The Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) unanimously approved the renewal of a board conditional use permit (CUP) for Project Sanctuary operating a wilderness lodge located at 1099 Blue Creek Road.
The decision followed a unanimous recommendation for approval from the Archuleta County Planning Commission, which heard the matter on July 24.
During the planning commission meeting, Interim Development Director Owen O’Dell explained that Heather Ehle, representing Project Sanctuary, applied for the renewal of a CUP “to operate a wilderness lodge as a sanctuary hosting therapeutic retreat for veterans and their families.”
He noted the property currently being operated by Project Sanctuary is operating the lodge as Patriot Pines, which is on a parcel currently zoned as agricultural forestry, or AF.
According to O’Dell’s staff report, Project Sanctuary received conditional approval of its request on Nov. 9, 2023, which included 16 conditions.
“Ehle, and her team, have been working closely with staff to meet the conditions presented. Conditions 14 and 15 were permit limitations that are operational standards that Project Sanctuary has complied with. Condition 16 is being complied with through this renewal process,” the report states, also indicating that conditions 1-3, 6-9, 10, 12 and 13 have been met and addressed by the applicant.
It adds, “As noted in the narrative, the Applicant has submitted a Letter of Intent addressing conditions 4 and 5 and is in good standing with the Archuleta County Road and Bridge Department. The applicant noted in their Narrative that condition 11 has been met, however staff finds no evidence to support their claim, specifically pertaining to Code Enforcement. The applicant has made some remodeling adjustments to Echo Lodge, and those facilities must meet the Lodging Standards found in Section 5.5 of the Archuleta County Land Use Regulations.”
O’Dell’s report also mentions that in regard to the installation of more tiny homes later this year, the applicant “received approval via Conditional Use Amendment” on Jan. 24.
Multiple public comments were heard on the matter during both the planning commission meeting and the land use hearing conducted during the BoCC meeting on Aug. 5.
O’Dell’s staff report also explains that staff has received several written comments against the project, with concerns falling into eight general categories, which O’Dell notes are: water availability, septic system adequacy and function, impacts to roads, wildlife impacts, new construction, intensity of use, traffic, and failings of the county regarding the prior (current) operator.
O’Dell’s proposed motion included in the staff report presented to the planning commission is to recommend approval of rewind the CUP with findings “A & B,” and conditions one through eight.
According to the report, finding “A” explains that the application meets the review criteria for a board CUP and finding “B” explains that the application meets the required findings for a board CUP.
As for the proposed conditions, condition one is that the applicant must allow the county planning and code enforcement to reinspect the property after completion of all remodeling and repair projects.
Condition two indicates that the current septic system, permitted under Archuleta County for a maximum capacity of 60 people, and dictates that, in order to increase capacity, the applicant must have a professional engineering study performed and apply for all necessary permits.
Condition three states that the application “should” conduct a level two traffic assessment on County Road 326 and U.S. 84.
Condition four states that the applicant must contact the Weed And Pest Department to receive a noxious weed management plan.
Conditions five through eight include language that the applicant “should” provide the sheriff’s office with an emergency evacuation plan, have an evacuation plan posited on-site, mitigate for wildfire prevention and consider utilizing the basketball court as a helicopter pad in the event of an emergency.
Ehle explained she is now a full-time resident of Archuleta County and in regard to the Project Sanctuary application, “We deeply value this property and its long-standing role and its place of healing, connection and retreat.”
She explained that the property in question was originally built and operated as a hotel from 1991 until 2000, and the transition to a retreat center happened from 2005 through 2023.
“We bought a retreat facility,” she stated, explaining Project Sanctuary purchased the property in 2023.
She also explained that Project Sanctuary is not introducing a new use.
“We’re simply continuing the legacy,” she said, claiming, “In fact, every neighbor on Blue Creek purchased their homes knowing that the commercial lodging, or retreat, existed at the end of the road.”
Ehle also claimed that since the CUP was approved the property had not received any complaints up until two weeks ago.
She went on to state that the property has met all standards and complied with state and county regulations.
