P a g e | Routt County Board of County Commissioners Minutes

P a g e | 43February 9, 2016Routt County Board of County Commissioners’ Minutes

STATE OF COLORADOCOUNTY OF ROUTT

OFFICE OF THE CLERKFebruary 9, 2016

County Commissioner Cari Hermacinski, Chair called the regular meeting of the Routt County Board of County Commissioners to order. Commissioner Timothy V. Corrigan, Commissioner Douglas B. Monger, and County Manager Tom Sullivan were also present. Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Rachel Lundy recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes.

EN RE: WARRANTS

MOTION

Commissioner Corrigan moved to approve and authorize the Commissioners to sign the Warrants Sheets that included:

Accounts Payable Check- Cycle Date:

2/1-2/5 $267,405.69

Accounts Payable Check: Manuals

2/1-2/5 -

Accounts Payable Wires:

2/1-2/5 -

Total: $267,405.69Payroll Checks- Cycle Date:

2/1-2/5 -

Payroll Checks- Manuals

2/1-2/5 -

Total: -Total Disbursements Approved:

$267,405.69

Commissioner Monger seconded.

Mr. Sullivan advised of the following Accounts Payable items:

Baseline Engineering $17,356.33 R&B- bridge and culvert engineering (Fishcreek & Cottonwood Creek)

Blackbaud Fundware $14,584.95 Accounting- Financial software maintenance support

Civil Design Consultants $16,282.48 R&B- Southwestern Energy SUP (state land)

Drexell, Barrell, & Co. $10,505.00 R&B- Bridge Engineering (Green Pipe, Trout Creek, &


Moonhill)McMahan & Associates $10,000.00 Accounting- 2015 AuditPrecision Excavating, Inc. $12,697.44 R&B- salt sandSchmueser, Gordon, Meyer Inc.

$9,532.00 R&B- state land traffic study impact

Dept. of Interior $8,056.00 Env. Health- water quality monitoring program (1st

quarter)

The motion carried 3-0.

EN RE: ITEMS OF NOTE FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY’S WORK SESSIONS

Commissioner Hermacinski stated that there were no items of note from the previous day’s work session.

EN RE: CONSENT AGENDA

The following items were presented for consideration, approval, and signing on the consent agenda:

A. Approval of County Commissioners Minutes: Regular Meeting of January 12, 2016;B. Approval of and Authorization to sign a liquor license renewal for Steamboat Golf

Club Inc. dba Steamboat Golf Club for an optional premises license;C. Approval of the State Human Service Electronic Benefit transfer in the amount of

$232,182.59 through December 2019;D. Approval of and Authorization to reappoint Trish Sullivan to the Yampa Valley

Housing Authority Advisory Board for a term starting January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018.

MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve items A, B, C, and D on the consent agenda and authorize the Chair to sign the related documents.

Commissioner Corrigan seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

EN RE: PUBLIC COMMENT

Leopold Prodigality, citizen was present.


Mr. Prodigality stated that during last week’s Joint City/County meeting, he presented a solution for the housing problem: a 1,000 unit complex to cater to the 60% of people the City does not want to deal with. The City wants to cater to families and tourists. Every year more and more regular employees are dropping off and telling their friends to not go back to Steamboat because it is too expensive. These are all City problems at the moment. His company Mapler is looking to donate 40-60% of the profits from this housing project. His company is starting up permaculture farms all over the county to help out veterans and the homeless.

Commissioner Hermacinski asked where the proposed project will be located.

Mr. Prodigality replied that it will be west of town.

Commissioner Monger stated that the County has zoning and an IGA with the City that says the County will not allow urban development outside of the City.

Mr. Prodigality replied that he has spoken with Scott Ford who had planned on presenting the willingness to annex until he spoke with someone from the Yampa Valley Housing Authority (YVHA).

Commissioner Hermacinski said that during the summer, the County proposed to the City that they achieve the West Area goals by allowing subdivisions in the county in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the City said no. It is important for the County to work with the City because the City has the water.

Mr. Prodigality replied that he has water rights.

Commissioner Monger asked if Mr. Prodigality has put a proposal together.

Mr. Prodigality replied that he has not. He is not worried because his company is a non-profit and there are a lot of people who would benefit if they could get a tax write-off.

Commissioner Corrigan said that if Mr. Prodigality comes forward with a project that is acceptable to the City and the City is willing to annex, the County will not be a stumbling block.

Mr. Prodigality said that because of the influence the YVHA has on the City, he is not sure whether or not the City is going to be willing to annex.

Commissioner Corrigan advised Mr. Prodigality to explore this with the City.

Mr. Prodigality replied that he has encountered a stumbling block in the YVHA. One of the members of their Board is one the only ones who did not sign his petition for this housing project.

Commissioner Corrigan replied that the failure of someone on the YVHA Board to sign a petition does not represent a stumbling block.

Commissioner Monger agreed and said that it could be considered a conflict of interest.


Mr. Prodigality stated that Scott Ford retracted his willingness to annex when this personspoke to him.

Commissioner Hermacinski stated that the annexation is a long process and there are seven votes. She thinks it is important for Mr. Prodigality to get his application through the City’s process and let it work through the public process. The County would not be a stumbling block to the City approving an annexation.

Commissioner Corrigan added that what Mr. Prodigality has proposed sounds like a potential solution to a lot of housing problems. He asked if Mr. Prodigality owns the property in question.

Mr. Prodigality replied that he has quite a few properties to choose from.

Commissioner Monger stated that as President of the YVHA Board, YVHA will not be in the midst of this project and would support it. There is a large fraction of the community that does not want to grow.

Mr. Prodigality asked about putting the project outside the UGB.

The Commissioners advised Mr. Prodigality to speak with the Planning Department.

