Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation

123 G. Street, Suite 7 | Salida, Colorado 81201 | Phone: 719-239-2018

EDC Policy Committee — LUC Feedback

Date: November 4, 2024

Attn: Miles Cottom, Planning Director, Chaffee County Government

Mr. Cottom,

On behalf of the Policy Committee of the EDC, thank you again for spending the morning of 10/30 with us, key developers, and other development-related businesses. We appreciate the County’s efforts to make the LUC clearer and more linear, particularly with regards to process.

An overarching EDC concern on the LUC draft is that it appears to achieve conservation objectives, primarily through larger lots and reduced densities, without balancing this approach with the community’s other stated objectives, including affordable housing and economic development. The current approach is likely to incentivize “one porchlight on each 35-acres.” Instead, the EDC encourages meeting both housing and conservation goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan through incentives for greater density in pockets near existing Towns and infrastructure combined with conserved open space requirements. This concern is addressed in the RR and AR density comments below.

In the realization that a LUC draft may be adopted in the coming month, below you’ll find our collective feedback, divided into two sections:

• Items that we ask be addressed pre-adoption, mostly minor process suggestions and editorial suggestions represented in the 10/28 draft LUC and Zoning Map, and
• Items that we assume can not be addressed in short order pre-adoption, but that we urge the Planning Department to continue working on if LUC adoption is delayed or post-adoption.