Ehle then mentioned that one of the concerns initially when purchasing the property was the road, explaining that Project Sanctuary paid approximately $22,000 to fix the road, and indicated that this year the organization is planning a total of 12 retreats, with an average size of 38 people.
“I mean, that is not that many,” she added.
She explained that the intent of stating a 120 max in the application was to show that recommendations from engineers suggested the water and sewer systems could handle up to 120 people.
“We didn’t say we wanted to do 120 people,” she said, explaining that a 60-person limit would “probably be fine,” though since the land use hearing process has been started she’d like to “up it a little” to have a 65-person limit.
“Our perfect size for families is around eight to 10 families at a time,” she said.
In response to a question from a planning commission member, Ehle explained that the water truck is only used as necessary “to keep everything full,” explaining that if something were to happen, “we want to make sure we are completely full.”
She explained that is not a new process and is something “we inherited,” noting the water commission had performed an inspection and found no issues.
O’Dell provided clarification to the planning commission that Project Sanctuary was originally conditionally approved in 2023 for 20 guests, and at that time had to achieve a variance from the Board of Adjustments (BOA) to get to the 60-person limit.
“The original approval for the board [CUP], was not the 60 guests. They sought the variance to get that because of language in the land use regulations at that time. The language at that time read that wilderness lodges were limited to .5 guests per acre,” he said, explaining that allowed them to have 20 guests.
O’Dell also noted that at that the BoCC acting as the BOA asked the planning staff to amend the land use regulations (LURs).
O’Dell also explained that the former lodge operated as a legally noncompliant use, as the use began prior to the introduction of the county’s LURs.
“So, they were legally nonconforming because of that status prior to 2006 when things were implemented,” he added.
O’Dell also indicated that Ehle originally requested a max occupancy of 120 because of his direction and the language in the LUR that states for wilderness lodging max capacity is limited “based on the capacity of infrastructure for supporting the facility.”
Ehle used the example of the Vets for Vets wanting to host a dinner at the retreat site, which likely bring about 65 people to the property, but noted that “generally our retreat size is around 38, and that’s gonna be consistent for what we do.”
Ehle noted that the sewage system report does not indicate a maximum number of persons, but rather that it is based on the capacity of the designed sewage flow.
“There is no cap,” she said, explaining the study was not based on the number of people.
Water Quality Manager Kevin Torres explained there have been no complaints of “smells” since Project Sanctuary has purchased the property.
Multiple public comments on the matter were heard during the planning commission meeting, with three being against the property from commenters stating they are neighbors or have property near Project Sanctuary.
“We have a lot invested in the area, and a lot of concerns,” the first commenter said, explaining she owns 160 acres of land adjacent to Project Sanctuary.
She claimed that Ehle had previously provided a letter to surrounding neighbors that stated “there would be no plans to add additional buildings, no additional pits to the property, including no new dwellings, and now all of the sudden we have tiny homes.”
She also expressed concerns about emergency service response capabilities, noting the road is too narrow for more than one vehicle to drive on.
The individual expressed more concerns about Project Sanctuary opening up the property for other “like-minded” organizations to run retreats, questioning what that really means.
She added that she knows Project Sanctuary will be there in some form, “but start following the rules and figure out this emergency road service and figure out these roads, because we’re all in danger.”
Another commenter stating that he is a resident of Blue Creek Road expressed that this is “absolutely not anything we want.”
He praised the county for recent changes made to notification requirements, explaining that if the change had been made sooner there would be more than 15 neighbors showing up to voice their opinion.
He also explained he has a background in real estate and development, noting, “I would be embarrassed to even see this thing.”
Another commenter expressed that a limit of 120 people at the property is too high, suggesting she’d be more comfortable with a 60-person limit.
Two public comments in favor of the project were given during the planning commission meeting, both by full-time residents at the Project Sanctuary project, with another audience member, a graduate of the program, also supporting the project.
The final commenter heard at the planning commission meeting expressed concerns about water availability on the property, claiming her property that is “below” the wilderness lodge “ran out” of water this past summer.
“We’re afraid of the changes that are proposed here,” she added.
Ehle mentioned that she agrees with the road being narrow, “but the road widening is not my responsibility.”
