HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.04101978 �:�:��"r -
�
: , ,;>, !`.;
���:
._ ',`.;::
:•ra � � � � � � . . . . . � . s f,.-
r� . _ . . . . .. _ . . .. � --
PTTKIN COUNTY CO2dMISSIONERS'
MEETING AGENDA �
April 10, 197$ i
. �
9:00 a.m. EXECUTTVE SESSION j'
�
9:45 a.m. RESOLUTIONS/CONTRACTS:
_1) Department of Health Contract(Div. of Family Health
Services) f
;2) Capital Improvements - RS ,
�.3) Amendments to Pitkin County Land Use Code - SMS
- 4) Closure o£ Aspen biountain Road - SMS
--5) 1041 Contract - KS
- 6) Density Formula - KS
�7) Lot 2 Aspen River Valley Ranch - KS
-�8) Lot 14 Aspen River Valley Ranch - KS
...9) Section 5.30; Employee Housing - KS `
�0:30 a,m. Irving Biers Subdivision Exemption - KS
_ 10:50 a.m. Condemnation oE Lewitz Access - Bob•Frances
__11:10 a.m. Payment of 1978 COG Dues - BC
, _11:30 a.m. USFS LUNCHEON - ASPEN MEADOP7S
__.1:15 p.m. Woody Creek Store Transfer Liquor License - AC
�1:20 p.m. SET P.H. TIMES (May 22, 1978)
1) Code Amendment: Recreation Clubs (2:00 p.m.)
2) Goldsmith Duplex (2:30 p.m.)
1:30 p.m. P.H. Adoption of Uniform Electrical Code - FC/SMS
,1:45 p.m. New Employee for Finance Office - PK
' ,1:55 p.m. Meal Expense Allowance Policy Statement - Px
2:00 p.m. P.H. Owl Creek - KS
3:00 p.m. P.H. Abacus Ranch Continuation - JW :
4:00 p.m. JOINT CITY/COUNTY
1) Mountain Rivers Substance Abuse Task Eorce(DeTox) - BE
2) Runaway Youth Program - JC
3) Ski Corp Bus Agreement - SS .�
4) Mellow Yellow Citizen's Complaint - SS .
_' �
. �
�
_ �
#
, �
i
�
`i i
tr'�� 5r` . . . . . . ... �
:.�..���`�
'g y,ts��,�:;j. _
- �v r .
,�G!
�
� _ r ,. ; ��,
;� �';
� PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Regular Meeting April 10, 1978
PRESENT: Chairman Robert W. Child, Michael Kinsley, Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
Budget Child moved and Kinsley seconded to approve a budget resolution transferring funds
Resolution
to cover various additional projects not initially budgeted for. The motion passed
unanimously.
LUC Child moved and Kinsley seconded to approve a resolution adopting amendments to the
Amendments:
Signs, Land Use Code conceming sign permits, definition of a subdivision, tree-cutting
Tree-
cutting, permits and exempt plat notations. The motion passed unanimously.
Plats
.�. i ---------- - €
� Aspen Child moved and Kinsley seconded to approve a resolution authorizing closure of
: � Mtn. R
! Road Aspen Mountain Road. The motion passed unanimously.
1 ---------- t
1
� LUC Child moved and Rinsley seconded to approve a resolution adopting a Land Use Code '
� Amendment: �
j Sec. amendment concerning section 5.30 of the employee housing section. The motion passed "
; 5.30 �
tunanimously. f•
� � �� ' ,
� Aspen Child moved and Kinsley seconded to approve two resolutions granting general submis-
' � River ��'
� Valley sion approval to subdivisions in Lot 2 and Lot 14, Aspen River Valley Ranch. The t;:..
Ranch ``,;�
` i Subdi- motion passed unanimously. r,
� visions
�'.
' i ----------
� Division Child moved and Kinsley aeconded to table a contract with the D3vision of Health ,�
,>
of
i Health Services for lack of information. The motion passed unanimously.
� Contract -
i
j NWCCOG Child presented a memo explaining the $19,601 NWCCOG deficit; in order to stabilize i,�
j Member- I
' ahip this situation members are being asked to pay their 1978 dues in one lump sum. Child j
T Payment �
moved to pay the $6855.00 yearly dues in one payment. Kinsley seconded and the motion
passed unanimously.
-------- i
' Set ICineley moved and Child seconded to set the following public hearings: Code Amendment �-:i
: Public
': Heazings on recreation cluba at 2:00 P.M., and Goldsmith Duplex at 2:30 P.M., May 22, 1978.
`:;i
The motion passed unanimously. ' !.
i
-------- � .
j Commisaioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 1
�
t'i I
ri
,�.,
_ .,,,��wy�''- .
---
- ...��.---�-- -
� � �
�,
"�';✓��`����„`� �
rt'"4.;�°.:; -
. _: ' ,';
_.._. _. . . _
ii:
!.� �.:
� r`'
;5
�'
;� LUC Child moved and Kinsley seconded to approve a resolution adopting a Land Use
%� Amendment: r4
� Steep Code amendment concerning density reduction for steep slopea. The motion passed ?�
� Slopes
:3� unanimously.
�
� ----------
� Woody Deputy County Clerk Liz Stewart presented a 3.2 beer liquor license transfe� to
Creek
. Store Jack Fitzgerald, new owner of the Woody Creek store. All applicable documents and �
Liquor
License letters of reference have been submitted, and the application is in order. Kinsley
'�= moved approval of the transfer. Child seconded and the motion pasaed unanimously.
Crystal Karen Smith, of the Planning Office, presented a contract with the State for the
River
Floodplain use of 1041 funds for 100-year floodplain mapping in the Crystal River Valley, 74�e
` Mapping
state and the County will each contribute an additional $2000 over the original
amounts budgeted to provide for more extensive mapping; the Colorado Water Conser-
j
vation Board will also contribute an additional $10,000 to the praject. The map � '
scale will be 1"=500', and aerial photos of the area, which can be used for many
A:
other pZanning matters, will a2so be provided. Ochs asked if this would help
e:
' residents of the valley get federally funded flood insurance. Smith said it would '
j not; there is nothing the,County can da about that situation because the Flood �
''; ;;.
� Insurance Agency has not scheduled Pitkin County for mapping until 1980. Kinsley felt':
' �s
, � it is unreasonable, and asked if that means the results oY this contract would be
� useless. Smith said this mapping would be valuable to help comply with 1041 regula
� tions, and to provide prospectfve bnilders with flood information. She noted that
` the.northerly flat portion of the Crystal River Valley wi2l not be mapped in this
` �.
f study; the Flood Insurance Agency will do that in their study. �
( Kinsley moved approval of the contract, and requested that Smith draEt a letter to
:.� A
the Flood Insurance Agency concerning their policies. Child seconded and the motion
passed unanimously. �.:I
---------- '�
�'�
!Minutes Kinsley moved attd Child seconded to approve the minutes of March 27, 1978. The �''�
;;:I
motion passed unanimously. ''i
�.'Hiring of Phyllis Kenny, Personnel Director, reported that the Finance Department would like
riAccountant I
to hire a new employee at step 3 for the position of Accountant I. The Personnel
:;; Review Board felt the higher step is justified becauae this person has been performing
the same duties at the City of Aspen for four years and no training period is
necessary; also, this is not an increase in salary for the new employee. Kenny
,Co�ieaionere Meeting April 10, 1978 - 2 '
f
;
�
n?t:«'A'6'`� .
:.y,
�, a�; ,
��`�'�`51
�;3aV�' �+. . . .
. .'y KJ�;: . .
..
.:. .
.. . . .,..�.. :.'...:... . . .. ... ��:
.1. .. ... . . . ."_.__ �.��:
rf 'I,
�' }X~
�I noted that when an employee is hired above step 1, the Personnel Mannal requires �
�' �
�A� prior approval by the Commissioners. County Manager George Ochs supported the hiring �
; at step 3. Kinsley moved approval. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. �
� ---------- �.
t
Meal Kenny presented the meal expense allowance for final approval. This allows employees�
Expense
Allowance to be reimbursed at the rate of $2.50 for breakfast, $4.00 for 2unch and $7.50 for
dinner while conducting County business. Kenny ro�ed ttds will c?srify some cocfusion �
in the courthouse, since some employees felt this was a guideline, not a requixement. #
R
The policy will be included in the supervisor's manual. Kinsley moved approval of
�5 the meal expense allowance. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
9::
'` Biers Bill Kane, of the Planning Office, presented a subdivision exemption request by
-. ''; Subdivision
i� Exemption Irving Biers for the purpose of revising lot lines on his property in the Suowmass-
"s Request
Capitol Creek Valley. Biers presently owns two separately deeded tracts of land
(a total of 70 acres) which are both eligible for a building permit. He would like
to alter the line dividing the two lots so it goes down the center of Snowmass Creek;
this would crea[e one parcel of 14.5 acres. Kane felt that this exemption would be ;'�'°
allowed in the RS-30 zone because the zone does not specify a mi.nimam lot size, and
because Biers would be willing to separately survey and deed restrict against future
development an additianal parcel of 15.4 acres. He added that this method would
meet the intent of the RS-30 zone by allowing one larger parcel to be preserved for
agricultural use. Biers could conceivably apply to subdivide the remaining 40 acres
Kinsley said he would favor the exemption if the re�aining 40 acres were prnhibited
fram further development.
Edwards felt this type of exemption is not authorized under the Land Use Code;
:i .ti
the proper procedure for this revision would be to file an application for an RS-30 �
;
subdivision. If the Board ignores the Code for this item, they will be bound by ` �
precedent to ignore it in the future. Stuller agreed that a subdivision application �
i'';
would be necessary £or the lot line change; it could be done by a subdivision exemp-
. tion procedure if the revision were not increasing the degree of non-conformi[y, bat
i
this revision creates a non-conforming lot where both lots now meet the minimum lot
size for this zone district. She added that going through the subdivision process
would raise all relevant issues with the property and force them to be resolved.
Edwarde noted that the RS-30 zone does establish a minimum lot size absent a subdivi-
sion. Kinsley svggested deed restricting the remainder of the property to one
i
t .
! ' Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 3
'�i
';,-; ^r,.� .. . _ _ . . .
��'�i
e c,
�J'��w��E��. . '.
.y$w.`�«�4^V . . , .
t'�.
;�J
yi: �`
y �y��.
K�
?� dwelling unit. Stuller said the exemption would sti11 create a non-conforming Iot. ' '`
� `�
� Kinaley saw no need for going through the subdivision process if the end result would �i
�� �h
� still be two homea oa the property. Edwarda said that by avoiding the procesa they r`
� would be encouraging development, and felt Biers should ha:.e to meet the subdivislon �
6 t�
� requirements like everyone else. Child pointed out that a portion of Snowmass Creek
is zoned AF-2, and asked Kane if this property might be included in that section. �
_ - Kane agreed to double check. Kinsley asked if this exemption could be allowed under �
the "change in the form of ownership" portion of Che Code. Edwards said that applies �'
r to land held in joint tenancy or tenancy in common, and would not cover this situation. � _
Stuller noted that Biers is parcelling his land for the purposes of development; a .� .
lot line revision exemption is designed for a minor boundary change which does not
create additionai development capacitq. Kane said this sitaation is different because
an established lot line between [wo separately deeded parcels is being changed. �
�Edwards disagreed, noting that the intent of the exemption process is to allow land-
owners to adjust boundaries, not to avoid the subdivision process. There is no distinc-1�
tion in this case just because Biers purchased the parcels at two different times. �
Kane said a 30 acre lot si2e is not economical because it is too large for a home and
too small for a ranch. He felt it would defeat the purpose of the RS-30 zone to
force Biers to convey 30 acres. Kinsley said that as the Code is presently written,
the exemption could not be allowed; he felt this section of the Code should be
rewritten to allow lot line revisions in similar circumstances in the future.
Kane checked the zoning maps and determined that Biers' property is in the AF-2
zone, as Child suspected. This means that the non-conforming use question doesn't
exist, since the 14.5 acre tract would meet the minimum lot size of the zone distrlct.
Kinsley asked iF that means that this exemption is consistent with the Code. Stuller
;
felt it is not, because the applica[ion falls within the scope of the subdivision pro �
•:,
cess, and it is not the intent of the exemption section to avoid the subdivision '' '
process. She felt it would be a poor policy but had no technical ob�ections to r' �
granting the exemption.
Kins2ey moved approval of the exemption. Edwards asked if the County Engineer has
reviewed the application for adequate trail dedications. Seff Davis said he has not.
Edwards said the application 3s prewature for action. Kinsley withdrew his motion.
Child felt the Planning Office should look at this type of situation and determine if �
the Land Use Code could be amended to acco�odate it without opening it up to other
applications for development. Rinsley moved to table the application pending review
� � j
Cammissionera Meeting April 10, 1978 - 4
' ,
, ,
; ,'
"�,. �4.Fs:
. .v.:�y.:...i . .
�'
i:�'�.4',�y��;. ' � � ,
�
k
4:5j�
� , . � . . . -. . . . /t,'
tt
���
1
�ri;
�ti
by the County Engineer. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. j�
t.
Smith asked if the Commissioners consider the intent of the exemption section to �
4i
cove= lot line revisions in which Chere is no increase in the degree of non-confosmity,;�
the revision does not create new parcels, and the size of the parcels is not substan- �
�
tially changed. Edwatds said lot line revisions should apply to two adjacent land- �
owners with fully developed parcels, where a minor boundary change is being made. �
Chi7.d said B{°rs could con�tzuct a second house on his land and then come in for �
a lot line revision, under Edwards' interpretation. Irving Biere said he does not `� '
'�,.
want to waive the right to su6divide the remainder of his land; he does not know -
what he intends to do with it at this point. He said he applied for the exemption
, because he felt the Creek represents a natural boundary between the two lots, and f�
(.
