 amendments, and this thing blows up into a big thing. So that's adding to that point. So we've got to be careful to kind of keep these simple and compartmentalized. On the units so far, I think there was 236 units built to date. It's roughly 50-50, multifamily, single family. These... Caretaker units were contemplated through all the traffic studies. They are exempt in the DA from the unit count. So ultimately, they can still build up to 880 total units at the Glacier Club. The speculation is it will never get anywhere close to that. But they were contemplated. The other piece to that, just because they are a single family property doesn't mean they qualify for these units. A lot of the newer single-family properties that have come through in recent years near the clubhouse, the home takes up a large part of the building envelope already. They're much smaller lots, yet some of the properties farther from the clubhouses are larger lot and would qualify for these. So that kind of slows it down. To your CC&R point, I will let you take it to your legal staff. But yes, generally speaking, I think the CC&Rs do, you know, you have county code and then the CC&Rs are more restrictive. In this case, it's a six-month policy at a minimum for any kind of short-term rental versus 30 days under the county code. And that is supported by the design review board and all of the current membership of Glacier Club. So I think I hit everything. If there's anything else you have for me, I'm more than willing to try. Otherwise, we do agree to the two findings, and thanks again to staff for trying to keep this simple.

No, thank you. Appreciate that. That's good context. Great. Thanks.

We're good. Thank you. All right. We'll go on to the next step here, and I'll open this up to public comment portion of this project. Anyone wishing to address this project, please limit your comments to three minutes, and I will hand this over to Sarah.

Thank you so much, commissioners. If anybody in our virtual audience would like to make comment relating to this item, if you could please raise your hand for me in Zoom. For those of you watching the meeting on a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you'll find a raise your hand button on your screen. And we no longer have anybody on the phone. So nobody's raised your hand yet in your virtual audience. If you want to check with your in-person audience.

Anyone here in the room would like to comment? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion of this meeting. Commissioners, any additional comments or questions? If not, I would entertain a motion.

No, I just, my only comment, and it's a ditto to the ditto to the ditto, is that seeing in here that staff work collaboratively, it doesn't surprise me at all, and it was great to see that in the report, and I completely concur with what Commissioner Fogelbrecht said about, you know, we're really looking to be problem-solving oriented here, so it was great to read that, and both this one and the previous and the boundary adjustment were incredibly detailed and thorough reports, and I appreciate it. So that's my comment. And on that note, I'd be happy to make a motion.

Yes, please.

All right. Chairman Salka, I move to approve Project PL20260126, Glacier Club Tamron Development Agreement Sixth Amendment with the findings as stated in the staff report.

Thank you. There's a motion. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Staff. That was great work. All right. Commissioners, that is the last item here. So I will call this meeting adjourned and see you all tomorrow during BDT.

Thank you.