Commissioner Monger read a letter from Roger Steen regarding the revised Strategic Energy Initiative: “In the suggested update as reported by Tom Ross February 2, the current Energy Initiative may shift to Support the economic health of our energy industries. This proposed change is directed to providing long-term support of the coal mining, transport, and power production in the face of state and national pressure to curb the coal industry’s contribution to global warming. The state and national pressure is directed primarily at lowering coal consumption for power production and cement manufacturing. In recognition of the eventual need to lower these carbon emissions, which will impact Routt County’s economy, I suggest adding the words while recognizing and preparing for the long-term national shift to a lower environmental-impact carbon balance and its effect on Routt County’s economy. Currently we have a responsibly operated energy industry; clean, inconspicuous, and an integral part of our community. As mine-mouth power plants, which translates into low fuel transport costs and emissions, Hayden and Craig Generation Plants should be the last to be curtailed for reduction of greenhouse gases. But, the global warming yellow light is visible downthe road and Routt County should be prepared to take some of the hit. We should be politically prepared to contribute in some way to the decrease in carbon transfer from the ground to the atmosphere, perhaps as a decrease in carbon emissions or increase in sequestration in our agriculture soils and forests. Coal miners and power plant employees have children too- and they will pay the price for no action along with the rest of our children and grandchildren”.


EN RE: HUMAN SERVICES / VICKIE CLARK

MOU FOR THE LOW-INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Ms. Clark stated that she is requesting the Board to approve and sign a Memorandum ofUnderstanding for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP). Goodwill Industries of Colorado Springs has been performing the administrative functions for LEAP for the Routt County Department of Human Services since 2011 and the County has contracted directly with Goodwill Industries since that time. Goodwill’s audit records have been excellent during this time. Their established infrastructure and volume of work will allow them to process Routt County’s applications timely and more cost effective than the Department of Human Services would be able to do.

MOTION

Commissioner Corrigan moved to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Memorandum of Understanding beginning October 1, 2016 between the Colorado Department of Human Services Low-Income Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) and the Board of Routt County Commissioners confirming the Routt County Department of Human Services intent to commit to suing the contracted vendor in lieu of self-administering LEAP.

Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 3-0.

NORTHWEST COLORADO REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE IGA

Ms. Clark stated that the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Routt, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Pitkin, Eagle, Moffat, Summit, Grand, Jackson, and Lake Counties is to share a Full-Time Equivalent that is housed in Garfield County. The project is an effort to use existing resources to have an eligibility worker who will be utilized regionally to assist with maintaining quality service levels during vacancies (long-term and short-term) to fill in staff in emergency situations and support newly trained staff to learn the skills as quickly as possible to become competent in their new positions. Routt County’s contribution would be $1,400 and is from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016.

MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners of Routt County, byand through Routt County Department of Human Services and the following Board of County Commissioners and their departments of Human Services: Garfield, Rio Blanco, Pitkin, Eagle, Moffat, Summit, Grand, Jackson, and Lake (Northwest Colorado Regional Collaborative).



EN RE: COUNTY MANAGER / TOM SULLIVAN

GRANT AGREEMENT- BROADBAND FIBER OPTIC BUILD

Mr. Sullivan stated that Routt County is acting as a sponsor of an EIAF grant to fund 50% of a broadband improvement project including installation of a 288 strand of middle mile fiber optic cable from downtown campuses of anchor institutions and the Northwest Colorado Broadband Inc. (NCB) to facilities to the west and east sides of the city. The total project cost is$1,437,177 with a local match shared by six partnering entities: Yampa Valley Medical Center, Yampa Valley Electric Association, City of Steamboat Springs, Steamboat Springs School District, and Colorado Mountain College along with the County. The project budget is divided between two main fiber cable components: a main trunk-line and laterals to each participating entity’s facilities. Segments of both components will be either hung from electric power poles or placed in conduit. The grant amount is $738,195 and Routt County’s contribution is $255,270.The deadline to complete the project is March 21, 2017.

Commissioner Corrigan thanked Mr. Sullivan for his work in putting this together. He thinks this probably would not have happened without Mr. Sullivan.

MOTION

Commissioner Corrigan moved to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the grant award agreement between the Department of Local Affairs and Routt County for an Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance grant for $738,149 to fund the Fiber Optic Build project.


EN RE: PLANNING / CHAD PHILLIPS

Kristy Winser, Planning; Mary Alice Page-Allen, Town of Oak Creek; Jerry Nettleton, Peabody Energy; Mike Mordi, Routt County Road and Bridge; Scott Cowman, Routt County Environmental Health; Bob Weiss, Attorney; Loui Atonucci, Steamboat Mountain Real Estate; Darren Zamzow, Carol Zamzow, Rachel Searchfield, Scott Erickson, Amanda Hiebert, Sarah Albright, Kelsey Randig, and Rich Darsow, Hahn’s Peak Roadhouse; Paul Hoffman, Steve Warnke, Dave Erickson, Katie Bessey, and Dale Bessey, citizens were also present.

RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO THE OAK CREEK COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PL-15-1058

Ms. Page-Allen stated that both Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) reviewed the changes to the Oak Creek Comprehensive Plan at work sessions conducted in 2015. The Town of Oak Creek Comprehensive Plan shall serve as the “three mile annexation plan” in compliance with C.R.S. 31-12-105. Annexation along Hwy 131 or outside of designated Future Growth Boundaries shall be discouraged. One minor change


that was made by the Oak Creek Planning Commission was to Chapter 3: Economy, Land Use, & Community Character, Growth and Preferred Director- it now states, “Prior to provision, extension, and or connection to Town services and development in Future Growth Areas, annexation shall be required”. County Planning Commission approved the changes at their January 21, 2016 hearing with a 7-0 vote.

Commissioner Corrigan stated that the Board encourages growth in the outlying communities.

MOTION

Commissioner Corrigan moved to ratify the amendments to the Oak Creek Comprehensive Plan.


SAGE CREEK MINE PERMIT AND COAL HAUL PERMIT; PL-15-1049 & PL-15-1064

Ms. Winser stated that the Sage Creek Mine permit and Coal Haul permit are both up forrenewal and amendment of the permits. Planning Commission heard the applications at their January 21, 2016 meeting. Although they are separate permits, they are tied together. The Coal Haul permit is to haul coal from Sage Creek to CR 27A to the Hayden Station and southbound to Twentymile. As part of the original condition of approval, the applicant was required to put in a roundabout at CR 27 and CR 27A and this has been completed. A conditionof approval that will remain is to allow the applicant to continue to haul southbound with 35-ton trucks until such time when improvements are put in southbound that they could use 70-ton trucks. The applicant is only requesting one amendment for the Coal Haul permit. The existing permit for the Coal Haul Permit has a 5-year permit period and the applicant has requested a 10-year permit period. Planning Commission recommended the 5-year permit period. The Board can accept Planning Commission’s recommendation but if they choose the 10-year permit, this may affect Condition #12 which has to do with language that staff put in and was notin the original permit. There is typical language that is attached to permits that deals with lapse of the use (generally one year) but this condition was written and kept at 5 years; one could impact the other. There were two other conditions of approval that were discussed. Condition #9 has to do with transferring the permit and was removed and Condition # 22 addresses repair of damage and clean up relating to spills. Staff suggested a timeframe of 3 days for when a spillor damage needs to be reported to Routt County Road and Bridge and Planning Commission agreed. Condition #6 and Condition #7 were added and were not discussed by Planning Commission because staff added these recommendations to be more in line with the standard regulations.