� he wanCS to keep one parcel for agricultural use. '
,f
� �� -------- �i:i �
�'Lewitz Bob Francis, representing Cecil Lewitz, was present to discuss his client`s problem ,,�
!Access
Easement in obtaining access to his land. He has been negotiating with PraCt Propertiea, .;�
owners of the adjacent land, however they have reached an impasse s3nce Pratt will
not accept any of Lewitz's offers. He suggested that since the County owns a
pazcel of land in the same area, they could jointly condemn access. Edwards said the ;
County already has an easement to the Randall property, which is near Lewitz's land. '
. Randall was granted the easement from Trico prior to selling the tract to the County. -
Stuller asked if the easement covers utilities also. Edwards didn't know.
' ! Francis said i£ the County already has access, the paint is moot; otherwise, his
client would be willing to split the costs of condemnation with the County. SCuller
suggested that the Baa=d authorize her to negotiate for acquisition of a utility
.
easement and access easement if necessary. Kinsley requesCed that she determine the
coat of condemnation before Caking any action. ;f
9i
��_--_-_ � . ��i�� .
Pub13c The Co�issioners convened a public hearing concerning adoption of the 1978 edition ��
Hearing:
Uniform of the Uniform Electrical Code. There being no public comment, the hearing was
Buildiag
Code closed. Fred Crowley, Building Inspector, noted that the State has set the 1978
edition as the minimum standard, and there is no legal opti.on to Chis. Stuller
said if the County doesn't adopt the code the State will impose it. Kinsley asked ; i
if the code should be changed. Crowley said a few requirements are too stringent, � �
but the County cannot lessen them. K3nsley moved adoption of the resolution adopt-
ing the Code. Child seconded and the motion passed unanimously. ;
; �
i
---------- ;
i
' i
s.Commisaioners Meeting April 10, 197& - 5
:�
_ k
¢'ii^:,;/'!�;���r,
, _ ,,ti
� � -
��:. �°� '
�.
,
.. ,
� w t,,,
F''
�. ,. . . . .,.. ..._.� .,,. .. . �1
.. . � � � . .. � . .. ��,:.
�;
�•3_:
t .
t
Publfc The Commiasioners convened a puhlic hearing on the Owl Creek general submission. Joe '�
Hearing: Z
pwl Wells, of the Planning Office, submiCted the following exhibits: the Planning Office t
Creek �
General memos of .7anuary 9th and January 12, 1978, the P 6 Z resolution on Owl Creek, the �
Submission
Pitkin County Land Use Code and Growth Management Policy Plan, the general submission
i
application and all appendices. Stuller also submitted for the record a list of all �
amendments to the Land Use Code.
,
Jim Moran, x�epresenting Mitchell Development Corporation, reported that their '�
initial request was for a rezoning of portions of their land from AF-1 to Tourist !�
:€
for installation oP a confeience centet and tesidential and tourist uuits. The other r6 '�
;i
portion o£ the original application called for 30 units of PUD housing on 300 acres ;�
in the southeast partion af their property; no rezoning is required for this subdi- °�
vis�on. At the P & Z level it became obvious that a project of this size is not
;t
favored b the communit p y ,:�
y y, and the P & Z reco�ended denial rimaril due to the size
of the project, said Moran. He also felt that some questions were asked at general
:ct
suhtatssion stage that should have been resolved at detailed submission. The appli- '[.
cant asked the P 6 Z if they could amend their application to bring it into con£or-
mance�. with the present AF-1 zoning for the area, however the P 6 Z felt the amend-
ment was too drastic and requested that Mitchell withdraw the existing application.
`;
Moran asked the Commissioners if they would allow them to amend the existing appli
cation, eliminating the conference center, and apply only for a one lot per ten acre '?
�, .
suhdivision. One reason for amending the application zather than withdrawing it is
to avoid the administrative delay that is now in effect. He felt the precedent for
this amendment was set with the Snowmass application where the Board of Commi.seioners
advised the P & Z that alternative two of the THK study should be entertained.
Mitchell is aksing for parity with his neighbors. Moran felt the rezoning requests ' .
are severable from the YUD subdivision request, and the Board should consider the �;I
•i
_ application as having two parts. He added that the specifics of the subdivision
should be presented at Che detailed submission stage, noting that the Snowmass general ':
submission discussed general number af units, but no layout or configurations were
presented at that time. .Toe Porter, of Design Workshops, felt there was no need to
go into details at this time. They would like to be allowed to present an amendment -
to the application so the Owl Creek issue can be resolved. Child asked if the appli- �
i
cants want any action 6y the Board at this time. Moran said if the Board will not
allaw the amendment, they would like them to take action. If the amended concept
has an attraction they would be willing to go hack and deal with the specific pro-
blems involved wlth the 300 acre subdivision. Chi1d said he would have a problem �
�i
Commissioners Meeting April I0, 1978 - 6 i
�l
.l
;1
����,
..''t.'
�;������ � �
�s��t -
�>,�o'S�•.�.
y . .i�E.tc..
+
.
.. .� .r� ` .... :. ...:.. �,:. . �.. . . ��i:.
. ..._�. . .. . . -..',ti.
�•;'.
� .��.Y.'.'.
addressing only one portion of the entire general submission application� since it �
i
i
is so substantive. Moran did not feel that the concept of a one unit per ten acre �
subdivision is difficult to grasp. Child said that with a general submission appli- �
i
caCion the Board would have to re-examine the proposal in light of the master plan
and the Growth Management Plan to see if iC would conceptually meet with community
;I
approval. Sandy Stuller reported that the P & Z denied consideration of the amend- ;-;.
- ment because it did not meet the general submission requirements contained in the
,i
Land Use Code, the referrals didn't addtess the amended applfcation, and it would ,-�'
allow avoidance of the administrative delay. Wells agreed that re-referrals would I�
be necessary for the amendment. ;';:I
`i:;
Lada Vrany, an adjacent property owner, co�ented tha[ there is not sufficient ;;i -
water to support the proposed development. The water in the area has dropped by `'�
one-half since West Buttermilk was developed. Also, he expressed concern about '(.'
adequacy of the sewer system and the road to the area. -�
Conn3e Harvey commented thaC P & Z's reasons for reject3on of the amendment were `'�
valid.
Sam Caudill, of the Colorado Wildlife Commission, read a letter from Randy Cote
which stated that the Division of Wildlife is opposed to development at Owl Creek
because it is in an area of critical wildlife habitat, elk migration, elk calving
and su�er range. It is also veiy important to deer in the valley. The Division of
Wildlife is also concemed about traffic, snowmobiles, etc. in the area. The letter
concluded that there is no way a development of this scale could be compatible with
' ,
wildlife; a few single-family residences with restrictions may be compatible with
the area.
Y
Greg McKennis, of the Sierra Club, agreed that any major development would be a �
mistake hecause of wildlife, water and transportation problems. He also felt it would �
be unfair to requeat a response to a one unit per ten acre subdiv3sion when there (
'
are not enough details with which to analyse the proposal. f
i
Ken Moore asked if the Planning Office used any studies other than the Land Use {
Code, Growth Management Plan and the area master plan, in arriving at a decision. !
Wells requested that Moore note all the exhibits contained in the Planning Office's �
(
' memo. Moore said all the studies are outdated and would not be relevant Co this ,
,
�
application. �
{
Moran responded to Caudill's concerns by stating thatCote's letter should be dis-
regarded; it does not get at the problem of Owl Creek, because if the Division of
� Wildlife feels Ow1 Creek should be a game reserve then they ehould purchase the �
i
- i
�
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 7 �
�a,
SI
, �
� -
;:;'a,e_�
__ ��� -
�r=�
.",L i�',yp,�_'C= , .
, ��;���:s_�� � . . . � .
:. hik���': �
� �. .M�- �' . .... .. , .�...... ....
..
.' . . . .. .:. . . .� - �::• �-.
• J1^
��:;
{. �
��,
property. The problem is arriving at a balance between the landowner's interest and
the State`s interesC. He felt the landowners' interest could be met in some fashion
i
that isn't extremely damaging to the wildlife in the area. The Division of Wildlife's � .
position would apply only if the State of Coloiado owned the land. Caudill disagreed, =�
stating that all the people in the state have an interest in this. 80 to 90X of the ;
�
critical range in the valley has been lost, and this must stop somewhere. The state ;j
must try to protect the great wildlife natural resource. He also pointed out the
large sums of money the state receives annually through game management. Randy Cote, �'
. .:i..�.�.
: of the Division of Wildlife, commented that the Division of Wildlife is asked to � '
respond to the wildlife value of the property, not what is good for the landowner. .;`I
He felt a small cluster of residential units may be compatible with the critical ,_;,i
range, but not the development that is proposed in the general submission application 'i
Porter said he would be glad to work out the Division of Wildlife's concerns; they
<;i
would just like to be able to amend their application at this point so they can -�!
respond to these matters as soon as possible. ^
;.
Kinsley moved to deny the general submission application based on the thirteen
findings and ten reasons contained in the P & Z resolution of denial, not to enter-
tain an amendment to the application because the amendment does not meet the general
submission requirements of the Land Use Code, the referrals do not address the amend
ed application, and the amendment would allow an avoidance of the administrative
delay, and to direct the County Attorney to prepare a compilation of findings for
consideration at the next meeting incorporating these comments and the elements con-
tained in the Planning Office's memos. Moran asked which reasons apply to the
denial of the rezoning request and which apply to the subdivision request. Stuller
said she would segregate the reasons in her presentation of findings. Child seconded
the motion and it passed unanimously.
Board of Bill Mason, Chairman of the Board of Adjustment, appeared before the Board to re
;l
Adjustment
Alternates quest that two alternates be appointed to the Board of Adjustment. They have adver
tised for the posi[ion many times but have received only two applications. Mason
noted ttiat Jeff Siers, a Carbondale resident, applied and MasoTt felt Y,is input would
be valuable in downvalley matters. Joe Zanine, a contractor, also applied, and
Mason felt he would be a conscientious member of the Board. Kinsley requested that
the Couuniesioners be given two more weeks to solicit applications, and agreed to
appoint two alternates at the next meeting.
--------- ',
�
Commiasioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 8
�
�
�i•. ,:�
--�----------
_..,�,
r
U
.�t�- � ' 1 �:
fi!�p,7"�ros-�`�t � � .
r
. . Ln�+.�`�°y _,
"iL �
. , -. ..... . ..._.._.__. ;,. . - .. :z�.
. � . �i
� ,
.�:
(
Public The Commissioners reconvened the Abacus Ranch public hearing, continued from the �
:�
Hearing: �
Abacus meeting of March 27, 1978. Stuller explained thaC Che purpose of the continuation !
I
Ranch
(cont.) was to allow her an opportunity to examine the documents that were submitted, '.i
[4
offer additional submissions, and offer expert testimony. She submitted for the (
`i
recard the Pitkin County Land Use Code and a list of a11 amendments. Shellman had
no ob3ection to inclusion of the Land Use Code in the record, nor to the inclusion of :�
_ Resolution 1177-33 rezoning the 5nowmass Capitol Creek valley, but questioned the
relevance of the rast of the amendments. Stuller said her intent was to submit the i'�
most compleCe version of the Code possible, and noted that none of the resolutions il�`
changing the text of the Code are specifically relevant to this application. She ;;i
.�
� ,I
also offered for the record certified copies of all P � Z miautes in which the '•+
y;
.,;`-
Abacus application was considered.
Joe Wells, of the Planning Office, submitted the following items to the record: (>;.
� resolution 77-94 (amending section 5.�9 oE the Land Use Code); the applicable por- ;
tion of the maps adopted with that resolution illustrating the historically 3rrigated .+;
lands and critical groundwater recharge areas (Wells noted that the application
suggests it may be necessary to convert irrigation water nses to domestic use);
the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus plan; the P fi Z resolution adopting the goala �;
of the caucus; copies of the County maps and the applicant'& maps illustrating two
areas from the CSU environmental resource analysis which identify the conflict
�', between agricultural uses and visual vnlnerahility; copies of the County Eng3neer's
:t.
analysis af the applicant's road network study and his traffic count work; two
letters from the County Extension Agent; and a letter from the Basalt Rural Fire
Protection District requesting additional information regarding water storage.
Shellman stated that the agricultural conversion quesCion is being raised now for
the first time after seven months of processing; it'is a surprise to the appli- ; i
i
cants. He submitted for the record a September 30, 1977 letter from Herb Klein ; :
i
to Karen Smith confirming an earlier telephone conversation about their water +_;
ji;
availability report. Shellroan objected to the inclusion in the record of those `:`i
i
materials relating to the conversion of agricultural water to domestic uses, but
had no objection to the other items. . ,
County Engineer Jeff Davis stated that further development in the area will ad- i
i
veYSely affect tha road system. Ae reported on a traffic analysis study he has
done for the Abacus application. He showed slides of the roads leading to the �
Ranch, noting that the roads have sharp curves, little shoulder room, poor drainage, '�
�
i
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 4 !
.� ,]
�. ,
����Y
::H.
� -
'��:�� ���.. . ' , :
���w��� ., _ . '.
...i �.,` � C�.R. +�4e''..'1 - .%H'� �� .1 yl.•:
Y,i i.:
4�_.
s`: .
I
i
i
poor site diatance and extreme deter3oration due to the heavy traffic. The Capitol
Creek road was poorly built initially with no road base, and no ma�or improvements
have been done since 1973. The County has patched the road, however it will continue
to deteriorate each year unless a new base is put in. One of the two roads leading
to the ranch is very narrow, with poor drainage and site distance and no shoulders.