Pre-Adoption Concerns

• Economic Study — What efforts have been made to quantify the economic impact of the changes proposed in this draft? Would you support the County taking the time to do so before seeking adoption of this draft?
• 35-acre Minimums — How did the County arrive at that 35-acre number? What other communities have successfully implemented that rule, and what was the economic impact to those other communities?
• Code Amendment Procedure — A section of the code that anticipates and allows for process and code amendments as the code is vetted, and the impacts are fully understood, with new applications for the first couple years. This section would provide more comfort in endorsing the code now, acknowledging that it would be nearly impossible to make it perfect on this very short timeline.
• Special Events — The EDC supported changes made earlier in this public process to lessen limits on special events through a newly proposed process. It is our understanding that at least one agency that previously expressed concerns about the frequency of events no longer carries that view. Why were these limits reinserted in the current draft? It is our belief that these processes should be reverted back to those that were previously approved.
• Zoning within Municipal Three Mile Plan Areas:
  • If the goal is to drive development into municipalities, we should establish development rights in these areas that allow for density and uses that are at least as permissive by right as would likely be available within the respective municipalities. Arguably, the development rights in these areas should be more permissive in order to encourage municipalities to accept annexation of these lands without undue leverage to exact greater pain than necessary.
  • The reality is that even when approached with advantageous annexation opportunities our municipalities have used the annexation process as an opportunity to exert leverage to extract expensive concessions from applicants for things that are either unrelated to the development impacts created by the annexation, or require expensive up-front design, engineering and off-site analysis already contemplated by the municipality’s development code that would typically take place much later in a typical development application process.
  • By increasing density and allowing a variety of uses in the Areas of Desired Growth or Municipal Planning Areas, and so long as sufficient water and sanitation services are available, property owners and potential developers would have the opportunity to complete a project in the County without the necessity of annexing into the municipalities. Non-annexation in Areas of Desired Growth or Municipal Planning Areas is obviously costly to the developer and less ideal than annexation, but is preferable to low-density near-Town land use.
  • Even if property owners or potential developers intend to develop in the County instead of annexing into a municipality, the municipalities will have a seat at the table through their respective intergovernmental agreements, and would have the right to annex, if desired.
  • This recommendation supports the goal of encouraging dense development in and around municipalities, and will make such development more possible considering the reluctance of the municipalities to accept such development.
  • Recommendations:
    • Buena Vista — The Town of Buena Vista has created a Three Mile Plan, and reviewed/updated the same on an annual basis. Our recommendation is to increase the amount of MUC Zoning in Area 1, Area 4, Area 6, Area 7, Area 8, Area 9, and potentially Area 11 of the 2024 Town of Buena Vista Three-Mile Plan as recently approved by the BV Planning and Zoning Commission: https://buenavistaco.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_10162024-1841
    • Salida — The City of Salida does not seem to have a detailed Three-Mile Plan, but instead designated the Municipal Services Area (MSA) and Municipal Planning Area (MPA) identified in the Intergovernmental Agreement with the County as its Three-Mile Plan. Accordingly, it is more difficult to make specific recommendations, but generally, we recommend increasing MUC and MUR Zoning in the MSA and MPA around Salida. Municipal Ordinance: https://www.cityofsalida.com/media/14626 | Comprehensive Plan including map at page 3-3: https://www.cityofsalida.com/media/7906
    • Poncha Springs — The Town of Poncha Springs also utilizes its Comprehensive Plan as its Three-Mile Plan. That plan was created in 2011, and may not be the most current guide for development consideration. Our recommendation is to increase MUC and MUR Zoning along the Hwy 50 corridor between Salida and Poncha Springs, and along the Hwy 50 corridor to the west of Poncha Springs. 2011 Comprehensive Plan: https://www.ponchasprings.us/media/801
• RR Zone density: The Rural Residential (RR) minimum and 5 ac/unit, with 67% open space incentive do not align with creating pockets of density near existing density and infrastructure. The 5 ac/unit density is likely to drive development toward high-cost, large-lot housing. We encourage the County to adopt a 2 ac/unit density requirement with lesser open space requirement that encourages small lots for portions of the RR Zone located nearest existing services to support development of housing across the income spectrum.
• AR Zone density: The Agricultural/Ranching (AR) minimum and 8.75 ac/unit, with 67% open space incentive also does not align with creating pockets of density near existing density and infrastructure and is likely to drive development toward high-cost housing. We encourage the County to adopt a 2 ac/unit density requirement along with open space conservation requirements for portions of the RR Zone located nearest existing services (e.g. along Hwy 50) to support compact pockets of development and preservation of open space. As currently proposed, incentives lean toward “one porch light per 35-acres.”
• Use of Private Property in Proposed Public/Conservation/Recreation (PCR) Zone: It appears that the current draft of the LUC prohibits any development on private property within the PCR Zone — no houses, cabins, etc. Owners of private property within the PCR Zone who are currently designated REC under current zoning and land use regulations would be limited to one beneficial use of their property — Agriculture. Much of this land is not suitable for even that use.
  • Many impacted properties within the proposed PCR zone district will be extremely difficult to develop for residential uses because they lack access, utilities, etc. However, some are adjacent to designated County roads. Eliminating nearly all potential uses of these properties by law seems a draconian measure likely to result in complaints and litigation.
  • Recommendation: Either zone private property currently designated as PCR (including patented mining claims) under the proposed Agriculture/Ranching, or allow residential uses within the PCR zone district as necessarily limited by the practical realities of where these properties are located.
• Comments re Sec. 4.3.2.5 (Water Demand Estimate; Criteria):
  • This Section is broader than just “Water Demand Estimates.” We suggest a title of “Water Demand and Water Supply; Criteria.”
  • 4.3.2.5.A: Generally. All development applications shall include a description of the project and an estimate of total water demand calculated based on one or a combination of the methodologies approved by the Director.
    • Question: Will there be a policy memo addressing approved methodologies? The UAWCD augmentation plan decrees would be a reasonable (and conservatively high) starting point for water demand estimates. If the Director were to adopt methodologies inconsistent with UAWCD aug plan decrees, that could create problems.
  • 4.3.2.5.B.1.e: Proof of a firm yield and explanation of the assumptions regarding hydrologic conditions (the preference is for normal, single dry, and 20-year drought conditions).
    • Question & Suggestion: What is a “20-year drought condition”? If the County has a particular study period in mind, then that should be included. E.g. 2001–2020.
  • 4.3.2.5.B.2: Water Supply Report. Where water is supplied by a water source other than an existing water system, a water supply report prepared by a County-approved licensed water engineer, geologist, or hydrologist is required to determine whether the water supply proposed to serve a development is legal and adequate in terms of quantity, quality, and dependability.
    • Questions & Suggestions: What is the approval process for a “County-approved licensed water engineer”? Is EDC correct in understanding that the DWR’s review process under C.R.S. § 30-28-133,(d) will determine that the water supply is legal? If instead the County will make that determination, then what County staff or consultant professional expertise will be brought to answer this question? The report described below is $5k–$10k minimum. However, not every major subdivision raises complex and novel water issues. County staff should be empowered to exclude items from the list above. Suggested revision: “The water supply report shall contain an analysis of the following information, subject to the discretion of the County Planning Director.”
  • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c: A description of the aquifer, including but not limited to geologic maps, cross sections, boundaries, intakes and discharge areas, depth to water, water level contours, and estimated thickness of saturation of the aquifer.
    • Comment: This is an expensive list and isn’t appropriate for smaller projects. Furthermore, data do not exist to prepare more than conceptual or estimated cross-sections and estimated aquifer thickness at many locations in the County. The edit to 4.3.2.5.B.2, above, could address these comments.
  • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.ii (first): A description of the aquifer, including but not limited to geologic maps, cross sections, boundaries, intakes and discharge areas, depth to water, water level contours, and estimated thickness of saturation of the aquifer.
    • Comment and suggestion: Suggest changing “intakes” to “recharge,” i.e. aquifer recharge and discharge areas.
  • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.ii (second): Information regarding the aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storage coefficient or probable yield, aquifer drawdown and recovery, and the potential for well interference.
    • Comments and suggestions:
      • Should “probable yield” instead be “specific yield”? Storage coefficient is the volume of water released from storage in a unit prism (area) of an aquifer when the head is lowered a unit distance. Specific yield is the ratio of the volume of water that will drain under the influence of gravity to the volume of saturated rock. (USGS Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, Water-Supply Paper 2220, 1983.)
      • Should “aquifer drawdown and recovery” instead be “well drawdown and recovery”? Section 4.3.2.5.B.2.d already addresses reliability. “Well drawdown and recovery” would address the question of well water supply adequacy for the proposed use.
      • Section 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.ii appears to address both aquifer characteristics and well analysis. We suggest separating aquifer characteristics and well analysis as follows:
        • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.ii: Information regarding the aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, and storage coefficient or specific yield; and
        • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.iii (new): Analysis of the proposed water supply well(s) yield, drawdown and recovery during well operation, and the potential for well interference on proposed water supply wells and nearby water supply wells.
  • 4.3.2.5.B.2.c.ii: Determination of the reliability of the water source confirming the ability to meet annual and peak demands of the proposed development under variable hydrology including normal, single dry, and 20-year drought conditions.
    • Question & Suggestion: What is a “20-year drought condition”? If the County has a particular study period in mind, then that should be included. E.g. 2001–2020.
  • 4.3.2.5.C.1: The County may require additional proof of water supply through onsite hydrological assessments where it is demonstrated that one or more of the following conditions exists: (1) A high capacity commercial well is proposed.
    • Question & Suggestion: “Commercial well” can be read to exclude a “community water supply well” or “municipal well.” In addition, “high capacity” is not defined. We suggest setting the “high-capacity” threshold as greater than 15 gpm (which is fairly low and offers the County a lot of discretion). Suggested revision: A well with capacity in excess of 15 gpm is proposed.
  • 4.3.2.5.C.5: The County may require additional proof of water supply through onsite hydrological assessments where it is demonstrated that one or more of the following conditions exists: (5) The location of the subject property is identified by the County or other government entity to have water resource management issues.
    • Comment: “…identified by the County or other government entity to have water resource management issues” is very open-ended. Does the County propose to establish groundwater overlay districts, as have been done by Jefferson County and Douglas County? An overlay district may be appropriate to address known “problem areas.” In addition “water resource management issues” is very broad. Arguably, most of Colorado has “water resource management issues,” due to physical and water rights limitations in our arid State. Suggested revision: The location of the subject property has been identified by a governmental entity, including the County, to have physical or legal water supplies that are more limited than typical within the County.
• 5.2.6.11 (Resolution of Unlawful Land Divisions): Comment: Would this Section affect Chaffee County Resolution No. 75-38 that recognizes “…a policy of permitting property owners to make one sub-division of property exempt from the Chaffee County Sub-Division Regulations, which single sub-division of property could be accomplished without formal approval of the Chaffee County Board of County Commissioners.” As we understand, Resolution 75-38 addressed certain subdivisions that occurred between the 1972 subdivision bill and adoption of the original Chaffee subdivision regulations.