Commissioner Monger asked about the transferability of the permit.

Ms. Winser replied that Condition #9 was deleted because the County is the owner of the roads having to do with this permit and this language was not necessary.


Commissioner Monger asked why staff decided to not combine the two permits because they are both intertwined with and dependent on each other.

Mr. Phillips replied that this is what was requested by the applicant. The thought was, if the permit holder requests an amendment to the operation that is specific to the haul then the whole permit would be subject to review.

Commissioner Monger stated that the mine is useless if there is no haul.

Mr. Nettleton stated that they did not realize it was an option and would not be averse to combining the two permits. He noted that there are more Road and Bridge concerns with the Haul permit.

Ms. Winser stated that the Sage Creek Mine Permit is up to renewal and amendment. The existing permit for the mine has a 5-year permit period and the applicant has requested a 10-year permit period. Planning Commission recommended approval of the 10-year permit period. This impacts Conditions # 13 and #14. If the Board accepts Planning Commission’s recommendation, these two conditions do not need to be changed. The applicant also requested that exploratory coreholes and utility boreholes be an allowed use under this permit as well. Exploratory coreholes have much less of an impact than the utility boreholes and the applicant is more interested in having the exploratory boreholes than the boreholes because exploratory coreholes may need to be drilled quickly in response to unforeseen conditions. Coreholes is an administrative permit handled internally. Utility boreholes are an administrative amendment to the permit. Planning Commission recommended approval only of the exploratorycoreholes (reflected in Condition #2). The applicant expressed a concern with Condition #11 which addresses transfer of the permit. The concern was that a landowner could have the permit revoked if they did not agree with the terms of their surface use agreement with the SageCreek Mine. The applicant and the County Attorney discussed this condition and came up with mutually agreeable language.

Mr. Nettleton stated that Twentymile has been an operator in Routt County for many years. They are reaching the end of their reserves in the Wadge seam. They had committed tothe Sage Creek operation and developed some infrastructure but management decided not to make a huge investment given the current conditions. The Wolf Creek seam is a comparable quality to the Wadge seam but it not as continuous. The Wolf Creek seam gives them 8-10 years of mining. They want to preserve Sage Creek as an option but do not anticipate going in there in the immediate future; this is part of the reason they asked for a 10-year permit. Planning Commission recommended a 5-year permit period for the Coal Haul permit based on concerns and comments by the Colorado State Patrol and Road and Bridge. State Patrol commented that given the amount of traffic, it should be reviewed on a more frequent basis. Road and Bridge had concerns about any modifications necessary to the road and this warranted a 5-year permit period. He feels that Conditions #3 and #26 provide the protections needed and he asked the Board to take this into consideration. For the transfer of permit, the language that was included for both permits stated that if the permit were transferred, the applicant would need to provide consent from all surface owners. Peabody’s concern is that landowners give them right of access, subsidence rights, etc. in an agreement. The landownersmay change over time and the agreements are written for the successors and carry with the property. With the provision that was included, it would have thrown Peabody into a situation where if a landowner bought new property, they could say no and the mining permit would be


invalid. The provision on discontinuance of use ties to the length of the permit and the two should match up. Regarding Condition #26, Peabody had a consultant look at truck speeds and35-ton trucks do not impede traffic. 70-ton trucks slow down traffic and passing lanes are needed. When the road was redone, passing lanes were put in going north but not south.

For the mine permit, Mr. Nettleton noted Condition #11 (transfer provision). He brought Condition #30 to the Board’s attention. Staff said they cannot change this because it is part of the regular regulations but if modifications were made to the regulations, this would be one to consider.

Commissioner Hermacinski asked Mr. Mordi why Conditions #3 and #26 do not cover Road and Bridge concerns.

Mr. Mordi replied that the 5-year permit period was not a sticking point and this is why hedid not make any formal comments.

Commissioner Corrigan asked if staff gets referrals from Colorado State Patrol for every project.

Ms. Winser replied that Colorado State Patrol handles the accident reports. Staff does not normally send referrals to Colorado State Patrol.

Commissioner Corrigan asked about the wording and the term “social changes”.

Mr. Nettleton replied that the only thing that might fall into that is bus traffic but on CR 27, there are currently no school age children who ride a bus.

Commissioner Monger showed a map to Mr. Nettleton and asked about the permit boundary.

Mr. Nettleton pointed out the boundary area and said that the way the coal boundaries are set, Peabody looks at the coal reserves and what will be impacted immediately and what willbe impacted over the life of the mine.

Commissioner Monger asked about the boreholes and coreholes.

Mr. Nettleton explained the difference between coreholes and boreholes. They drill coreholes to the coal and grab a core sample. In the past, a pad was built to drill the coreholes but building the pad took a lot of time and earthwork and the disturbed areas took three to four years to revegetate. They wanted to minimize the disturbance and striptop soil to do minimal earthwork to create a flat area and just strip where the drill rig is and where the mud pits are located instead of a big pad. They created a lot less surface disturbance and got good reclamation with a year to a year and a half. Also, they look where they need coreholes and boreholes and try to use existing mine/ranch roads. For the coreholes, they are in and out in a short amount of time and the impacts are minimal. He noted that the working season is also shortened by the wildlife considerations. The state can approve a corehole in 10-20 days but the County process would take much longer because of the notification process. Boreholes are used for air shafts, water pump installations, material dropholes, etc. Normally these are part of the mine plan so they know ahead in advance; boreholes are a long-term installation.


Commissioner Monger said that he is supportive of the coreholes and of the coal business.

Commissioner Corrigan said that he is supportive of removing the 5-year permit period and making it 10 years and is supportive of all the suggested changes.