She added that Project Sanctuary takes fire mitigation very seriously.
She also explained that the tiny homes were included in the original proposal and that the sites were already there with water and sewer infrastructure in place.
Other concerns were mentioned about lighting being installed on the property, with O’Dell explaining that, according to the county’s LURs, lodging establishments are required to have lighted walkways between buildings that are compliant with dark sky standards.
O’Dell also indicated that the county’s Road and Bridge Department had no concerns over the road.
He explained that “work was done by Archuleta County Road and Bridge crews,” with the approximately $20,000 put up by Project Sanctuary for road improvements.
“So, the road is compliant with the Archuleta County Road and Bridge design standards,” he said.
Planning commissioner Peter Beaudry suggested placing a condition to limit the number of retreats at the property to 20 per year, along with a condition to utilize carpooling methods as much as possible for off-site activities.
Beaudry also suggested having the applicant change the language from “like-minded” to specifically identify other groups such as former law enforcement or military police, and to have the wording changed in conditions three, five, six and seven by changing the word “should” to “shall.”
O’Dell explained the reason for using the word “should” for condition three is that the Colorado Department of Transportation is saying it is a suggestion to have level two traffic study performed.
“So, I’m apprehensive to propose a requirement when the review agency said it was a suggestion,” he added.
Planning commissioner Matt Nobles commented that the county can’t legally say the property’s retreats are limited to certain groups of people.
“I think that’s a very slippery slope,” he said.
The planning commission opted to vote on each proposed condition prior to voting on recommending approval or not, with each proposed condition coming from Beaudry and being unanimously approved.
The application was then unanimously approved with 11 conditions, including changes to conditions five through eight.
BoCC meeting
During the land use hearing held during the BoCC meeting on Aug. 5, O’Dell presented the staff report to the BoCC, highlighting that the property in question is currently zoned as AF, and, according to the county’s LUR, that “allows a wilderness lodging establishment in the agricultural ranching zoning district with the approval of a board [CUP].”
O’Dell noted that multiple written comments against the project had been received, and that staff and the planning commission recommended approval of the application.
He explained that conditions five through eight were originally presented as recommendations from the sheriff’s office and that, “after much deliberation,” the planning commission opted to change the wording from “should” to “shall.”
He added that he has since received written confirmation from the sheriff’s office that the conditions have been satisfied.
Ehle explained that the retreats are anywhere from three to six days long, with an average of 56 people. She noted that the property will be used for 116 days this year, hosting a total of 12 retreats.
“We’re proud to be a part of this community and respectfully ask for your approval,” she said.
Torres provided more information on the status of the septic system, explaining that the system is permitted for up to 1,750 gallons per day and that it is being monitored each day.
He noted that the property’s “biggest day” this year produced 422 gallons.
Commissioner Veronica Medina asked what that means in regard to the amount of people on the property, with Torres explaining that a specific study like that hasn’t been done and that the system is just being monitored.
More public comments on the matter were given during the hearing, with four being in favor of the project and one being against.
The commenter against the project also spoke during the planning commission with concerns about the road and emergency response services.
“Its a matter of a safety and concern of our neighborhood,” she said, explaining she is not against the mission of Project Sanctuary.
Other commenters in favor of the project expressed support, noting that Project Sanctuary’s approach to treating the entire family of a veteran can be extremely beneficial to everyone involved.
Commissioner Warren Brown commented that everyone seems to have good intentions, either being for or against the project.
“I think we can work things out,” he said, explaining his vote on the matter would be based on if all conditions have been met and how to be better neighbors with the county assisting in any way to improve the road conditions.
Commissioner John Ranson commented, “I am in favor,” explaining that it is a “great cause.”
He also expressed that he’d like to see “some effort … if there is such a thing, slowing down growth out there” for the neighbors.
“This is a great project,” Medina commented, going on to explain that her concern “is for the neighborhood overall.”
She expressed that veterans and their families need to be taken care of, saying, “It’s not about the group of people that it’s servicing; it’s about the impacts to the neighborhood around it.”
Brown motioned to approve the application with the 11 proposed conditions, which was unanimously approved.
clayton@pagosasun.com
>