New District Proposed

By Phelps Engineering for Princeton Holdings, LLC

On behalf of our client Princeton Holdings LLC, we have performed a brief review of the “Full Land Use Code Draft Version 3” and the “Proposed Zoning Map Version 3,” posted October 28, 2024 and offer these comments in the context of feedback solicited from the Chaffee County Economic Development Corporation.

Discussion

While we understand that it is vital to maintain the rural character of the County, we would also point out the stated purpose as outlined in Sec. 1.1.2.2 — PURPOSES IN GENERAL to wit:

F. Encourage economic diversity in the County and protect and enhance the County’s economic strength and well-being.

H. Preserve and promote the value of property, protect the tax base of the County, and respect the property rights of citizens.

In particular, we feel that some of the proposed map changes and associated LUC will have a severe impact to land holdings and business operations that have long been important to the economic underpinnings and diversity stated as goals in the preceding paragraph. Property previously acquired and held by our client, et al. include specific entitlements and uses by right. In addition, business operations established and privately held for more than a century are not given due consideration under the proposed code.

Specifically, for more than 160 years the commercial properties now owned and operated by Princeton Holdings LLC and Princeton Resort And Spa LLC has been a leader in commercial and residential development, creating housing opportunities for county residents in the Mt. Princeton Homeowners Association and The Estates at Mt. Princeton PUD. The resort itself is a major economic driver and tax contributor, and has also historically provided workforce housing. The resort itself acts as a tourist destination, drawing visitors from across the country as well as internationally. Initiatives by the resort and its parent entities provide a multitude of economic and cultural benefits to the County.