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve PL-15-1049, a renewal and amendment of theexisting Special Use Permit for coal hauling with the finding of fact that the proposal with the following conditions meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and is in compliance with Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions

1. The SUP is contingent upon compliance with the applicable provisions of the Routt County Zoning Regulations including but not limited to Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

2. The SUP is limited to uses and facilities presented in the approved project plan. Anyadditional uses or facilities must be applied for in a new or amended application.

3. Any complaints or concerns which may arise from this operation may be cause for review of the SUP, at any time, and amendment or addition of conditions, or revocation of the permit if necessary.

4. In the event that Routt County commences an action to enforce or interpret this SUP,the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs in such action including, without limitation, attorney fees.

5. This approval is contingent upon any required federal, state, and local permits being obtained and complied with; the operation shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Copies of permits or letters of approval shall be submitted to the Routt County Planning Department prior to operations.

6. Prior to issuance of the permit, Permittee shall provide evidence of liability insurance in the amount of no less than $1,000 per occurrence. Routt County shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. Permittee shall notify Routt County Planning Department of any claims made against the policy. Certificate of liability insurance shall include all permit numbers associated with the activity.

7. Accessory structures/uses associated with this permit may be administratively approved by the Planning Director, without notice.

8. The permits/approval shall not be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay fees may result in revocation of this permit. Permits/Approvals that require anongoing review will be assessed an Annual Fee. Additional fees for mitigation


monitoring will be charged on an hourly basis for staff time required to review and/or implement conditions of approval.

9. Transfer of this SUP may occur only after a statement has been filed with the Planning Director by the transferee guaranteeing that they will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. Bonds, insurance certificates or other security required in the permit shall also be filed with the Planning Director by the transferee to assure the work will be completed as specified. Any proposal to change the terms and conditions of the permit shall require a new permit.

10. The Permittee shall prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding lands, and comply with the Colorado Noxious Weeds Act as amended in 2013 and Routt County Noxious Weed Management Plan. A weed mitigation plan shall be developed by thePermittee and reviewed and approved by the Weed Supervisor prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit.

Specific Conditions

11. The Special Use Permit is valid for ten (10) years contingent upon issuance and maintenance of the SUP for the Sage Creek Mine.

12. Because of the anticipated periodic operations at the Sage Creek Mine, any discontinuance of uses of more than 5 years may be cause for review of the SUP. Extensions of inactivity beyond 5 years can be approved administratively, without notice.

13. Routt County has the authority to close any County Road at its discretion if such roadsurface is in poor condition and would be further damaged by additional use.

14. This SUP allows for the hauling of up to a maximum of 6 million tons of coal annually. Up to a maximum of 1.8 million tons can be hauled from the Sage Creek Mine to the Hayden Station. The balance of the 6 million tons can be hauled to Twentymile’s Foidel Creek Mine with a maximum of 6 million tons able to be hauled to the Foidel Creek Mine.

15. The total loads per day, averaged monthly, shall not exceed a maximum of 343 35-ton loads or 343 70-ton loads.

16. Permittee shall submit to the Planning Department a report of tonnage hauled under this permit annually.

17. When bussing of students on a regularly scheduled routes on CR27 becomes necessary, the hauling of coal during school bus hours shall not occur until negotiated and agreed upon by the permittee and the Hayden School District and approved by the Routt County Planning Administrator as to safety measures to be taken, which might include school bus pull-offs.

18. All trucks will be covered. All trucks shall be equipped with speed-monitoring technology to ensure that posted speed limits are followed. Violations of the coveredload and speed limit requirements by trucks subject to the permit will be reported to the County by Sage Creek Coal Company, which may cause the review and amendment or revocation of the SUP for this use.

19. Permittee shall be responsible for ongoing road maintenance and repair based on a pro rata share of actual truck usage of all outstanding SUPs for hauling on CR27. The Routt County Road and Bridge Director shall determine the requirements for timing and method of payment.

20. Permittee shall be responsible for any additional winter maintenance and other regular road maintenance above and beyond that normally conducted by the Road


and Bridge Department and shall obtain all necessary permits to do so. At a minimum, this will include responsibility for road maintenance between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. The permittee may be required to enter into a supplemental road maintenance agreement with the County to satisfy this condition.

21. Sage Creek Coal Company shall communicate and resolve issues with the repair and clean-up of any spill or damage in a timely manner in agreement with the affected parties. Any spill or road damage shall be reported to the Routt County Road and Bridge Department within three days of occurrence.

22. Allowable days of operation are 12:00 a.m. on Monday through 9:00 a.m. on Saturday. No shift shall start after 9:00 a.m. on Saturday or anytime on Sundays or holidays. No hauling shall be allowed on the following holidays: Christmas, New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, President’s Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.

23. Any accidents or citations involving trucks covered by this permit shall be reported to the Routt County Planning Department within 3 days.

24. Permittee shall obtain any required over-length and over-weight permits from the Routt County Road and Bridge Department prior to hauling. This condition is applicable for both 35-ton and 70-ton trucks.

25. Single 35-ton trucks may be used for the southbound haul until such time as the required road improvements to CR27 are complete. Hauling with 70-ton double trailer trucks will be permitted when required improvements to CR 27 and any affected intersections are complete.

26. Permittee shall be responsible for reimbursement of all costs associated with upgrading CR 27 and any necessary intersections along the permitted haul route, based up on the determination of the Routt County Road and Bridge Department of required improvements. Timing of reimbursement shall be at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Costs to be covered improved include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Design and engineeringb. Constructionc. Construction oversight and testingd. Road and Bridge staff costs directly associated with the projecte. Reclamation of intersection improvements, if needed

27. All trucks shall be equipped with Best Available Technologies for muffling of noise from engine brakes. All such equipment shall be maintained in good working order.

28. All unpaved haul roads and disturbed areas shall be watered or chemically stabilizedto minimize dust. Watering operations shall be increased immediately in response toperiods of high wind.

29. All tractors and trailers will be clearly numbered for easy identification. At a minimum, the tractors shall be numbered on both sides, and the trailers shall be numbered on both sides and the back.



MOTION

Commissioner Monger moved to approve PL-15-1064, a renewal and amendment of theexisting Special Use Permit for the Sage Creek Permit for the Sage Creek Coal Mine with the finding of fact that with the following conditions meets the applicable guidelines of the Routt County Master Plan and is in compliance with Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 of the Routt County Zoning Regulations. This approval is subject to the following conditions:

General Conditions

1. The SUP is contingent upon compliance with the applicable provisions of the Routt County Zoning Regulations including but not limited to Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

2. The SUP is limited to uses and facilities presented in the approved project plan. Anyadditional uses or facilities, excluding core holes, must be applied for in a new or amended application.