Davis took average daily tra£fic counts at the narrow bridge on CounCy road 11;
the average number of care per day was 779. In the Srisco-Maphis road network
analysis that road is proposed to carry 674 cars per day. He felt that without sub- i',; ,
. stantial road improvements in the area, the development should be phased gradually 'j
;�
with the road improvements. Stuller offered Davis's slides for the record. Shellman �
:�
;i
asked the circumstances for the initiation af the road analysis. Davis said he
initiated the analysis a£te= reading the Tobler report. He began the analysis on
April 4th or Sth at his own initiation. Sheilman asked who was consulted in the
course of this examination. Davis said he spoke to Sam Maphis of $risco-Maphis '�
about their earlier analysis. Shellman questioned Davis in detail about the average 'it
da31y traffic figures in the report and the service capacity of the road. Kinsley .I
Questioned the point of this lengthy cross-examination. Shellman replied that the
testimony should either be stricken or made under cross-examination. Stuller
agreed that Shellman has the right to cross-examine the witnesses. Shellman asked
Davis about the service level used in calculating the road capacity. Davis reported
� that the tolerable capacity of the road is 738 cars per day; that is the amount
T
of traffic that should be allowed on the road without major road improvements. No
,
traffic count was done on Capitol Creek road alone. Davis concluded that the roads
in the Capitol Creek area are not in a condition to substantiate further development �
in the area; they are over-capacitized. Shellman asked if Davis brought these I
considerations to the attention of the Board at the time the RS-30 rezoning was �
�
done. Davis replied he did not. He submitted for the record the Craffic tape from �
the traffic counter 3nstalled at the bridge. Shellman objected to the submission ;
i of Davis's report to the record because of the method in which the figures were ",
�
arrived at with respect to service, capacity and tolerable levels, because the
traffic count was not done for CapiCOl Creek road alone, and because the findings '
of this report were not considered by the Board of Commissioners in 1977 when the
area was upzoned. Kinsley moved to admit the materials to the record. Child second- �
ed and the motion passed unanimously.
George Newell, City-County Fire Marshall, expressed the following concerna about � •
' I
I
i
�
Co�issioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 10 i
i
�
�
-j j.
I fl
^(�ry'�' . . .
� �
�� _ ��
,. _
�.%;F'�,�y�..y,; " ` .
,� �.�j'4�4'
.!F "��e-a;t,. � �1�!;
. _..... .- .. .f7r'
��f.:
f �'
•�•'
fire protection: the narrow roads to the site which will present a problem for
fire trucks, whether there will be adequate water for the trucka upon their arrival, 'I
and the question of response time from the Basa1t Fire Department. A letter of ,:I
September 8, 1977 from Glen Curtis said that at the present time their department ;'I
is inadequately equipped to provide coverage for this type of subdivision. Newell �
" figured it would take 20 minutes to get to the subdivision from Basalt, with a ''�i
truck that can handle only a small fire. The longer the response time, the more ;;
!
the fire has accellerated and the more difficult it is to put out. He considered ;I
the long response time a major problem with fire protection. Child asked what the ,
response time would be from Gerbazdale. Newell said it would be faster, but that
`?� .
fire department doesn't cover this area; the Basalt Fire Department can call upon i
�:i
the Aspen Fire Department, but will only do so after they have reached the scene.
Shellman asked who requested that Newell do investigative work with this subdiv3sion ;{
application. Newell replied that Sandy Stuller directed him Yo do so. Child noted �
,j .
that Newell's contract also requires him to determine the response time to the out- ��
lying areas of the County. Shellman asked if Newell had looked at the response time I
prior to two weeks ago. Newell said he had, and felt this area should be served
by its own fire capability. He added that in order to figure exactly what water
capacities would be needed, he would have to see the configuration of the lots in
the subdivision. The only change in the fire fighting capabilities of this area
was the addition of two more trucks at Gerbazdale. The public hearing was continued
to 5:15 to allow the Co�issioners to attend the joint meeting.
At this point the joint City Council - County Commissioners meeting began. City
Council members present included Mayor Stacy Standley, Michael Behrendt, Nina ; �
Johnston, John Van Ness, George Parry and Tom Isaac.
�i --------- ��i�
� i�
i Mountain Betty Erickson introduced Mike Connally, new director of the Mountain Rivers Sub-
i Rivera •
� Substance stance Abuse Task Force. Connally reported that the center has been in operation for
; Abuse
� Task one year, and clients from Pitkin County make up 15% of the total people served.
! Force
fle thanked the City and County for their support and distributed pamphlets explaining
their services. They are now preparing a public awareness campaign and working with !
i
the Sheriff's Office and Courts to arrive at alternatives for repeated offenderA.
Since the distance to their center in Newcastle presents a problem for Aspen residents, '
they are working on a volunteer transportation netwozk.
--------- j
I
i
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 11
���i�,.;:
...��i�'�,<:�
`�.�.�._' 11YI1rirr .�-.. . . .
v:a-t'G,-��-[54�4� � . .
��� ��
.y.��3:S..�?=��: ' . . -.
. :h''�:?£'..'�c2���' !� .
_ �
. . _ . . . . . ' '�:
;��.
Runaway Jennifer Carr requested that authorization be given for a grant from HEGI for
Youth
Grant $30,000 for a runaway youth program. The City-County match will be met with in-kind
services. This will help fund creation of a center to house runaway youths. Parry ,
moved to approve filing the application. Isaac seconded and the motion passed unani- �
mously.
;i
------°-- �i
� Agreement City Transportation Director H.J. Stalf presented an agreement between the City and
for `I
Buttermilk the Aspen Skiing Corporation regarding bus service to Buttermilk. The five year i�
Bus Run
I-
agreement provides that the City will lease-purchase, maintain and operate the equip-
ment for buses to Buttermilk, and the Ski Corporation will reimburse them for the costs-�
incurred. During the summer the buses will be available to the City for their own 'I
use; they may be used for the Maroon Bells bus system. Ochs reported that the Ski
Corporation would like to work out a similar arrangement with the County for bus ;j
service to Snowmass. The County doesn't have any space available at the shop beyond ;
'�i
what the City is presently using. They would like to make arrangements, with UMTA's
help, to construct a joint bus facility for use by the City, County and Skiing Corpora-1
tion. Edwards commented that Brian Stafford looked at the agreement and felt the
County's cost would involve $293 per bus per day in order to break even. This would
result in a deficit of $31,000 per year to operate the service. Also, at the end of
the five-year agreement, the Skiing Corporation may have gotten rid of their buses
and may not renew the contract; the burden will then be on the City to continue
providing transportation to the ski areas. He felt this is an attempt to dump the
Ski Corporation's obligation on the taxpayers. Stalf pointed out that there is no
commitment for the City to continue the service at the end of five years. Edwards `
countered that at the end of five years the political pressure will be on the City, `
not the Ski Corporation, to continue the service. Jim Adams, of the Ski Corporation,
i �
said they will probably eventually pull out some support of the Snowmass system,
but they won't ever pull out their support of the Buttermilk bus run--that is partly
their respansibility.
Behrendt asked if the Sk3 Corporation would participate in e�cpansion of the
maintenance facilities. Stalf said that is not included in this contract, but the
value of the equipment to the County during the summer may amount to $20,000 per i
year which could be used for improved facilities. Johnston requested that Stalf
determine why the difference exists between his figures and Stafford's.
Isaac moved that the City pursue the contract with the Skiing Corporation. Parry
i •
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 12 �
i
�C
,:., + '$ ..i'
F+�F7'�,rC`t �� .
Z'�y�`��+4��� ` '��11��.
. .3�'�� . � .
,�'
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Mellow Standley reported that they have received another letter complaining of overcharging
Yellow �
p,�er- by Mellow Yellow taxi service. He noted they have received many such complaints and
�
Charging
Complaint have been having problems with Mellow Yellow at Ruby Park. Van Ness £elt the PUC '�
I
could regulate the overcharging. Standley said they can if they are notified of ;�
�;
,
the problem. Yir.sley suggested that th: District Attor�cy could i rveetigate filing �
- il
fraud charges. Child asked if the City has other specific cases they could submit f�
Sf. .
� to the PUC. Standley said they do. Edwards suggested they accumulate all complaint i .
�
f
- cases and file a formal complaint with the PUC in the County's name for violation
� of the rate provisions and request that an enforcement procedure be instituted. �j
f ?�
` i Edwards also requested that Stuller determine if overcharging is a violation of the ;��
3 j
� Airport Rules and Regulations; if so, Mellow Yellow's use of the airport will be i�
� '�
discontinued. Kinsley felt the Consumer Protection Agency may be able to handle
;�i.
this also.
�
, : --------- „
1
� Resolutiona Parry moved and Behrendt seconded to approve a resolurion coumiending Bill Kane for `•
Co�ending ��
Sill Kane, his years of service in the City-County Planning Office. The motion passed unani-
John
Stanford mously. Parry moved and Sohnston seconded to approve a similar resolution of commen-
i
dation for John Stanford, Assistant Planner. The motion passed unanimously.
Similar resolutions by the County were adopted on a motion by Kinsley and a second ;
t
by Edwatds. The motions passed unanimously.
i
Public The Abacus Ranch public hearing was reconvened. Davis appeared to clarify that the
Hearing:
Abacus service level used in the Brisco-Maphis report was service level C. 738 is the
Ranch �
(cont.) tolerable capacity for the road; if this is exceeded the road is no longer safe. I
Shellman questioned Davis at length about the service capacity, design capacity and i �
� i
� � �
tolerable capacity of the road. Davis concluded that when one goes from service ��
i �
level C to service level D, the service level is more restrictive and there is more � !
� I
chance of an accident. Shellman submitted chapter five of the Maphis study for the
record. Davis replied that the entire report is part of the record. Stuller said
d ;
the report is part of the addenda to the Land Use Code, so she assumes it is part of � ��
I
- the record.
County Sanitarian Bob Nelson reported that the applicant has agreed to a central
collection system; he suggested that specifications be made for land treatment
; �
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 13
`i
g .!?
!?:�i:;Y�s
' � w.
������- �
�-'�t �
„�et�:
�� _
. n ; �. .. _ - yi;
.�.
�.
' during the summer months. This would place domestic water back into the agricul.tural i
irrigation cycle, and eliminate the toxic effects of the water in Little Elk Creek. I
Nelson also recotmnended that each building envelope contain slopes of less than 15%, i
1
so a aeptic system can be installed. Shellman asked if these are matters that could ;i
;�
properly be addressed at detailed submission. Nelson replied that they could, other
;�
than the consideration of taking agricultural water out and putting it into the i
i�
- domestic cycle. Wells asked if Nelson would have concerns about aites that are all �'
;i
in excess of 15�. Nelson replied that the regulations prohibit soil absorbtion -��`
';I
systems on slopes greater than 15X. Wells contended that some sites are so steep
that they couldn't have individual systems on them. Child asked if this could be �
;�
handled at detailed submissioa. Wells replied it could. +�: '
;� :
Child opened the hearing to public comment. Chuck Brandt, representing Harold
;�
Pabst, noted that his client supports the application as a.reasonable use of the ��
land, and believes that the applicant has adequately addressed the general submission '!
,i
�icriteria and the remaining problems can be specifically addressed at the detailed
i�
submission. Pabst also feels that the existing Land Use Code contains regulations
which are adequate to handle the County's concerns, and that it is dishonest for
the County to adopt stringent criteria and then deny an application that does its
best to meet these standards. Brandt concluded that if this application is denied
the land values of all other owners in the area will be affected. He added that Mr.
Pabst had a prospective buyer for his land, however the buyer decided against pur-
chasing the ranch because of the County regulations. �
Greg McKennis, of the Sierra Club, reported that they support the P 6 Z's recommen-
dation for denial. He noted that if the subdivision were approved the road would
require a large expenditure of County funds f8r upgrading; he felt an equal amount ' °
;
of money should be spent on a mass transit or alternate means of transportation,
with help Prom the private developer.
'i
Mary Martin spoke in support of the applicant. She felt the road question is not ; !
, i
valid because the road is already over capacity now, and cannot adequately service
the area. Also, there is not adequate fire protection for the valley at this time, � '
so that should not be a concern. Martin asked where other downvalley landowners
could go if Frank is turned down. She felt the no growth policy must relate to �
�
I
people's human needs. ' !
�
Shellman noted that Walter Wieben told him that when the bridge with the 90 degree � .
tum was installed many residents asked it to be straigntened out, and offered land
: �
' I
; � �
i '
Commisaioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 1G
;
�,� �
r . , -
z�
� ...�.�,.
,.
.,�.. .� . _
�.,
,���^��'- _ .'
��._ t��u
�r �
� , . _ . .. ,. .... .. .
._, � �)..
^ ,„;I
�,,
�;
a,-.
so it could he realigned, but the County did not accept theiz offer. The public
testimony portion of the hearing was closed. I
i ,
With respect to the question of agricultural water diversion, Herb Klein reported �
�
that he wrote to Bill Lorah, of Wright Water Engineers, with a copy of the aketch- � �
;t
plan for the subdivision. He noted they were contemplating using domestic well
;i
water, and asked for his co�ents on the best location for a storage tank, and other -? .
facilitiea. He noted that this information is needed to comply with section 5.09.02
of the Land Use Code. Klein said that this letter was written to insure that the con- '
sultant could present a report based upon the criteria contained in the Code. Lorah ' _
� �
later spoke to Karen Sffith and she said that the July 15th report was suffir_ient. !!
Klein called Smith to confirm the conversation and Smith again stated that the
;i _
i
report was adequate. Klein then wrote a confirmatory letter to Smith, and she never
notified the applicant of anything to the contrary. He submitted copies of both
letters for the record, noting that the County is now saying that the water report '�
;
;i
is insufficient. Wells clarified that his response was not that the water report �_
was dePicient, but that that section of the Code requires that the applicant address
the extent to which irrigation water rights would be converted. The Wright report
states that in a dry year there is not sufficient irrigation water available, and
that it is expected that the proposed development might require the diversion of
existing irrigated righta to domestic rights. In that respect, if that is the
case, they dan't meet that section of the Code.
Shellman referred to the December 2, 1977 memo by Wells on the question of utilities
and public services. Wright Water Engineers preliminarily believed that domestic
wells could adequately support the development; their report of July 15, 1977
indicates that there is significant water on the ranch and deals with the question ' `
of alterations which would have to be made to continue the agricultural uses. fle
concluded that he does not believe that the material submitted is de£icient, and
� i
added that questions of this type are properly addressed at the detailed submission j �
i ;
stage.