In 1860, the first commercial enterprise was established on parcels R342119200138, R342119200139 and R342119200140 with a train depot, a stop for Theodore Roosevelt’s presidential campaign and early telephone access. Later, the property hosted a hotel visited regularly by a fledgling tourist industry in Colorado.

Princeton Holdings LLC has recently constructed 55 new hotel rooms and a new pool in the past five years, all under a use-by-right. Each time they file for a building permit, they are met with new zoning review requirements, despite a 2013 email from Development Director Reimer affirming their continued use-by-right development. The changes proposed to the LUC in this latest draft (V3) would not only be challenging but would make future development overly costly, burdensome and possibly unattainable. This would be counter to the stated goals of F. and H. above.

Changing the zoning on surrounding parcels (342119100141, 342118400007 and 342117400180) owned or controlled by Princeton Holdings LLC would severely disrupt their ability to continue building housing and commercial developments in an area long designated for such purposes.

The subject parcels do not currently have recorded covenants or approved conceptual plans that would make them eligible for relief under these provisions. An analysis of previous zoning indicates an understanding of the “use by right” afforded to the owners previously.

As indicated, the proposed Mixed Use Residential zoning would dramatically degrade the density and character of any development in an area that has historically been recognized as a rurally located commercial resort. In addition, the downzoning of the adjacent parcels to Agriculture / Ranching effectively eliminates the future plan for expansion to provide much needed housing to the County.

Relief Sought

In light of previous LUC classifications and in order to honor the well established “use by right” currently maintained by the owner as well as numerous other property owners and businesses which are not directly connected to the Town of Buena Vista but are a part of the character of the overall community of Chaffee County, we would propose an additional classification — Resort Commercial.

Princeton Holdings has undertaken a Master Planning process to guide and develop the holdings associated with the resort. These include resort lodgings such as cabins, duplex and multiplex units as well as conference facilities and a hotel. While these uses are somewhat addressed by a Rural Resort use, they are not adequately addressed as a part of the Mixed Use Residential district. Princeton Holdings strongly feels that a separate Zoning District is warranted. PES will propose a draft of this district in line with the current and future uses as part of the Master Planning effort in the near future for consideration by the County to adopt as a part of the LUC revisions.

In addition, Princeton Holdings seeks a change to adjacent properties. The designation of parcel R342117400180 as AR on the proposed map is highly problematic. This parcel, historically part of the resort, is wholly commercial, with activities such as concerts, laser tag, go-karts, skeet shooting, commercial trail rides, and outfitting. When the open space was created by the Estates at Mt. Princeton subdivision, easements were established to maintain connectivity for horse and resort access between the two properties. In particular, imposing this restriction on one of Chaffee County’s earliest commercial developments is unreasonable.

Other properties held by Princeton Holdings are also under review. The proposed 20% maximum build-out, as outlined in 2.3.2.3, is especially concerning. Suggested revisions to these districts may be forthcoming.

Summary

As a result of the proposed land use code update, the zoning on multiple parcels owned by Princeton Holdings LLC in the Nathrop area and north of Buena Vista has been proposed for change. When these properties were acquired, they included specific entitlements and uses by right. We believe the proposed changes constitute a regulatory taking, which, while legally permissible according to the Supreme Court, still requires just compensation.

On parcels R342118400007, R342119100141, and R342119200140, the proposed change to Agricultural Residential (AR) zoning is excessive. First, the economic impact of the change would prevent the owners from achieving a reasonable return on their investment. Second, they have a well-founded expectation of continuing the flow of commercial and residential development, as the resort has done since its establishment in the late 1800s. Third, we see no public benefit that justifies such a drastic zoning change, which directly impacts their properties. These lots are natural extensions of the commercial resort and residential developments that have been maintained by the resort and its predecessors since the 1960s. The loss of residential subdivision rights on adjoining lots that have been developed for over 65 years is unacceptable.

On parcel R327105200107 (Valley RV Park), the proposed change from Commercial to Mixed Use Rural (MUR) zoning is excessive. The future viability of the park as an established use would be severely damaged, creating an undue burden on the owners. The park currently provides an alternative to other tourist accommodations in line with the rural character of the County, and serves as a supplement to the deficit in workforce housing currently available. Its demise, as a direct result of the proposed zoning changes, would leave a gap in the hospitality sector and adversely impact the value of the property as a whole.

Post-Adoption Concerns

• Undefined Sections/TBDs — There still seems to be a handful or more sections highlighted “TBD.” What’s the plan to take public comment on those sections, once completed?
• A commitment to quarterly reviews and feedback with the EDC Policy Committee and the broader development community for improvements to processes that have been implemented.

Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.

Subscribe and support HCA