3. Any complaints or concerns which may arise from this operation may be cause for review of the SUP, at any time, and amendment or addition of conditions or revocation of the permit if necessary.

4. In the event that Routt County commences an action to enforce or interpret this SUP,the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs in such actions including, without limitation, attorney fees.

5. No junk, trash, or inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the property.6. This approval is contingent upon any required federal, state, and local permits being

obtained and complied with; the operation shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Copies of permits or letters of approval shall be submitted to the Routt County Planning Department prior to operations.

7. All exterior language shall be downcast and opaquely shielded.8. Prior to issuance of the permit, the Permittee shall provide evidence of liability

insurance in the amount of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Routt County shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. Permittee shall notify Routt County Planning Department of any claims made against the policy. Certificate of liability insurance shall include all permit numbers associated with the activity.

9. Accessory structures/uses associated with this permit may be administratively approved by the Planning Director, without notice.

10. The permits/approvals shall not be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failureto pay fees may result in revocation of this permit. Permits/Approvals that require anongoing review will be assessed an Annual Fee. Additional fees for mitigation monitoring will be charged on an hourly basis for staff time required to review and/or implement conditions of approval.

11. Transfer of this SUP may occur only after a statement has been filed with the Planning Director by the transferee guaranteeing that they will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. If transferee is not the landowner of the permitted area,verification of right-of-entry in the form of deeds, leases, easements, or agreements, as appropriate, may be required. Bonds, insurance certificates or other security required in the permit shall also be filed with the Planning Director by the transferee to assure the work will be completed as specified. Any proposal to change the termsand conditions of a permit shall require a new permit.

12. The Permittee shall prevent the spread of weeds to surrounding lands, and comply with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act as amended in 2013 and Routt County Noxious


Weed Management Plan. A weed mitigation plan shall be developed by the Permittee and reviewed and approved by the Weed Supervisor prior to issuance of the Special Use Permit.

Specific Conditions

13. The Special Use Permit is valid for ten (10) years. Permittee shall have the obligation to maintain both the subject property and the related CDRMS Mining and Reclamation permit during this period.

14. Because of the anticipated periodic operations at the Sage Creek Mine, any discontinuance of uses of more than 5 years may be cause for review of the SUP. Extensions of inactivity beyond 5 years can be approved administratively, without notice.

15. Any land survey monuments shall be recorded in the Colorado Land Survey Monument Records prior to commencement of mining, and if removed, shall be replaced following reclamation.

16. Prior to any surface disturbance, permittee shall consult with the Planning Department in order to provide detailed information on drill locations and any permanent facilities to determine if any wildlife or visual mitigation techniques need to be employed, if an address needs to be assigned, or if any other Routt County permits are required, including but not limited to Waterbody Setback permits or applicable Road and Bridge permits. Consultation shall occur at least 3 weeks prior to planned disturbance.

17. If applicable, permittee shall obtain waterbody setback permits and any Road and Bridge permits for drill sites and any new access roads used to access the drill sites.

18. Prior to any surface disturbance, permittee shall provide the Planning Department with a copy of the permit from CDRMS for such activity, including documentation of right-of-way entry.

19. Prior to any surface disturbance, permittee shall consult with CPW. Permittee shall adhere to any resulting restrictions or mitigation requirements.

20. Permittee shall abide by the Sage Creek Mine Fish and Wildlife Plan on file in the Planning Department in PP2010-017.

21. Unless otherwise approved by CPW, construction and activity that fall within the production areas of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse shall be conducted outside of the breeding and brood rearing time period of March 15-June 30 to minimize potential impacts.

22. The permittee shall obtain all necessary building permits.23. The color of exterior materials of all buildings and associated structures shall be a

neutral color that is compatible with the existing character of the site and environment.

24. All surface facilities associated with the Sage Creek Mine, including power lines, roads, poles, buildings, boreholes and pads, shall be removed, and any disturbed areas re-vegetated prior to closure of the mine, unless approved in conjunction with a post-mine land use.

25. Reclamation shall occur in accordance with the reclamation plan approved as part of this permit. The reclamation shall use a seed mix approved by the State and/or landowner, include primarily native grasses, forbs, and shrubs, and any non-native species will be limited to recognized adaptive beneficial species that support the


approved reclamation objectives and post-mining land uses(s), subject to review andconsultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service.

26. The operation shall employ the use of the most technologically advanced and provenprocedures and equipment to mitigate the significant negative impacts of mining operations and associated uses.

27. Noise from all on-site sources shall be in compliance with the performance standardsin the State noise statute (C.R.S. 25-12-101). Violations of performance standards shall be enforceable by the Routt County Environmental Health Department and maybe cause for a review of the SUP by Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners.

28. The silencers on all ventilator fans shall be cleaned as necessary to mitigate noise impacts. The Planning Administrator may require additional cleaning as necessary to mitigate noise concerns.

29. This SUP does not include offsite transport of material from the site; transport is to be conducted via trucks as per the approved Sage Creek Coal Haul Permit (PL-15-1049).

30. The Permittee shall be responsible for prompt repair and maintenance of any damage of CR 27, 27A, and 51D related to permittee’s activity including but not limited to:

a. Routt County roads affected by this SUP will be inspected by the Routt County Road and Bridge Department at intervals determined by the same. Any right-of-way or road damage repair or maintenance needs above and beyond typical maintenance, attributable to this use, shall be made by the county or third-party contractor as selected by the Routt County Road and Bridge Department and on a schedule determined by same. Permittee shall solely bear the costs of repairs.

b. If applicable, permittee shall abide by the following conditions concerning subsidence:

i. Prior to longwall mining beneath Routt County Roads 27, 27A, and 51D, subsidence monuments will be placed along the road above the gate roads and center of the panels. The monuments will be 6” to 12”spikes driven in the ground in the shoulder of the road. The monuments will be monitored on a quarterly basis while active longwall mining occurs. Once the panel has been mined and two monitoring sessions show no further movement, monitoring will be discontinued and the monuments will be removed. The County will beconsulted as to the placement of the monuments within the right-of-way. The summarized data shall be submitted quarterly to the CountyRoad and Bridge Director. If survey is not conducted by an independent, third-party surveyor, upon review of the data, the Road and Bridge Director may request a confirmation survey by a third-party surveyor, to be paid for by the Permittee.