! i
Moffatt introduced Marty Oldford, of Scarrow and Walker, who was hired to prepare
the traffic repott. He noted L•hat the origina2 proposal called for access from
l,
County road five only; the most recent revision calls for access from both County �
road five and 9A. Oldfard noted that they investigated the road and traffic situa- '
tions, and that the traffic count pointed out the limited amount of traffic that
takes place on the two roads leading to the development. He said that the volume
of the traffic on County road five does not approach the service capacity contained i •
in the Brisco-Maphis report. Oldford concluded that the final layout should take
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 15
,i
,. s }
..°�:`�xr�
� ,�t;
f, �.�,.�- -
f�
� tY�Fa-' � .
. �k_2'6" � �
- � r ',
;''
'.:`,
into consideration minimal use of County road 9A because of its poor drainage and
alignment; all development traffic should be directed toward Caunty road 5. Shellman �
asked if Oldford's traffic counts were taken at a site nearer the development. I:
1
Oldford replied they were; the counter was placed at the intersection of County roads i
�
5 and 9, so traffic using the Snowmass Creek road was excluded. Shellman concluded i
that based on Scarrow & Walker's report, even at full development of the pro�ect �
- ' there would be approximately a mile separation between vehicles, or 12 vehicles per
: �
hour. The record for the hearing was closed.
_ i. .
Shellman presented a letter dated March 27, 1978, which contained a specific re- I
quest for findings. The letter requested detailed findings referring to reasons and `�
the record evidence thereof. Shellman went on to state that the area was originally
;� .
zoned RS-160, the most restrictive zone category. Frank subdivision number one was j
approved in 1976, with the condition that a 160 acre parcel be subjected to a non-
development easement. Kinsley questioned the value of reading the letter, rather �;
i ,
than providing the Coumdssioners with copies which they could read. Shellman felt
tfie applicant deserves the Commissioners' full consideration, since much expense has
been involved in this process. He felt to treat this in an off-hand manner indicates
that the Covrmissioners are not interested in hearing reasons for approval. He re- .
quested an opportunity to state the reasons to the Co�3ssioners and offer them an
� opportunity to interrogate him on these matters bePore taking the matter into con-
sideration. Edwards noted that since the Board is going to take the matter under
advisement to consider all the new evidence, and since the summation is already
written, the letter should be considered along with all the other matters instead of
having it read at this time. Child agreed and requested that copies of the letter
be made available for each of the Coumissioners. Shellman concluded that the �`
entire valley was zoned RS-160 at one time; the Board passed a resolution in 1976
upzoning the property. Among other things, the Board found in its resolution that � f
significant natural hazard areas, migration corridors and critical winter range limit � I
i :
the development potential; the area has poor access roads, no public transit, no
public echools, and no co�ercial services, reducing the desireability for residential ! � .
development; the land areas are held in large tracts making agricultural use
-
possible; and the areas are adjacent to the Maroon Bells - Snowmass wilderness area, i
all of which mandate densities lower than those provided in the Woody Creek area. !
Shellman added that the Board concluded that in sum the development constraints
earlier documented require limitations on the densities and uses, similar to those
� .
i
Commisaioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 16
��;��"��+
'�^Y���''�1 .
� �.5:- �- ` ...
x ,.
, ,
� :
, wk"-9' .
;i:
�,
provided in the RS-160 zone district, but that evidence has determined that an
increase in density commensurate to the ability of these areas to acco�adate the
same is justified. He stated that it seems to be insincere to look at capabilities •
such as fire, water, roads, etc., and zone the property to a glven density:, and then
use the same considerations to attempt to prevent, restrict or slow down the rate
of development. He added that all of these matters had been considered and resolved
in favor of increased density., and the people who must bear the responsibility for
the increase in density are the Board of Commissioners. Shellman concluded that if
this Board will accept the responsibility for its own action, he cannot conceive that
•:.1,
• anything but approval would be appropriate. .
Kinsley moved to adjourn the meeting and take the matter up at a later time. Child I
seconded and the motion passed unanimously. I
_x � .. ..-.- . . , .
�
. -.�r. ''x =�.' . .
-'�` �err�z�in�,no further business, the meeting was adjourned. �
,� ,` ` "�a.�
;' `��. S.� .. _.
�' ; Aes�6cl��u�� Submitted, APPROVED:
e
.r'�. v;.r� ;r�. o' ' . . ,
. �:. �- � - � �
; ...�}�+1 � ,
�
:� :•����=''�,�itl/7.2.I'� �
Liz S��xt, Deputy County Clerk Chairman Robert W. Child
Michael Kinsley
�\ -�l
1
Josep E dwards, .T .
�_
x
I
t
I
�
�
i
�
i
_ � :'
Commissioners Meeting April 10, 1978 - 17 �
�
,
i
,! '
; --._..-- ._�..---_.�.._..._._�.__._.__._.._...__ �.:.._r._..___..�..___...____.___._...... --_..___.. . ..._.._._ _.__.._ . _.r
uy;,
1978 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING EXHIBITS
April 10 Owl Geek General A Memorandum Dated January 9, 1978 from Joe Wells to
Submission Plannin and Zonin Commission
B Memorandum Dated January 12, 1978 from Joe Wells to
Plannin and Zoning Commission
C Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 78-3 Denying
the Owl Creek Rezonin
D List of Rezonin Resolutions
Abacus Ranch E 1 of 4 Recard of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission
December 21, 1977
E 2 of 4 Recard of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission
January 4, 1978
E 3 of 4 Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission
January 18, 1978
E 4 of 4 Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 1978
F BOCC Resolution No. 77-94
G 1 of 2 Planning&Zoning Commission resolution adopting general
oals&ob'ectives of Snowmass-Ca itol Creek Caucus
G 2 of 2 Excerpt of Plan for Land Use in the Capital and Snowmass
Creek Valley
H Historicaliy Irrigated Lands&Groundwater Geolo
I Lower Roaring Fork Valley Land Suitability Maps and"The
Visual Resource"
J Letter Dated A ril 6, 1978 from Karen Smith to Jeff Davis
K 1 of 2 Letter Dated September 8, 1977 from Larry Dunn to Herbert S
Klein
K 2 of 2 Letter Dated November 23, 1977 from Larry Dunn,County
Bxtension Director to Herb Klein
L Letter Dated September 8, 1977 from Glen Curtis,Basalt Rural
Fire Protection District,to Herb Klein
M Lettex Dated September 30, 1977 from Herb Klein to Karen
Smitih
N Traffic Counter
O Cha ter Five"S stem Ca aci "
P Letter Dated September 30, 1977 from Herbert Klein to Karen
Smith
Q Letter Dated Au ust 30, 1977 from Herb Klein to Bill Lorah
R Letter Dated March 27, 1978 from Dwight Shellman to Board of
County Commissioners
S Letter Dated April I0, 1978 from Herbert Klein to Sandra
Stuller
T Letter Dated April 5, 1978 from Sandra Stuller ot Dwight
Sheliman
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMTSSIONERS 10 1978 EXH�BITS TO MINUTES
' . ' r.one;n or co: coi,�;,(�a�s�```..:•.
PISICIN C0. � '
:ublic Hoaring �xhibits �
. ??ato : _�._�LQ_:._,7,�
M E M 0 R A N D U M ' subjoct : .j"/1.l�'�.�LQ,..E'.jS
Ext,. xo.: �XHIB(T
- � �
TD: Pitkin County Planning and toning Commission _�p—
Board of County Comnissioners
FROM: . Planning Office (JW}
RE: Owl Creek General Submission, Plannang Office Comment on "
Appendices • . �
DATE: January 9, 1978
The Owl Creek General Submission is lengthy and complex. In addition
to the blue notebook you are receiving, our office has received three '
notebooks of appendices, containing 15 to 20 exhibits. Much of the .
work from these exF�ibits was originaliy done 9n 1974, under a previous
development concept. The more pertinant studies have bee� updated,
some more thoroughly than others. However. in order to understand t6e •
updates, it is necessary to tfioroughly study the original report. For
this reason, we fe7t it would perhaps be more useful to surrnrtarize these
exhibits rather than request wpies of all of them for your use in ' '
reviewing the submission. Flease take particu7ar note of Appendices
E, H and I, K and L. � •
A endix A - Geolo ic Stud of the dwl Creek Pro rt
• Dr. 'fhomas Prather, Professar of Geology, Western State University)
� This brief study expands on the geologic section in McHarg's report, •
Appendix K. It has not been updated since 1974, but conditions�as
described here have not changed.
„
The report's findings have signl�Picant lmplications for at least two
aspects of the submission, the dam site for the reservoir and realign-
ment and/or reconstruction of Owl Creek Road. In both cases the
presence of Mancos shale in various forms poses' obstacles to construc-
tion. Mancos shale is highly unstable, particu7arly as the report
points out, "where slopes are undercut in road construction, where
vegetation has been removed, or where large amounts of water have been
introduced."
The geology at the dam site is camprised of•glacial deposits and •
alluvial fan deposits resulting from the erosion of the Mancos shale
hills above. The fan material is even more highly erodible than the
' . shale. Areas with steep slopes canprised of si�ale are the major areas .
of land instability on the site, and are designated as such on the
geologic hazards map. It appears that the dam would span from one
• such area to another. The implications are made much more profound
when consideration is qiven to the fact that the proposed structure
would impound 840 acre feet of water above the Aspen Airport Ranch and
the County Airport.
A discussion of the probiems -involved i� a rea'ligrunent of Ow] Creek
Road can be found in the Raad tietwork Analysis.
A endix B - ti drolo M al sis of the Pro osed Owl Creek Deyelopment �
Espey, Nuston and Assoc., Eng�neering Consuitants •
This report was prepared to present recommendations aimed at minimizing •
detrimental changes in runoff quantity and.quality in .the Owi Creek
watershed. Some of the informat.�on in this 1974 report was prepared -
in the. absence of data on Owl Lreek. Hoovever, the study does identify _
_ , 1
County Planning and Zoning Commission � � •
Board of County Commiss�oners .
Page Two
January 9, 1978 � •
' �;
the problems associated with development in the area - most notably, �
increased flow rates, sedimentation, and volume of runoff, indicating
that "the potential for water quality degradation from deveiopment areas
is high." .
The study indicates that construction of additional minor drainage
channels, en]argement of an existing irrigation ditch to handle storm '
drainage, and two storm water detention reservoirs will be required to
control storm water drainage.
Not inciuded in the appendix is a more detailed impact ana]ysis of the
ski area development that was apparentiy being prepared at the time
this report was written, � "
A endices C and D - Re orts on Air aulit Im act •
Marlett and Assoc.
The Plaoning Office �s awaiting a referral from the County Envirormental •
Health Officer before cortmenting on these reports.
A endix E - Water�and Sewer S stems for Owl Creek
eonard R1ce and Wright-McLaughlin Engineers .
The question of water avaiiabiiity for this proposal is one of the most
serious questions raised by the submission. The original study
, estimated the amnunt of water available annually from streams in tfie
Owl Creek basin on the basis of records on hydro7ogically similar
. streams eisewhere in the state. Measuring devices arere instatled in •
the fall of ]974 in order to obtain more accurate records on iow and
high water flows. The developer's water consultants state that "Records
� for 1975 and 1976 indicate that the actuat runoff.coutd be so►►�ewhat �
less than originally predicted,but do not provide a basis for revision
of the original estir.rate." However, estimates are revised downward
to 70� of the original water estimate in one set of tab]es. Although
we have not seen the figures for 1977, it is safe to say that these �
figures will be considerably less than tbe two previous years. i
Water in the basin is almast always physically depleted by August 15. #
Because of this, a real problem with legal availability exists during �
the late falT and winter months. Weils have not been successfu] due ;
to high sulfur content in the water. The report states that there are • �
822 acre feet of historic consumptive use available for conversion " . ;
from agricultural use to a �nicipal supply. However, the cor�sultants
- , go on to state that it. seems that the ownership of these rights is •
unclear. (Recently a cha)lenge by the Airport Ranch below the Mitchell
Property was sustained in Water Court. The implicat�ons of this
_ recent judgement to the proposai are unciear at the moment).
The origi�al report suggested three methods for dealing witb what was � . 3
recognized as a serious problem. The first option was to purchase water
from the City, which wag, and apparently still is, politically unlikely.
The second was to purchase water from Snowmass, which, in view of �
Snowmass's own limited water availability, is aiso unlikeiy. The third
• option, impoundment of the water in the basin, was the method which
� was chosen. Site limitations suggested the size of the reservoir �..
would be limited to 800 acre feet, Water use would require that in -
the spring, the reservoir would be drawn down to a leveS generaliy
around 225 acre feet. .
• ,3
t
• . �.
� . .
_. ,
, -- .. _ _ _ _ ___
�-�
County Planning and Zoning Commission ' •
Board of County Comnissioners
Page Three �
January 9, 197$ � '
Historically, the total irrigated acreage is estimated to be 506 acres
(493 acres exciuding �ut-parcels). A breakdrnvn of the total is as
follows: �
. 359.3 acres in hay .
. . 115.9 acres in pasture � • • .
17.8 acres marsh .
As proposed, the deveiopment would retain 300 acres of agricultural . .
land under irrigation, as well as the 150 acre golf course and 30 acres �
for. aesthetic irrigation. However, the water needed to support this
irrigation would require a reservoir of i750 acre-feet. Table III-C
(revised) estimates the amount of water that would be available for
agriculture given a water yieid of 70% af the original estimate. In .
an average year, the foltowing conditions are expected:
Agricultural irrigation = 574 acre-foot shnrtfall
Agricultural lands irrigated = 128 acres ,
Agricu]tural lands not irrigated = 172 acres -
In other words, the amount of agricultural iand in use in an average
year under this prpposal would be 128 acres, as opposed to 493 acres � `
historically, or approximately 26� (see section 5.06.02 Land Use Code,
Compatibility with Agricultural lands and Operations.) �
Water requirements in the rev9sed proposal is estimated at 1510 acre-
feet in an average year, based on a poputation estimated at 6245.