ii. Permittee shall install, maintain, and relocate as needed any signs placed on CR27, 27A, and 51D advising the traveling public that they will be entering a subsidence zone. Signs at a minimum include “Begin Subsidence Zone” and “Leaving Subsidence Zone” in each direction of travel placed in advance of the subsidence area. Signs shall be Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) compliant.


iii. Permittee will have MUTCD compliant warning signs placed within theroad right-of-way and spaced throughout the area to be subsided as needed to provide additional warning to road users such as “Road Damage”.

iv. Permittee shall, at its expense, fund any repair of damage to the road right-of-way resulting from its activities. Repairs shall be coordinated with County Road and Bridge Director, performed promptly, and conducted in accordance with Road and Bridge standards. Prior to any work, an approved County permit to work in the right-of-way shall be obtained. The Permittee may hire a contractor to conduct the workunder a right-of-way permit or if acceptable to the County, fund the work in conjunction with a County contract. During the active longwallmining, roads will be inspected daily for evidence of surface cracking or other damages.

31. Permittee shall maintain access roads to minimize impacts to the County Road system during the life of the operations and to maintain on-site dust control. Maintenance may include sweeping or cleaning and/or repairing access points, and application of a dust palliative to private drives as approved by the Routt County Road and Bridge Director and Routt County Department of Environmental Health.

32. Routt County has the authority to close any county road at its sole discretion if damage to the road may occur by its use. To the extent that a road closure may affect permittee’s operations, Routt County will cooperate with permittee to allow operations to be continued in a safe and practicable stopping point, an/or to jointly develop a solution that will address continuation of operations and any associated issues related to the road.

33. Routt County roads shall not be completely blocked at any time. If traffic regulation is deemed necessary, the Permittee shall notify the Routt County Road and Bridge Director, or designee thereof, in advance (if possible), who may then require:

a. The permittee or permittee’s contractor/subcontractor to place traffic control signage along access routes and at intersections as specified by the Routt County Road and Bridge Director and at Permittee’s expense; and types and placement of signs shall be in conformance with the Model Traffic Code.

b. Flaggers to be placed at the intersections of affected county roads as specified by the Routt County Road and Bridge Director and at Permittee’s expense.

34. Overweight and over length permits for vehicles shall be obtained from the Routt County Road and Bridge Director prior to the use of such vehicles.

35. The Permittee shall obtain and Grading and Excavating permit from the Routt CountyRoad and Bridge Department for any new road construction and pad construction disturbing more than one (1) acre or three hundred (300) cubic yards of soil.

36. Access permits shall be obtained for all access roads to be built or improved which intersect Routt County roads.

37. All trucks and equipment accessing from CR 27, 27A, or 51D shall be able to exit, locate on private property and off of County road right-of-way before encountering a fence, gate or cattleguard. At a minimum, the distance from the County road right-ofway to any new gate, fence, or cattleguard shall be 1.5 times of the length of the longest vehicle.



HAHN’S PEAK INN CODE ENFORCEMENT; C-15-15

Mr. Phillips stated that toward the end of 2015 staff received several complaints about the landowner of the Hahn’s Peak Inn using the Inn in a manner that is in violation of the approved PUD plan. The violation is that the Inn is being used as long term employee housing. Documents used during staff review include the PUD approval from 1989, the applicant’s narrative, staff report, and the zoning regulation standards in place at that time for “Country Inn”.Neighbors were complaining about compliance with other standards (water) but staff’s focus was only on compliance with the PUD. In Section 1 of the narrative, it states “The intent is to operate a Country Inn to be known as the Inn at Hahn’s Peak consisting of various retail shops, food service and overnight lodging”. Section 2 lists the former uses of the Hahn’s Peak Store and includes “apartment rentals”. The request in the narrative does state the only accommodation is overnight lodging but there were no maximum stays that were presented as part of the approval. The approval resolution for the PUD states overnight lodging and there was no mention of any long-term stays. The resolution does list eight types of uses that comprise the Country Inn operation. The applicant would not have to do all of those uses and it would not be a violation; they can take away from the list but cannot add to the list.

Mr. Phillips addressed a letter that was sent from Carroll Zamzow which stated, “We are renting rooms at the property on a nightly basis. There are no leases or other documents normally used for long-term rentals. We charge occupants by the night for each night stayed. We collect and remit all applicable taxes, including sales and lodging taxes. Everyone fills out our lodging registration form. We have an on-site manager who stays in the existing one bedroom apartment. The kitchen is operational and occupants may prepare their meals. There is no cooking in the lodging rooms. The rooms are furnished and the occupants do not have personal furniture. We pay all utilities and other expenses of operating the building and provide all maintenance and snow removal. The occupants do not provide or pay for any utilities. First priority is given to seasonal employees of the Hahn’s Peak Roadhouse. If space is available, we will also rent rooms at the property to guests of the Hahn’s Peak Roadhouse on an overflow basis”. Mr. Phillips stated that a guest of a Country Inn does not typically commute to work fromthe Country Inn. A letter from Doug Camrud, Engineering Review Unit Manager for the Colorado Water Quality Control Division states, “Using the Inn as employee housing may change the classification of Hahn’s Peak Village HOA [water system] from a transient non-community system to a community system”. He proposed the question of if this was the case in1989. If this change of use in 1989 did not trigger a different review classification then it would be grandfathered in to the old approval. He received a letter from the landowner withdrawing the application to amend the PUD and requesting the filing fee be refunded.

Commissioner Corrigan asked about the referral to Mike Zopf, former Director of Environmental Health in the original 1989 file and if Mr. Zopf’s review considered the rooms would be fully occupied all the time. He would like to know the difference between the nightly use of these apartments versus the monthly use of the apartments from the Environmental Health perspective.


Commissioner Monger said that Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(CDPHE) is placing a different value on the water usage of full-time usage versus vacancy rate of a normal inn/hotel.

Mr. Phillips stated that in 1986 there was a letter from Mr. Zopf that said, “The system should be considered an approved non-community public water system”. A subsequent letter states, “As a result of this no review was made to the volume of water required, evidence of water rights and ability of the existing water system to provide water at the required rate and demand of build-out”.