• In view of the predominately tourist use of this proposaT, this figure
may be significantly lower than what would actually occur. For instance,
' - the Planning Office estimated the population resuiting from the Snowmass •
proposal, using an average occupancy of 4.5 persons per tourist condo-
miniwn. Persons in the management fie]d at Snowmass took strong �exceptioo
with that figure, sfiating the actuai figare was much htgher than 4.5 " °. _.
persons per unit. Unfortunately, the 1976-1977 winter season made it �!
impossible to monitor the number of persons per unit more closely.
8ecause of the complex nature of the water queStion, the Planninq
Office would suggest that ir�dependent consultants be retained by the
County at the developer's expense to invest9gate the amount of water
both physically and legally available to service the development.
The Cost Estimate {Table III-E, revised) in probable ]978 dollars for
development of the water source is $t,d46,000.00 not including the �
water treatment faci7ity, estimated at $435,000. No mention is made '
as to whether extraordinary costs are anticipated to dea] with the
� , hazardous soils conditions existing at the site af the dam. •
In regard to the sewer system, the proposal lies within the Aspen '
. Metropolitan Sanitation Oistrict and it is recortanended the District's
services be used. The District has stated its ability to accortmodate
the development. The collection system has not been redesigned, since �
the development layout has not been revised in suffitier�t detail to .
warrant it. �
• A endix F - Develo ment Potentials for the Ow1 Creek Pro ert
Hammer, Siles, George Associates , ,
Although much of the statistical data used in this report is outdated,
and some of the assumptions are incorrect, it is not necessary for the �
. Planning Office to comment on this Appendix, since the study is simp]y ?
a marketing study for the developer's use. .
. � " � i
� �
.., �
' � ;
County Pianning and Zoning Corrmission
. Boar� of County Commissioners
.Page Four • �
, January 9, i978
' A endix 6 - Memorandum on Socia7 Services for Owl Creek
Dr. Charles Kelley, Director of New Comnunity Social Programs for the �
Mitchell Company)
. Dr. Kelley's memo is a highly subjective report concerned mainly with
aew approaches to employee housing and "an econanically and socially
integrated population." Our office does not fee] it is particulariy
reievant to the present level of discussion on this proposal. '
Appendix H - Transportation Impact of Owl Creek, a Preiiminarv Report
and and Appendix I - Pedestrtan and Vehicu]ar Movement Considerations
at urri �reeK
. ' Transportation Development Associates}
These reports are dated January, 7975. When they were prepared,
' the development proposal was considerably different, one of the more -
notable differences being the reliance on the completion of a high
capacity 7ight rail transit system between Aspen and Snowmass throuqh
the.Owl Creek Val7eya A brief look at transportation-related planning
since January 1975, reveals that these studies have been outdated since �
they were or9gina1ly prepared:
, 1. In July 7975, the Citizen's Transit Design Camrtittee
. submitted their report containing recoimiendations on
final design for a light rail transit system hetween
Aspen and Snowmass through the Qrrl Creek Va11ey.
2. The County irtmediateTy sought matching funds from UMTA'
. to proceed with the light-rail proposal but the request
was turned down because it was felt that other alternatives �
._.. . had not been examined as thoroughly as light-rail. UMTA '
did agree to fund another study to look arore thoroughly ;;
at all alternatives and this study began in September, �
1976. �
3. In March 1977, the Citizen's Advisory Board for transportation
recorm+ended a 5 year first phase prograin which included
upgrading of the bus system as the primary mass transit
• system and construction of a busway between Aspen and the
Airport on a separate Right of Way, aith bus service to
• Snowmass continuing on the existing road network v.ia Brush �
Creek Road. 7he CAB also recomnended support for the self-
sufficiency concept far Aspen and Snowmass - balance between
population and services, including skiirg, as outlined
in the Growth Managemeat P1an. •
The recent history of transportation planning clearly indicates changing
' comnunity sentiment toward the light rail proposa] arSginally proposed.
This is not to say that the transportation studies presented by tFie
developer do not recognize the transportation problem the County is �
facing. In fact, the development proposal is placed in the context of
providing the CoRUnunity with a tooi to deal with one of its major land •
use problems - that of the imbalance in bed/skiing capacity. The �
reports go on to suggest a number of inoovative alternatives to auto-
mobile usage on a County-wide basis.
A couple of observations need to be made. however, about these points.
First, any discussion concerning the eliminati-on of the current imbalance'
in bed capacity to skiing capacity revolves around the provision of day
. �
�,;
� �i
�
-_- - _ _. _
� ... _ -.-.-} _ -. . _ _. -. -- _ , .
, , _. - : - .
County Plannfng and Zoning Conmiss9on
Board af County Commissioners '
Page Five " ,
January 9, 1978
skiing capacity for t6e excess skiing population in the Aspen area and
the means of transporting skiers to the site. While Qwl Creek is
one of the sites that should be considered in discussion dealing with
• the imbalance question, it does not necessarily fallow that the develop-
. ment of an ad'ditional 1800 residential.units at Owl Creek is a part of
that discussion. Secondiy, in regard to the auto disincentive programs
outlined in the report, the burden for impiementing these programs
wonld be on the County as would the expense of setting up and maintaining
them.
What the report does cT•eariy point out is the expense inherent in the
proposal from a transportation standpoint - an expense that the County
would no doubt have to bear. - .
The findings of the report estimates that only 25% of the tourists
visiting Owl Creek wili be auto-encumbered. The study recognizes that
• this is considerably lower than that currently experienced, but goes
on to outline how this is attainable through the following mechanisms:
]. InternaT auto disincentives within Owl Creek. �
2. Construction of the transit system through Ow] Creek.
3. Improvement of transit systems from Colorado points of
entry.
. 4. Increase in air traffic volume.
. Of these four proposals, the County is responsible for the implementation
of the iast three. The estimated cost of Lhe transit system has increased
from $12,000,000 captiol cost and $500,000 a�nual maintenance, the
. preliminary estimate for the light rail praposal aione, to $5D,500,000
captiQl cost and $4,400,000 operating far the current light rait
proposal and bus system/disincentive program necessary to make it work.
There is no information in this report or anywhere else in the appiication
. to suggest that the deveioper is prepared to make a significant contri- '
bution to any of these programs. The deve]oper does mention selling
the right of way for the transit system to the County (in contrast to
� Snowmass`s dedicating the Right of Way� but does not state whether he is
, . prepared tn contribute to the capitalization of the system, or to help
maintafn it. Further, he does not suggest a method tn fund the estabiish-
ment of the other programs outlined in the report which would certainly
be necessary in order to reach the optimistic goal of 75� transit
patr.ons from the area.
Auto traffic generation in the absence af a very successful transi:t
system is clearly unacceptable. It is our assumption that the trip
generation figures cited here are those for a larger deveiopment proposal.
' TDA estimates that the average daily traffic from the Owl Creek develop-
ment would range from 2800 VTD (strong transit, average sumner day) ta '�
. 7400 VTD (existing transit, average peak ski season day) with the proposed
development pattern. ,
This can be related to the current proposal rather crudely by taking
50� of these figures, the equivalent in housing units relative to the .
originai proposal, to give the foliowing range for average daily traffic:
Strong transit, average sumner day: 1652 YTD
� .Typical existing transit, average peak ski season day: 4366 UTD
i'hese trip generation figures point out the levei of auto trip generation
that could be expected in the absence of a very strong transit/auto- •
disincentive prograrn. Furthermore, without dwelling on the specific �
�
�, • �
_ \ �
County Pianning and Zoning Comn3ssion � � '
Board of County Commissioners
Page Six '
January 4, i978 � �
projections in the report, sumner trip generations may be based on
assumptions which reduce off-site trip generation over the long run in
favor of the development proposal. These projections are based on
60% sumner occupancy, trip generations approximate]y equal to winter
low tourist occupancy factors, and an ability ta attract 60� of the
recreational trips .with origins in Ow] Creek. We suspect that with a .
strong marketing program summer•occupancy can be greatly increased
{Sno�vmass has had much more success with summer marketing of late),
that the number of trip generations in the surtaner is not only greater •
but much more difficult to divert to transit, and that summer recreation
trips out of the area wili be greater than 60�, due ta the difficulty
in providing sufficient capacity and/or variety in the immediate area.
Finally, this development bears no smali resemblance to the present .
situtation at Snowmass, a factor in the approval of additionai develop-
ment 'there, in that the proposal is roagh7y the same size and is pre- '
dominantly tourist-oriented.
This would suggest that some of the prablems currently being experienced "
at Snowr.iass could be expected to occur at Owl Creek with this level of
development, most notably an inability to provide needed community . ,
services because of the highly seasona7 nature of the area as we71 as
a lack of a "critical mass" necessary to support such facilities.
Qbviously, the result of such a situation would be additional auto-
trip generation and burden on Aspen's faciTites.
• Appendix L "8alanced Grawth", is a more recent genera7ized report on
• . firansportation prepared by Design Workshop which takes 9nto account "
• more current thinking in regard to transportatjon and land use. '
A endix J - Fiscal Im act Stud for Owl Creek � �� -
Step ns sociates, Planners/Econanists
A ]engthy report was prepared for the originaT proposal in i974 and
updated in 1977. The update fai]s tn take into account all new data
. and changing conditions that have occurred sirtce the origina] report
was written. (For instance, more accurate popuiation inforr.ration and
growth projections are availab7e now that could have been very useful)
The updated report suggests that a surplus to the County and Special
Distr9ct budgets of $1,578,000 annually is anticipated. Our reading of � ,
the study indicates that major off-site €isca� impacts have not been
� addressed, notably the costs to Government of a major transportation
• system, or, in the absence of tbat, the cost of upgrading roads, bridges '
� and parking faciiities in Aspen as well as downvalley.
�
i - 7he report assumes 10� permanent units, which has other implications
, which wiil be discussed elsewhere.
� . ,
;
i A endix K - Feasibiiit Stud for Owl Creek
, a lace, c ard, odd, and Roberts, Ptanners) �
� ' . While this report is considered preliminary, it contains�the most thorough i
analysis done on the project and as such is very usef�l in reviewing ,
- the project. The credentials of this author, Ian McHarg are well knoam. � .�
Even though the General Submission prepared by the developer makes
numerous references to the study, there are significant instances where '
the recomnendations of the study 6ave been largely ignored. �
.` . • �
. �
' ' ' .
�; . -
..� . .
_ . .
.. . .,, _�. _ _ = -- - -
_ .� _ . _ -
� - .._ --- - -�- . - - . _ ._- . ��� - - .. _ .
County Planning and Zoning Commissian .
Board of County Co�mnissioners
Page Seven � •
January 9, 1978
i
Key sections of the report:
Hazard and Stress Areas/Protection Areas
reas of the site determined to be fiazard and stress areas inciude
slopes of be�ween 20� and 30% with unstable soils and geology and ail
slopes in excess of 30�, potentially unstable slopes and potentia7
mud s]ide areas. . The total acreage on the Owl Creek site under this
desiqnation is 747 acres (not excluding the out-parcels). These areas •
are then combined with the protection areas, areas which are so
designated to protect key resources including wildlife habitat, and elk
mfgration corridors, agricultura] and pasture land, and prime visual
areas. �
The resulting Synthesis map identifies all the land that cannot be buiit
on and the degree af protection needed for the balance. ,
In the words of the report, "In terins of the values inherent in the
site and expressed by the comnunity, there are considerable limitations
on the amount of development that can be accommodated."
The report goes an to establish aR "Enviromental Carrying Capacity"
defined �as being the maximum acreage that can be developed without
infrirrging on environmental objectives.
To do this, four categories are established: , . �
� 1. Hazard and Stress Areas 747 acres
2. Potential and Exisitng AgriculturaT � �
la�d not in l. 678 acres
3. Witdiife Habitat and Migration
• Corridors not in 1 and 2 � 190 acres
4. Areas where no conflict exists . t05 acres
. TOTAL. 1720 acres
; •
(NOTE: TOTAL fails to ezclude outparcels and therefore exceeds the '
total of 1650 acres owned by Mitchell.)
Percentages are then established to determine the portion of each
category considered buildabie:
. 1. Hazard 8 Stress •(0�) 0 acres '
2. Agriculturai Lands (5a) 34 acres
� 3. Wildlife (10%) • � 19 acres
� 4. No Conflict (100�) 105 acres
I . 70TAL (with the error)T�acres j
!
� The report does�not point out the obvious fact that the areas that would ;
be appropriate for development in each of these areas do not necessarily i
' - occur in adjacent locations.
Water resources ' �
" . .the ownership (of,water) within the Owl Creek property . . is r
i not well estab]ished and further investigation will have to be done. ;
� Meanwhiie, the consultants estimate that approximately 385 acres of land '
have been irrigated by the existing rights in the Owl Creek watershed; �
'of which 280 acres are within the property." (Apparently, more accurate
acreages are submitted in the Wright-McGloughin report•.) "Although these �
r9ghts are quite senior, they are limited in suppiy. In a dry year,
as i�ttle as 50 acres in the entire basin can be irrigated, of which
� only 20 acres are on the site. In this regard, it is a]so worth noting '
._ .. �
i
;
' . ., 1 . _ _
County Planning and Zoning Commission -
Board of County Comnissioners
Page Eight .
January 9, i978 , . .
that transfer of water rights is based on the amount available in a
drought year. . . . Serious limitations on avaiTable water suppiy exist
w9thin the site. . . (The surface water supply) is not sufficient .
to develop a reliaDle municipal supply such as would be needed for any
sizeable development. . : Depletion of the water supply used for '
irrigat�on would effective7y remove agricultura] land so would be
unacceptabie. This means that any deveioPrt�nt of Owl Creek may require •
importation of water." ' �
Agricultural lands •
'�The best building land largely coincides with the best agricultural
lartd and so a conflict exists between these two uses."
Traffic
7Fie report notes that "any developr.�ent would generate vehicle-per-day �
traffic that exceeds the capacity of Owi Creek Road (currently 7000
to 1500 VPD). Without the rapid transit system, access to Owl Creek �
wiil be severely constrained and even costly improvement to Owl Creek
Road and Route 82 may not be sufficient to reiieve the cangestion." .
Count Goals and Policies
e report notes that County Goals and Poiicies regarding growth have • �
been made very cle�r and sites four documents as the basis of these
. conclusions:
1. County Action Program (Draft JuTy 1, 1973)
2. Aspen Area General Plan, 1966
. 3. WMRT interviews with cou�ty political leaders
_ 4. Draft Subdivision procedures, 1974.
� A endix L - Stud Oraft Balanced Growth
. s�gn r s op, Inc. • „
This study was prepared whiie two other important studies were being
conducted - the first, the Transportation Alternatives Study and the
second, the review of the Snownwss General Submission. Jvintly funded
by Mitchell and the Aspen Ski Corp., this report examines deveiopment
alterRatives for the Buttermilk-Snowmass corridor. It is our feeling
that, while we may differ on sane of the conclusions of this report, -
we do agree with the phiTosophy expressed in it, and moreover feel
. that the County has already made steps toward a resolution of many of
the probiems outlined in the report�n much the same manner as suggested. .
We feel that it is possible to use this study to conciude that approval -
� of'the type of development proposed here is not apprapriate at the present
� • time, and throughout this review will point out why we feel this to be ,
' true.
The report begins by stating that many of the Aspen area's growing '
� ' pains are a result of the irt�alance tAat presently exists in the area. �
Four primary development issues that must be manipulated to corre�t this '
� tmbalance are identified: •
; • i
1. Growth pattern - j
� 2. Distribution of services
' . 3. Transportation -
• 4. Distribution of skiing
; The four major probtem sources for the area are listed as:
1. Aspen's uncontained growth �
4 � 2. The community's policy of unrestricted inter-area movement
3. . Aspen's dependence on Snowmass's skiing
• 4. Srtowmass's dependence on Aspen's services. �
I
� .
.
I . . ... ' • . . . . .
County� Planning and Zoning Comnission �
Board of County Commissioners .
Page Nine . ,
January 9, 1978 .
Growth Pattern �
esig� n Workshop then calculates a buildout population in the corridor
based on zoned density for an additional 5618 units of approximately
20,000. (We feel this population is low if one wants to assur�e buildout, •
in that it assumes 3.5 persorts/unit. If these units are predominantly .
tourist-oriented; and we feel they would be, populati�on will be more ,
like 5 persons/unit or 28,000.) • The report •states that limiting factors �
in the Code, such as 1041 review have been taken into account.
The report then briefly discusses development patterns, suggesting that
under existing zoning, land in this area will be developed in a low
density dispersed pattern. (Our office would hope that with competition
for allotments under the Growth Management Plan, PUD's can be encouraged).
DWI then suggests that a pattern of tightly clustered villages would be .
prefe�able. (We question whether this can be achieved given the pattern
of ownership outlined in the eastern end of the corridor). '
Transportation •
Two options regarding transportation are outlined: '
1. Construct a high volume, fixed line�between Aspen and . ,
Snowmass.
. 2. Encourage independence of the two, by balancing service ..
at both ends and actively discouraging movenent between them.
The report explains that it is quite possible that a high volume transit
system between Aspen and Snowmass will not be an effective solution for
' the future, and that County residents may be urnvilling to support tfie
. costs of such a system. '
, , .
: " Distribution of Services '
The report suggests that the original development scheme for Snowmass `::
� was to create a self-sufficient co�nunity and that. comnunity qoals �� �'"
have prevented this from occurrrng. Specifically, that the i966 Aspen
Area General P1an's recom�ndati�on that Aspen should remain the regional
center and be linked with Snowmass by transit as well as a similar
recommendation by the 1972 Goa1s Task Force have clearly encouraged the
dependence on Aspen of the SnoNmass area. (We feel that the reconunendation's
� of the Citizen's Advisory Board on Transportation, a broad-based community
i group whose actions were endnrsed by the Pitkin County Comnissioners,
as well as the Snowmass General Submission approval, largely supplant these
� previous statements. The self sufficiency concept for both Aspen and '
j Snowmass was a stated goal of both of these 'reviews.) DWI goes on to '
i suggest Aspen's inability to take a stand and its ineffective attempts _
. to reduce overwhelming development pressures have added to a continuation
� of this dilemna. (We must take strong exception to these remarks. ' ;;.;
Building permits issued i� the City of Aspen have fiallen from the peak
of 242 in 1969 and 305 in 1970 to 108 in 1974 and 137 in 1975. The
" _ City's implementation ordinance for the G.M.P. limits construction to
34 units per year). -
fThe two options available to the canmunity are:
I l. Continue to develop Aspen as the regional center
, 2. Relieve development pressure on Aspen by allowing the
• creation of a secondary regional service center in the
west end of the corridor.
(We feel it is clear that we have opted for the second by approval of the �'
Snowmass General Submission). �
i
i ` .
� . -
� . . .
� ' .
I • ' ••
I
- . _ � .,, -
County Planning and Zoning Commission • •
Board of County Commissioners
Page Ten •
January 9, 1978 � • . •
i
Distribution of Skiin
nIlregar to skiing im alance, the report suggests 3 options;
1. Maintain imbalance and continue to provide transportation. .
. Assumes expans•ion of East Village skiing toward 11,000 . �
2. Reduce growth in Aspen metro to.maintain present balance '
capacity. (We feel that Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk and
Highlands does not provide sufficient skiing to say that ,
there is a present balance with demand from Aspen Metro, �
. the shortfall being around 3 to 4,000)
3. Develop additional day skiing for Aspen
. Little Annie with a capacity of 4,400 and Owl Creek with a
capacity of 7,000 skier.s per day are the most likely sites
• for expansion of day skiing to deal with excess demand •
from the Aspen Metro area.
At this point, the Pianning Office would like to raise some issues. •
First, one must keep in mind that we have come to this point with a ski
capacity of roughly 21,000 skiers per day in about 30 years, with the
bulk of that growth having occurred in the last 10 years. We have " '
expansion p�ssibilities in the immediate area of double that number, with
� some of that being of questiortable development potential. We know
that given a growth rate of around 3� in the Aspen Metro area, the problem
of skiing imbalance for this portion of the county will only get worse.
We also know that intense pressure for day.skiing is going to intensify
. from the downvalley areas with the tremendous amount of growth proceeding
unabated in that area. We don't know if the Forest Service will allow
' . us to restricL day skiing from donwvalley with a quota system of some •
� � sort. Current policies wauld suggest taht thi"s may not be the case.
In view of the.extremely limited expansion capabilities that are even
I remotely compatibie with comnunity goals, it se�ns ta-us that this � " �
capacity should be reserved to deal with the day skiing imbalance problem. �'
Finally, the report outlines three growth alternatives:
1. Aspen Regional Center, Dispersed Land Use •
' • 2. Aspen Regional Center, Clustered Land Use "•
._
( ��-�_= : 3. Dual Regi.onal Center, Clustered Land Use .
i
It is important to note that the first two are discussed within a
� framework of present county policies. (the Owl Creek area is allotted •
j 236 units with a population of 826 in this study; the current proposal
� is for 1950 units with a population of at least 8000 on Mitchell
� . property.alone. There are additio�at ownerships in the area:)
' The first alternative is said to represent present zoning for the area.
Future development is primarily low density single family, and Aspen continues .
� to be emphasized as regional center with a high capacity transit to �
Snowmass. (Obviously this option has no validity in light of the Snowmass
approval). . �
The second alternative assumes clustering the same number of units.
Buttermilk becoming the interface with transit and tourist entrance
1. • , complex. '
The third alternative envisions that the entire Buttermilk/Owl Creek/ �
; Snowmass Corridor develops as a "self-sufficient comnunity." The
� transit concept is controlled separation between Aspen and the Corridor. •
"Sufficient population and pace of development to attain balance with
Aspen." • �
i • �
� ' .
,'
� ,.�.
� .
( ' • � -- :-
i
i .'
�
�
, ' �'� ��M�i
County Planning and Zoning Cortmission �
Board of Caunty Commissioners
Page Eleven '
January 9, 1978
We have several questions about this concept. One, the concept of
� Owl Creek serving to balance day skiing imbalances in Rspen is ignored
`�"• �' • in this concept; moreover the inclusion of Buttermilk in the corridor
' � � which in turn, is separated from Aspen would appear to have the effect
� of heightening the problem. Furttier, it appears to revert to a formu]a
that has been abandoned earlier in the report, by suggesting the dispersion
of services and density along a ten mile transit corridor. It is our •
opinion that a certain level of residential development is necessary
to'support needed community services and our experience has been that that
number is certainly in excess of 2000 units in situations that are pre-
dominantly tourist oriented. Failure to.provide.that "critical mass"
inevitably leads us back to the expensive transit or auto dominant
solution. On the other hand, allowing this kind of density along the
corridor would clearly outstrip the skiing capacity, to name only one of
the many resources which would be overburdened. It is also our opinion
that the dual concept is much more likely to succeed ir�the absence of
a very stringent auto disincentive program if•the distances between the
two hodes can be kept at a maximum. •
the report concludes with a discussion on distribution of services.
The report cites the work of Owl Creek's economic consultants to suggest
that a population of 18,000 to 29,000 would be required to attain comner-
cial self-sufficiency. It is interesting to note the Planning Office's
population projections for the Snowrtrass area during discussion of the .
6eneral Submission. We based our projections on Snowmass Corporation's
• occupancy rates and on an assumption of 2371 additional units, including
Benedict. The final approval was 2424 units, not including Benedict
who suggests he has zoning for approximately 3�units. Our projections •
indicated a population at buildout of 13,478 total average (peak season)
population and 16,906 total peak . (peak season} population.
Further, these numbers wer.e severely criticized by other management
people in the Snomwass area as being low,' because our occupancy factors
were considerably below that experienced. So it may Kell be that we are
' well within the range suggested as the critical mass, and this at
Snowmass alone. It should be noted that Snowmass is reserving lands _
for future development as well. �
� � A endix 0 - Assessment Information and Marketabilit Oisclosure
; ames ollica and Assoc., Appraisers
? Mr. Mollica's preliminary assessment of the property indicates the
; property was purchased for around $2,500,000. The investment to date
° is estimated at $6,700,000. Based on existing zoning, 165 ten acre "
� parcels could be expected to generate a rg oss revenue of around $11,000,000.
� . Development costs have not been deducted from this figure. Mr. Mollica
did not attempt•to give consideration as to how the Growth Management
E Plan might affect the developnent of the area.
� .
tmk ' ;
� � • .
I • : 4
� , • �
' t
i �
; �
�
• ,�'.itD OF C0. COM!`t'R'S
^ PITHIN C0.
:Ulia Aeariag Exhibits '
_ito ': '����7G�
" M E M 0 R A N D U M sub�oct : �'���L ('�'�.�'If
�n. xo. � EXyIBIT
���
T0: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission "
FROM: Planrring Office (JW) - , � .
RE: Owl Creek 6eneral Submission
DATE: January 12, 7978
The Mitchell Development Company began acquisition of the 1650 acres .
presently in their ownership in the Owl Creek area in i967. The original
development plan was made public in 1974. The General Submission currently
before the Board proposes a multiple use, tourist oriented development
phased over a 15 year period. Specifically, the owner proposes:
1, Conference Facility/Lodge/Recreation Facilities on
170 acres. 125 Lodge units and empioyee housing.
Zo�ing change from AF-] to Tourist.
2. Multi-Famity Condominiums
1500 units on 60 acres (25 units/acre)
Zoning change from AF-1 to Tourist •
� 3. Compercial and Public Services on 5 acres. Zoning
change from AF-1 to Tourist
4. Single Family PUD
� • 30 units clustered on 300 acres (1 unit/10 acres)
240 acres in comnon area �
� . 5. Employee/Restri�ted Housing -
295 units on undetermined acreage.
� Zoning change from AF-1 to Tourist or PMH. , .
The baTance of the acreage at Owl Creek wau3d be deed
restricted as open space. Existing,agri.cultural uses would
remain on the balance and water storage and treatment on
; the proposed site would continue.
� Total units: 1655 unrestricted, 295 restricted, 1950 total.
i ZONING OF THE PROPERTY .
f • resent zoning for the entire parcel is AF-�. To our knowledge, with
the exception of vacant cabins, there presently is no development on the
Mitcheli ownership. 7he owner is requesting a zoniog change to T, Tourist,
� ' on portions of the property to accommodate proposed density.
In order to evaluate the appropriateness of th.is rezoning request,
our Office has researched the circunstances which led to the downzoning
of this and other parcels in the County i� 1974. '
Zhe Pitkin County Cormnissioners initiated proposed amendments to the �
� ' Pitkin County Zoning Maps on November 5, 1973, referring these amendments
I to the�Planning and Zoning Cor.mission for their review and conmient. Zhe
� � Planning and Zoning Corm+ission reviewed the proposed amendments on
I November 5, 1973 and certified their recommendations to the County . .
� Canmissioners. A public hearing was held on January 29, T974 to consider
; comment on the proposed amendment. After consideration of these co�nts,
the County Conrnissioners determined that certain changes should be made.
� and submitted revised proposed amendments to the P&Z for cormient on March
20, 1974.
�
� �
- --.,� , �.„} . .
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission . . ' • . � .
Page Two ' .
' January 12, 1978 , ' �
Based on all of the above comnents, the Board of County Cortmissioners
• reached the fo]lowing conclusions:
That subsequent to the adoption of the Master Plan (The Aspen
Area Genera7 Plen of 1966) circumstances had changed which
made some.of the recommendations of that Plan inappropriate and �
� • led to amendments to the Plan on February 20, 1974. That,
furthermore,.the planning process for PiLkin County had con-
tinued, illustrated by the adoption of a list of planning •
studies in and attached to County ResoTution 74-i6. .
� that the change in circumstances mentioned above could be
illustrated by the following facts, occurring prior to
November 5, 1973: ' .