Mr. Cowman replied that he does not have a lot of background on this but he would need to look at the thresholds. If it meets certain thresholds, it becomes a public water drinking system and has monitoring requirements.

Commissioner Hermacinski asked if this was a CDPHE or a County issue.

Mr. Cowman replied that it would primarily be a CDPHE issue.

Commissioner Corrigan pointed out that Mr. Zopf may not have known in 1989 to make a distinction between long-term and short-term rentals in terms of water use.

Mr. Weiss stated that he is representing the property owner, the Prezeaus. The County’s jurisdiction is if there is a violation of the PUD. The Prezeas did apply for an amendment to the PUD to try and alleviate the controversy but applying for it seemed to create more controversy and the application was withdrawn. The approval for the Hahn’s Peak Inn in 1989 was for an 8-unit overnight lodge and an apartment. The property has been leased to the Zamzows who are operating it as a Country Inn and their priority is to make it available to their employees on an overnight lodging basis. They are charging by the night, doing all of the thingsnormally incidental to renting a lodge or hotel room by the night and it is not being used as a long-term rental. There is no specific length of time that you can stay in a hotel room. The County does not have a law that limits the length of time that people can stay in an inn room. The length of time the Zamzows can make this available to their employees on a nightly basis isup to them. He clarified and said that there are six people staying in the rooms. They are not permanent residents in this place and it is functionally equivalent to what was approved. Regarding the water situation, the Inn was originally approved as an inn and a restaurant and would include nightly linen changes, washing dishes, and preparing food. None of this is going on and two of the three public restrooms are closed. Water use is way less than it would have been if it was being operated as a full blown County Inn open to the public. There is a problem with the water system and it has been going on for a long time. This has nothing to do with his clients or the Zamzows. The Inn has been there since the late 1980’s. The neighbors have hadthe luxury of not having an operating facility and have not had to deal with the water use. The neighbors are trying to take advantage of this to shift the problem onto the Prezeaus; it is not fair and there is no justification.

Commissioner Corrigan asked Mr. Weiss if he is asserting that there is no real legal distinction between the terms overnight, short-term, monthly, and long-term in the County’s regulations and that they are all just one thing.


Mr. Weiss replied that he believes they are different based on how the place is rented. An artist comes in to spend a weekend painting in Hahn’s Peak and decides to stay one month in the inn. This is not illegal in Routt County. It is the nature of the occupancy; the structure of the relationship between the person staying in the place and the place. It is being operated as an inn and not a long-term rental property.

Public Comment

Mr. Zamzow stated that he has been a property owner in Hahn’s Peak Village for 16 years and of those years, the Inn has sat vacant for 12-13 years and has known three couples who have tried to run the inn. PUDs are designed to allow some flexibility in zoning but in a lot of cases, it seems to be a strict interpretation of zoning. In 2013 the State came in under federal mandate and found that the spring came up with some microorganisms and it went from ground water to ground water under the influence of surface water. The state gave them a year and a half to get a design to the state, get it approved and have it installed by March 2016. In that period, the Village sent a design application based on 25 gallons per minute. The Village underestimated their uses and did not take into account the six vacant lots. When you add 40 people as Village residents, they will be there full-time. If the inn was approved in 1989 with 8 rooms, then it is approved. He sent a letter to the County in November 2015 to see if he could get a copy of the PUD and if it was approved for a rental situation. He received a vague “yes” response and moved forward and had employees move in. As the business grows, they are putting more employees in their units and this takes away from occupancy. He started looking around and thought this was a great opportunity; it seemed like a lot of things fit with the uses he was looking for. He feels like he is operating it as a Country Inn, the people are going to come and go, and the water is a big distraction.

Ms. Bessey stated that she is President of Hahn’s Peak Village Homeowners Association (HPVHOA) and her family has owned and operated the Hahn’s Peak Café for 12 years. She is requesting the current use of Lot 12, the Hahn’s Peak Inn, as long-term housing be discontinued. This use of Lot 12 is not allowable according to the PUD. It creates many residential versus commercial conflicts but most importantly it threatens the safety of our sharedwater system. The HPVHOA consists of 18 lots at the front end of Hahn’s Peak Village. Two ofthese lots are currently used as driveways or leach fields and are not buildable. There are currently 7 active residential lots and 2 commercial lots. Every lot owner is a member of the HPVHOA. In 2009, the State of Colorado Safe Drinking Water Program required the HOA to begin chlorination and weekly monitoring and testing of our water. Since that time, they have periodically required upgrades or changes to the monitoring of the system. The HPVHOA has put a great deal of time and energy into remaining in compliance with the State of Colorado. Eighteen months ago, the State received test results from a sample of their water before treatment that showed the presence of contamination. They were required to immediately increase the chlorination level and water sources were reclassified as Ground Water Under the Influence of Surface Water. The HOA was given 18 months to obtain funding, purchase, and install new equipment according to the State of Colorado Engineer’s specifications. Since the annual budget of the HPVHOA is $6,000, they had to take out a $10,000 loan to complete the upgrades. We are happy to report the required upgrades will be completed ahead of the deadline. With the current use of Lot 12, the water system is at risk of falling in violation with theState of Colorado and being required to make devastatingly costly upgrades. The HOA and the County have been informed by Doug Camrud, one of the top engineers with the State of Colorado, that the additional residential usage of the inn versus the historic transient usage may


change the system’s classification from transient to community. The State of Colorado looks at residential usage in a different way than transient usage. Residential usage at the Hahn’s Peak Inn would require such major changes and upgrades to the water system that it would immediately bankrupt the HOA. Almost none of the residents could afford a share of these upgrades. She originally thought the cost would be between $50,000 and $100,000 but the costcould potentially be in the high $100,000 to $1 million. She was informed that since the residents have moved into the Lot 12 building, water usage for the entire system has doubled. This did not happen during the two previous tenants of the Prezeaus. Now the risk of falling intoviolation is imminent. This will cause them to immediately make these insurmountable costly changes and harm their chances of obtaining funding for state grants. The current usage is presenting a serious health risk to the residents of Hahn’s Peak Village Subdivision including the inn’s residents. Please protect public health and end this immediately.

Mr. Bessey stated that he is the chef and owner of the Hahn’s Peak Café. He is not surein the County if there are terms that describe long-term use or overnight use differently but the state does. Residents are long-term users and transients are guests that come and spend some time and leave. It is completely different metrics that describe the water usage of both of these groups. This needs to be dealt with immediately.