" 1. A doub�ing of popuiation every ten years since 1950. '
2. An estimated rate of growth of 15% per y�ar during the
• . five years previous, a rate which ca use s : the pop- .
uiation to double every five years.
3. Skier days increasing from 62,000 in 1954-55 to
1,173,528 i� 1972-73, and in the five years previous
i ncreasing : at an annual rate of 22X.
4. Mul�ti-fami]y housing cnnstruction increasing at an
annuat rate of 19%in the five years previous.
5. Local government spending increasing at the rate of
• 17% annual7y.
' 6. Law enforcement costs increasing at 20% annually.
That these growth rates had caused a substantial impact on the
required public services and facilities, that deficiencies in
these services and facilities existed, and that even if upgraded,
� obsolescence would occur shortly afterward if such growth �
rates continued.
That the attitude of the general public towar.d growth had
changed substantially in previous years, as evidenced by the -
• eTection of candidates supporting controlTed and orderly
grawth, by voter approval of additional taxation for open
space acquisition and mass transportation.
That the proposed amen�ments were necessary in order to protect
the tax base and the viability of local government, and to
• provide for a logical and phased expansion of public service --
and facilities.
That under then existing zoning, theoreticaiiy permissible
� densities would allow a population of 206,OU0 in Pitkin County
; outside the City of Aspen and that the County then had on file
appiications for building permits to build 3,227 units, ali � �
- allowed by right under existing zoning. ��
1
T'hat according to the Road Network Analysis of the County �
prepared by Briscoe.Maphis, portions of the County then zoned
for high density uses were served by inadequate and already
overloaded road systems irtcapabie of handling any additior►ai �
traffic loads. . _ � . �
i That at that time, certain areas of the county were zoned to
! allow high density commercial and residential uses in high �
Inatural hazard areas. ': ,
� That for the safety and welfare of inhabitaots and visitors,
• it was necessary to avoid undue conceotration of densities .
S wh�ich would create air, noise, or water pollution.
?Y
,,.a
� ;
' .. - . • 'i'Rf�=+
-^'r:�. . _. " "_. ...�. . _..._ '. .. ., - , �� _ _�
�� ' .. � . . .. ' .��.�. ..._ " ... • �.e. .. ' . s'.` � � .. . . � . . -- . ._.
Pitkin County Plann9ng and Zoning Commission �
Page Three • •
• January 12, 1978 . �
_.._ � ,
That because 70% of the personal incomes of the inhabitants
of Pitki'n County were derived fram the recreation and tourism
� industry, it was essential to maintain a natural setting and '
sma11 scale without congestion and degradation of the quality
oF the air, water, natural vegetation, and wildlife, and _
that development of even a portion of density then allowed
• . would seriously erode if not destroy those qualities.
� That the proposed amendment would still allow reasonable use •
of all lands affected by these amendments. .
That the proposed amendments were part of a continuing planning
process and that further rezoning would be made as further
ana]ysis or changes in conditions reveal the need in areas
, where development is logical, safe and appropirate and can be
served by the •necessary public services and facilities. '
On the basis of these conclusions, the amendments to the zoning maps were .
� ' adopted by the Pitkin County Baard of County Comnissioners on March
25, )974.
It•is the opinion of the Planning Office that, in regard to the Owl
Creek property, the concausions'reached in County Resolution 74-16
are still valid and that a rezoning of tfie scale envisioned in this
proposai would be inappropriate and premature at this time. The burden
. is on the applicant to.demonstrate that rezoning is apprapriate and we
• do not feel that this has been done.
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
reek ies within the Aspen Metro area, the first af four areas
described in the adopted Growth Management Policy Plan. The annual
• allocation for the Aspen Metro area reco�nended under the Policy plan is
27 uaits, based on the i975 revised Master Pians for the Roaring Fork
� East area and the Buttermilk/Airport/Owl Creek/Castle/Maroon Creek �
areas, as well as the Red/Smuggler Mountain Plan presently in progress.
I� i977, 39 buiiding percrtits were iss+►ed. It is the goal of the plan
� - to consider new subdivision activity after the annual buildout on
previously approved lots has been determined and to then approve new
subdivision activity ort.the batance of the al7otment. Any phasing scheme .
over a 15 year peiod for 1950 units is clear.ly inconsistent with the
• Policy Plan.
_ A part of the Growth Management discussion is the consideration of the
pattern of that growth, the distributi•on�of.services, and skiing and . _
- transportation. These matters are discussec! throughout this memo, but
more specifically in our review of Appendix L - Study Draft on Balanced -
I 6rowth. �
, • -. i
PUBLIC SERYICES/UTILITIES f
Electric Service � ° �
e Ow Creec area is within the service area of the Ho1y Cross Eiectric - � t
:association. Holy Cross reports that Ow1 Creek shares two feeder ;
circuits with Snowmass Village and that service reliability is presently j
: very good. Reliability would not be good, however, with co�struction • �
i:, of 15Q0 units and an additional feeder would have to be provided. .
• (Presumably approval of the Snowmass 6eneral Submission will require _ �
additional construction and that therefore Owi Creek's needs wouid be �
� fn addition to that.) Holy Cross does not express any reservation about .
; � being able to provide service. . •
. . . �
•�•':T.� ' " . . . . �,
f.
j
a'
_ ; I�;
� Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission .
Page Four
January 12, 1978 ' •
Sewer Service •
Aspen Metropolitan�Sanitation District states that the Owl Creek Proposal
can be accommodated, assuming they proceed with present. plans for
expansion.
A sewer trunk'line extends across -the airport property to the general
area of Lhe runway. An easement of approximately 1,000 feet would be
required across the Airport Ranch to reach the Mitchell property. Io
the absence of sucf► an easement, it would be necessary to construct a
pipelirte to the Highway along Ow] Creek Road and then alo�g the Highway
to the existing line. The manager of the Aspen Airport Ranch suggests
it is highly unlikely such an easement couid be gained.
Fire Protection - •
�e spen Volunteer Fire District feeis that with proper planninq,
they can service the Owl Creek Proposal. They would prefer to establish
a substation in the area.
Po]ice Protection �.
e it in Sheriff's Department estimates tfiat to proyide basic protection
for the Owl Creek proposai would require a minimum of one patro7 unit
be assigned to the area ful] time at a cost of at least $100,000 annually.
Sherriff Kienast suggests that to provide adequate service would cost
approximately $200,000 annually.
Schools �
_ We did not receive a response from the Aspen School District.
. Water Availabilit
. - ` e question of water availability and the depletian of water availabie
• ' for agricultura7 uses are serious concerns of our of.fice.
' The following requirements of the Code.cleariy are not met by this
proposal:
5.03.O1c. . .that the design and operation of the deve7opmer+t
proposal will ensure that the development will not prevent the � :_,;
unimpeded flow of natural water courses.
5.06.O1c. ...that the proposed development will not require
significant changes in agricultural water uses. �•
� , 5.09,02b. . .that the development proposal will. not affect `''•
the adequacy of the supply of water available for the irrigation
of agricultural iands... �
• The.water availability question is discussed at length in our review of
i • Appendix E - Water and Sewer Systems for Owi Creek.
i �
Road network/circulati_o_n__an_aysis
' 7�very serious probiem exists with regard to the grades on the existing ,
Owl Creek Road. As was discovered when studying potential alignments
for the light rail transit, both the entry to the Owl Creek Ualley and +
the exit are steep, offer few alignme�t a]ternatives, and may have . i
significant geologic haiards. The problem is even more difficult to +
remedy when dealing with a two lane roadway rather than a narrow single • '.
track for rai1. ;
. ��
' � Based on this proposal and the projected vehicle trips per day that wouTd
result from it, County road design standards adapted in 7975 v+ould ;
require that the Owl Creek Road be upgraded to•a Class II Type 2 Collector ;
road (ideal capacity 4400 ADT). Under the mountainous terrain classification, j
the maximum grade allowed is 8w. The Snowmass experience with Brush Creek ;
Road suggests that 8� grades should be minimized as much as possible.
��
;
- - : - _. � - ._ - . - . - -. __._ - - . �- -= .-:. _- . ---_-_--
' rt�k�Fiveunty P]ann9ng and Zoning Commission • _ ,
p.►.1� '
' ;a��uary 12, 1978 . ' •
tpa Mitchell Company proposes, upon approval of the General Submission,
, �� provide right�of way for and to construct an improved or realigned
�ht Creek Road on its property, However, it would be difficult to •
t,iantify a new alignment that would be acceptable to the County.
;ha existing alignment from the airport has two sections of 12.5%
�r•ade within ionger sections that exceed 8� grade. 7here really is enly '
' �ne area that would permit these grades to be reduced without extensive
roadcuts and that is along Owl Creek itself. That area, however, is
overlaid by the fioodplain and geologic hazards, would further deplete .
�qricultural lands since the existing alignment would have to be ,
maintained for outparcels, and would require access through the Airport
Ranch. Furthermore, the developer would recognize that such an aligo-
' ment would be very expensive and would conflict with the reservoir site,
which is an essential part of this proposal.
On the Snowmass side, grades exceed 16% for a short distance, and • .
generally exceed 8X from the Divide to the western property line
. approximately 800 feet. Excessive grades extend throughout most of the .
� rest of the distance to the bottom of the grade, on Snowmass-American
property. Again, there is little, if any, opportunity to correct the
situation without significant envirortmental damage.
A comparison of slope maps with'soils mapping points at the conflict
that exists between areas with suitable soils conditions and those areas
of minimal grades that are acceptable for any realignment of Owl Creek �__
. Road. (See review of Spils and Geologic hazards.)
the McHarg report suggests that "any development program would generate
vehicle per d�y traffic exceeding the capacity of Owl Creek Road _
(currently 1000 to 1500 VPQ)." It gues on to state Lhat "wi:thout
the rapid transit• system access to Owl Creek will be severely constrained
and even costly improveme�t of Owl Creek Road and Route 82 may not be
sufficient ta reiieve the congestion." � �
For more specific information on auto trip generations as well as a .
. discussion of transit alternatives, reFer to our review of Appendices �
. H and I, and L in the attachments.
ENYIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
' ComPatibiiity with_�ricultural Lands and Operation
3ection 5.06 of the Land Use Code establishes guidelines and submission
requirements in regard to c�npatibility with agricultural uses of
deveiopment proposals. Specifically, in -addition to other requirements,
"any application shall show that the proposed development will not require
significant changes in agricultural water uses, and that the proposed �
development preserves agricultural uses and lands wherever possible."
Further, the Code requires a report documenting the effect of the
� proposed development on actual and potential food production. Guide- "
lines call for preservation of at least 95� of acreage available
or potentially available for food production and at least 90X of
acreage available or potentially available for production of hay, grain
or other food crops. The Code goes on to recommend that at least 90�
of the acreage available or potentiaily available for use as irriqated '
or sub-irrigated pasture and at least 75% of the acreage available or ,
, potentially available for use as dry pasture or rangeland. - _
The effects of this develonment nroposal an agricultural water availability '
will be covered in the review of Apoendix E - Water and Sewer System for ,
Owl Creek. ,
- . ::::�
� ���
_.�..
.... .r,. —_
=-= _ . -_�� .__ .__�...._- - - --_ ..= - -_ -
` - - �- -- ._.- ..--- -. -_.. .. -- '� _
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission .
Page Six
January 12. 1978 '
�
Our office has combined information from the current submission as well
as from the McHarg report and done additional calculations to draw
conclusions about compatibility of this proposal with agricultural
lands.
McHarg analyzed agricultural suitebility of the soils in, Owl Creek
based on Soil Conservation Service Studies. His analysis indicates
the following: .
. Cate or Soils T e Acrea e
� ost productive 56D 184
Less productive 146C . 143
146D _
Least productive 56E 227
146E ..
Poor� 82E ' 1242
93C -
Unsuitable all . 10423
other
•TOTAL - 1720 �
� �Considered potenfially productive with modifications '
� 2Interpolated from McHargs total of 678A_ in Environmental
Carrying Capacity •
3Balance of 1720A including outparcels .
Design Workshop identifies 652 acres of land currently in irrigated and .
�� sub-irrigated pasture and feed production, and reports -that the Yillage •
' . � Canplex uses 4% of these lands, that the Single-Family area uses 9% and � �
the Golf Course uses 16%. No mention is made of tfie reservoir site.
�r office has calculated the total agricultural lands within the develop-
ment sites as follows:
Soil Type Acreaqe Acrea9e in pasture� Acreage not in pasture�
Most productive 44.55 9.91 34.64
Less productive 60.09 54.14 5.95
Least productive 86.13 53.62 32.51
Poor 82.922 71:332 11.592
Un�uitable 103.502 11.942 91.56
• TOTAL. 377.19 200.44 176.25
�Agriculturally productive lands �ot in pasture are generally in areas of
' aspen or mountain shrub
ZReduced by 100a.��60a, to allow for possible continued agricultural
production on balance:
This implies that the following percentages of each productivity
'category would be lost:
Most productive 24.2�
Less productive 42.0% �.
Least productive 37.9�
' Poor 66.9�
TOTAL for site 40.4% .
t
�
- . ��� _ - -.-,� _ . � .._._ :�. .....
� Pitkln County Planning and Zoning Cortmission • .
Page Seven
January 12. 1978 .
To equate these figures with those of Design Warkshop:
Our fiaure DWI
Village Complex 9.8� 4% `
' Single Family ' 10.6% 9X
- Golf Course � 18.5X 16�
Reservoir � 1.5� - �
TOTAL for site ' 40.4% : 29%
Despite the differences in these figures it is clear that the loss of '
agricultural lands clearly exceeds the Code requirement of lOX maximum.
' At the time the original development proposal was prepared, the County
had not yet adopted a policy on compatitrility with agricultural lands.