Mr. Atonucci stated that he is the realtor of the Prezeaus. They intended to move to the United States and open the inn and a restaurant/bar. Because of the deep recession, they decided to stay in Europe and started a successful café in Switzerland. They decided to not move to the United States and instead lease out the property a couple of times. He has been trying to find a buyer for the inn to be used as a bed and breakfast or an inn but it has been difficult to find a buyer. This year Ms. Zamzow called him and asked if she could rent it for overflow and use of her seasonal employees. Employees come and go and he felt it was a good mix of uses.

Mr. Hoffman stated that this is a difficult situation because there is a continuous conversation about workforce housing. He asked if the terms of the rentals is in compliance with what is normal for overnight rentals. Sales tax would not normally be paid on a long-term rental. He thinks that trying to utilize the property is a good use. There has been a little comment about the water supply and the water problems. The inn started in 1989 and it soundslike some of the design might be the problem. It would be nice if the County and all parties involved would be able to work together. A Country Inn could have many elements of people staying overnight including many people who were working in the area and stayed for a whileand then moved on.

Commissioner Hermacinski asked if the Zamzows have been paying lodging tax.

Mr. Zamzow replied that he just sent off the first quarter.

Mr. Weiss said that in the water quality control letter, it states “Regarding your previous questions, using the inn as employee housing may change the classification of Hahn’s Peak Village HOA from transient non-community system to a community system. A community system supplies water to at least 15 service connections used by year-round residents or that regularly supplies at least 25 year-round residents”. The self-reported number of residents was 15 (pre-occupants of the inn). There are six people at the inn which would make the total 21.


They do not hit the threshold referenced in the letter. He hopes the Board would consider refunding the application fee for the amendment to the PUD.

Commissioner Hermacinski asked what the standards are, under a PUD, for the Board to stop an action that is being conducted on the property that is not consistent with the PUD.

Mr. Phillips replied that this is question for the County Attorney.

Commissioner Hermacinski said the Board has an enforcement action. She asked who bears the burden of proof or what is the burden of proof for saying they are in violation of their PUD or not.

Commissioner Corrigan said that he thinks this is an attorney question.

Commissioner Monger said the Board bears the burden of proof.

Commissioner Hermacinski said she thinks there has to be something in the existing regulations that outlines how this violation process works.

Commissioner Corrigan replied that he thinks the Board is in the middle of that process right now.

Mr. Weiss said that this is an enforcement hearing to authorize the County Attorney to get an injunction and force the Zamzows to throw their employees out of the building.

Commissioner Monger stated that the Board has to agree or disagree with Planning staffif there is a violation. If they believe there is a violation, they direct legal to send a letter and file an action against it.

Commissioner Corrigan asked if today the Board is making a determination if they are in compliance with the PUD.

Commissioner Hermacinski replied that she believes that is what is before the Board today.

Commissioner Monger said that they could wait and go into Executive Session with the attorney at a later point.

Commissioner Corrigan asked Mr. Phillips about Condition 12 of the original approval: The adequacy of water supply from the Hahn’s Peak Village Subdivision water system shall be satisfactorily established and documented by the developer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. He presumes this must have happened otherwise they never would have gotten a CO.

Mr. Phillips agreed with his assumption. He did not go through the Environmental Healthrecords or Building permit records.

Commissioner Corrigan asked Mr. Zamzow about the average length of stay for people staying in the building.


Mr. Zamzow replied that he has four people who have been there five weeks and one person who has been there one and a half weeks.

Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Zamzow if he anticipates they will be there through the end of the winter season.

Mr. Zamzow replied that he does not know.

Mr. Phillips said that this has nothing to do with the need for employee housing. Mr. Zamzow made a comment about checking with the Planning department and given a lukewarm answer. He checked with his staff and there was no communication that had anything to do with the Hahn’s Peak Inn. Mr. Weiss brought up the concept of no maximum stay in a hotel. Hewould agree with this if it was a use by right in a zone district but this is a PUD that has defined overnight lodging only with no mention of any seasonal stays or long-term stays. An existing use prior to 1989 was apartments and this was requested and approved to be removed from uses on-site. On the site plan there are 22 parking spaces that are required under regulations. Under the Country Inn, parking is one space per guest bedroom and two spaces for employees.Looking at the rest of the required regulations of any dwelling unit, they have at least two spaces required. Based on the number of parking spaces, long-term was not part of the approval.

Roundtable

Commissioner Monger said that he is not comfortable moving forward and there needs to be further conversation. There is no immediate fix. PUDs are one of his least favorite things.He does not have enough information to say if this is or is not in compliance with the PUD plan. There are enough questions and vagueness in the PUD plan and information continues to trickle in. This is probably one of the first ones in Routt County. It can be interpreted however you want to interpret based on your needs. He is ok with tabling until executive session with theCounty Attorney.

Ms. Winser read an email that Mr. Weiss provided. The email shows an exchange between Mr. Zamzow and Alan Goldich (staff planner). Mr. Zamzow asked if the current approval for the PUD allows for monthly rentals. Mr. Goldich attached the resolution and said it does allow overnight accommodations for any length of time.

Commissioner Corrigan agreed with Mr. Weiss that the discussion around water is irrelevant to the discussion in front of the Board today. Mr. Weiss has proposed an interesting legal interpretation of overnight lodging. He is not prepared to render a decision until discussionwith County Attorney in executive session.

Commissioner Hermacinski said the water issue is distinct from the PUD. She thinks theBoard doesn’t know what the burden is and if the Board is going to take away someone’s ability to do what they think they can do with their existing PUD, the burden is high and all of the information presented today (no leases, use of a registration form, occupants are transients, and sales/lodging tax being paid) shows they are in compliance with the approved PUD plan.


Commissioner Corrigan added that he is disappointed the owner chose to not pursue an amendment to the PUD plan. He thinks this would have been the proper forum for the Planning Commission and the Board to make a rational decision about this. He is concerned about this definition of overnight rental and is also concerned about the precedent being set

MOTION

Commissioner Corrigan moved to table this matter to February 23, 2016 to allow the Board to consult the County Attorney’s office in executive session.


No further business coming before the Board, same adjourned sine die.

_______________________________ ______________________________Kim Bonner, Clerk and Recorder Cari Hermacinski, Chair

______________________________Date