However, McHarg's feasibility report recommended a similar limitation on �
the use for development of agricultural lands. As discussed later in .
our sumnary of Appendix K, McHarg suggests that there are considerable
limitations on the amount of development that ca� be accommodated at
__,:_::��: Owl Creek. As one of three categor5es used to define-an envirornnental .
-- .` -. - carrying capacity, McHarg recommends that no more than 5% of potential
� = = and existing agricultural lands should be used for development sites.
ri=�� .�• '" He identifies 678 acres (of 1720 acres total, includi�g outparcels) in • �
- -= this category, and•suggests that use of these lands be limited to 34
� ~""`-:�.` acres. .
.;�,,,,_,.
� :- The report states that "...the best building land largely coincides
� with the best agricultural land and so a conflict exists between these
-"- two uses."... �
. Wildlife .
• ccA oraing to Division of Wildlife, the Owl Creek area is one of the
' most critical areas of wildlife habitat.remaining in Pitkin County.
. ��
Approximately 1,400 acres of elk calving grounds lie a]ong the southern -
fourth of the Owl Creek property and Forest Service and Snowmass .;�
Corporation land. Any activity in the area during the critical
� calving period from early June to mid Ju1y could severaly jeopardize � ;
'the survival of the herd in.this area. The developer is prepared to .;I
prohibit recreational activity and ski trail maintenance during this
period. .
The elk sumner in this general area and then cross to the north side of ��l
the Owl Creek property to critical winter range along the ridge over- �
looking the basin. When this development proposal was originally - �
prepared, the officially adopted wildlife maps showed two corridors for =�
. this migration. The larger one was along the divide between the East . •.i
� Brush Creek Watershed and the Owl Creek Watershed. Mother was across
the main meadow toward the eastern end of the long straight portion
of the Ow1 Creek Road, generally as shown in the General Submission. �
s
Our office has recently received new wildlife maps from Division of
Wildlife which show that the larger corridor has moved to extend more .;F
or less through the middle of the Village Complex designated by the � "
circle in the Submission along. Owl Creek Road. These wildlife maps •
have not been adopted at this time, and our office has not attempted to
further investigate this change. However, recent approval of the Snowmass
� . proposal can only tend to push the Elk to the east of the divide as
• construction in the East Village area begins. It should be noted that . `'
the site for the Village Complex is the most inflexible element of the ;:;
program. . '••
. s
• . . • ',{
. ;.
� �
. �
� • • ` .
� • '. :.:.' . ...�. :. ._..�- .. -��: -- . _ . .--�r,�4 = . -. _--:,�;z
_.. ,. - `_ - - --��,
_ _.__ . , -_ � -.- .,.� -- -
� Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Comnission • .
Page Eight
January 13, 1978 .
. - �
Division of Wildlife states that the elk herd appears to,be well over
200; and addes that 200 to 300 deer winter on the Owl Creek property and
ad�oining land. Division of Wildlife notes that impacton the deer have
been ignored in the proposal.
Division of Wildlife feeTs that the many outdoor activities associated -
with resort development of this sort is incompatible.with the wildlife
in the area. TFiey'are opposed to any development plans for the area, •
with possible exception of a few rigidly re'stricted single family units
in the area of existing sites.
� Soils Geolo ic Hazards Section 5.03 Land Use Code
�6iscussions of the geology of the Owl Creek area are found in Dr. Thomas
� Prather's work and in McHarg's study. Both reports point out that the
presence of Mancos shale poses obstacles to construction. This is par-
ticularly important when addressing two aspects of the proposal, the �
location of the dam site for the reservoir, and potential sites for
relocation.of the Owl Creek Road at both ends of the valley.
. . The Colorado Geologic Survey's response to our referral states that ,
while there are a significant number of geologic constraints, there are .
areas within the property which are suitable from a geologic point of
i view, for development. • .
i . In regard to the dam site, the Survey observes that "the dam site will
i ( be in an area of potentially unstable slopes and rtroderate permeability.
I S These preliminary indications and the fact that dam construction is a
ma�or geotechnical undertaking leads us to recommend that prior to .
I approval of this site, a specific investigation of the feasibility be
i � conducted." .
I . The Mount Sopris Soil Conservation District states that there are
several problems that should be considered:
� . „
1. Because of unstable soils, special engineering designs are
essential and a reseeding program will be needed to prevent
erosion•on disturbed sites.
2. A central water and sewer syst�n will be needed.
3. An improved road system would be required. Special
investigation would be necessary because of instability
of some of the soils.
An analysis of soils suitability for development can be found in�.the �
McHarg report:
' Soils �
Suitability Type Acrea e Cottenents
� Most suitable 56D 184a. also most productive for
� agriculture
Less suitable 28D 136a. �
28E .
86E
. 86F .
i' •
Least suitable 146C � 284a. second most productive for_
146D agriculture
56E -
•
Unsuitable All others Severe limitations. Should
• � not be co�sidered for develop-
• � : ment. �
. —.__-___.`_..._,..,.-.._ - . r _ _. .e. ...............: . . .
__._ ._._. _..'.
. . . . � . .. , • . - ..'
.�l . . ' ' ti,s.� . . 1
-,+ , �
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Comnission �
Page Nine • f
. • January 13, 1978 . '
McHarg notes that even though 35% of the total 1720 acres (including
outparcels) are buildable, based on soils criteria, the best building land
� corresponds to the best agricultural land so a conflict exists between •
the two. i
I
We have reviewed the soils suitability map on the basis of the proposal ' �
• �and note the following:
1. In the village complex site, 25� of the soils are cate- .
gorized unsuitable for construction.
2. The reservoir dam site is surrounded by soils categorized �
unsuitable for construction. �
3. In the single-family area, 60% of the site is c.ategorized
unsuitable for construction.. Access to the bulk of the
sites with suitable soils is across soils categorized
� unsuitable. -
4. Soils at both the entrance and exit to the valley are
either unsuitable for construction or have excessive slopes
� � to make any realignment of Owl Creek Road difficult, �
if not impossible.
For further discussion of these matters, see our review of Appendix
A '6eologic Study Qf the.Owl Creek Area' and the Road Network Malysis
elsewhere in this memo.
, Hazard and Stress/Protection Areas �
• TTF-ere are twa discussions of hazard and stress areas in the Submission.
The preliminary study was done by McHarg and this work was examined in
. more detail by Dr. Thomas Prather.
McHarg's work is .based on 1720 acres, including approximately 70 acres
in o�tparcels. A comparison.:.of the two may be useful. McHarg includes:
•••• • • Slopes between 20-30% with unstable soils and geology .
all slopes in excess of 30%
potentially unstable slopes . .
potential mudslide areas
� � flood plains �
west slopes and shadow areas �
� 747 acres
PraLher includes:
2�S + slopes • 165 acres
potentially unstable slopes 388 acres
mudflow areas 39 acres
flood plains . • � 90 acres
wet meadows 24 acres
6�
Since McHarg's work was based on additional acreage, the two conclusions
appear to be very similar. �
McHarg then goes on to combine Hazard and Stress areas with areas
valuable for protection. These.include: '
Elk migration corridors existing meadows �
Elk winter range best agricultural soil
Prime Wildlife Habitat primary visual area '
. �
. ,
�
. y
' � ' . . ,� , . .. '. . . -. '3
. . ' , 1 ,� .. . i
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Comnission , f
, Page.Ten ' •
January 13, 1978 . �
Unlike the Hazard and Stress areas, on which he recornmends no development
• at all, McHarg suggests that certain percentages of these protection
areas can be developed. In our review of the McHarg Report, Appendix •
K, a discussion of these percentages which make up his analysis of the !
Environmental Carrying �apacity can De found. His conclusion is that ;
. a totai of 158 acres scattered throughout the property are appropriate � i
for development. �
• �
EMPLOYEE HOUSING .
e Mitchell Company has calculated a need for 369 �nployee housing units
generated by the Owl Creek development, a�d suggests that 27% of these !
employees will choose to locate downvalley or will be able to find �
housing in the open market elsewhere. We do not agree that 24% of the ;
' employees would actually prefer to 7ive downvalley if adequate housing _.�
were available on-site; nor do we feel that the transportation impacts • .
of such a proposal are acceptable. Moreover, the Eagle Planning Office
• • and Eagle County Commissioners have stated by letter that they are strongly .
- opposed to approval of such a proposal.
Acting in the absence of a Housing Director, the County Manager has
attempted to make a generalized assessment of the Owl Creek employee
housing proposal. tle feels that perhaps 3% of the employees might �
prefer to locate elsewhere; that an attempt should be made to capture -
� as many of the employees as possible. He questions the assumption of '
', 2 employees living in each subsidized unit, which appears to overlook
families with 1 working parent, and suggests 1.3 employees/unit. A
recalculation of the number of units indicates 492 units are needed
based on these assumptions, as opposed to 295 proposed. , �
Apparently neglected in the calculations is the number of off-site jobs
' ' created by the on-site permanent population as well as the off=site �
._., . demand for services created by the tourist and non-employee population.
CONCLUSION •
� . n e basis of the above discussion, the Planning Office recom�nds
denial of the proposed application. Our findings indicate that the
proposat: •
. 1. Requires a re-zoning which is both inappropriate and
premature.
2. Is inconsistent with the goals of the Gnowth Management
Plan. '
3. Raises serious questions about the. adequacy of a water
supply and without question drastically depletes the amount !
. of water presently available for agricultural uses.
4. Is totally reliant on a transportation salution that :
is no longer being pursued by the community and, in the
absence of such a system would place unacceptable d�nands
on the existing road network and parking facilities.
5. Requires improvement to Owl Creek Road which, even with the
proposed transportation solution would be very difficult . '
to achieve without serious environmental damage.
6. Conflicts dramatically with the goals of the Land Use Code �
in regard to preservation of agricultural lands and uses. .
. :�;
�
i
. _ • �''�
, ' y
County Planning and Zoning Cortmission .
Page Eleven •
Ja�uary 13, 1978 ' �
7. Is una�ceptable to the Colarado Division of Wildlife �
in that it appears to infringe on elk movements to critical
winter range and jeopardizes a major elk calving area.
8. S.ites development within areas of questionable soils
• characteristics, particularly with regard to•the dam site
for the reservoir and any road realignment.
9. Sites development within areas identified as hazard and
' stress areas and prime protection areas.
10. Provides iriadequate empioyee housing to meet the goals of
the County.
lmk : � •
. •
�onFn or co. ca,t�,t�x�s
-----� ; PITKIN C0.
Public Hearing Exhibits
Dato : _.__�Y.:1.¢'7�..
� sub�oct : EXHIBIT
Rl?SO1,U'llU� Ol' '1';IP� 1'I'1'}:IN COUVTY Exh. No.: � n
t..�
PLi�F11dIPJG 7+A:D %0�:7::iG COi4;•;ISSION RLCODI�SENUIN6 �
� TIIE DENIAL OP TH� OWL CRliEK R�ZONING REQUEST
Resolution No. 78- �
h'HL'REAS, the Mitchell Development Company of the Southwest
has s�_ibmittc.d cin application under the provisions of the Pitkin
. . County Land Use Code for rezoning, subdivision, PUD and special
review approvals r"or the de��elopnient of certain property
located within the Ocal Creek area (hereinafter "Owl Creek
Proposal") all as described in said application, and
WHEREAS, at its meetings held on January 18, 1978 and
February 1, 1978, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter referred to. as "Commission") entertained the
application and the recommendations and comments of the Planning
Office (as well as the rebuttal thereto presented by Joe Porter, '
representative of Mitchell Development) , and
WHErZEAS, after review of all the material submitted and
comments of participants at the public meetings on the dates
noted, the Commission has found, with respect to the develop-
ment proposal, that (among other things) :
(1) Soil conditions are unsuitable for construction of
i
the proposed dam (water reservoir) on the development site;
(2) The development will cause increased storm drainage
flows and runoff and resultant sedimentation and thus reduced
water quality in the Owl Creek Drainage;
(3) There is inadequate evidence of sufficient water •
supply for the estimated domestic and irrigation needs of the
Proposal and surroundinq lands;
(4) The application is premised on a public light rail
system for transportation to and from the development (which
system is no longer contemplated) or three alternative public
transit means, none of which are feasible without substantial
public expenditures;
. .
(�) '1'i;�� E»-aicct �:eu1d s��em to bc of a size and scope
3.iisu£;:.i.t_i��c:C L-o :>u;:r�ly all n�c�s:;,�ry survices (i.e., the project is �
not •sclf contained) resulting in traffic generation to the
Aspen area. Any additional traffic in the area will exceed
tlie c�ip.city of Orrl Creck Road and additionally burden an
alrcadv overuscd Ili.g:n�ay 8?_. Thc proF,osed construction of an
� .�er���t.e �lig:�m�>>t or improved roadway does not seem feasible
given existing grades and geologic hazard areas;
(b) The applicant has failed to address all off-site
impacts of the system and demonstrate that all costs will be •
assumed (or offset) by the development;
(7) An analysis o£ geologic hazard and wildlife areas on
the site, as well as potential highly desirable agricultural
lands, demonstrates that very limited amounts of acreage are
available for development;
(8) The approval of the project would result in a dispersal
of tourist/skiing development along the Aspen/Snowmass corridor,
a result this community is attempting to avoid;
(9) There is no evidence to support the requested rezoning
of the area and consequent amendment of the existing zoning
which was enacted as part of the major rezoning of Pitkin
County completed in 1974;
(i0) The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives
and constraints of the Growth Management Plan;
(11) The project would substantially reduce available
agricultural lands;
(12) The project would substantially interfere with
existing wildlife habitats and migration coridors; and
(13) The project will not supply adequate employee housing;
All as described in those memoranda issued by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Planr.ing Office dated January 9 and 12, 1978 (incorporated
by this reference) and
WHEREAS, given those findings, the Commi.ssion has concluded
that it must recor.unend against approval of the General Submission
- . ;
I
�
� � '-.. .�±:,.:i ��, ...:.i..::J ;::.-„r:� .i t,
.:l�:i� 7'::. ...::i'Qj:'ti� iil, 37' :��':..:il....:�i? 1.>,� tli� Plt}:].n COUnt}, i
islanning and Zoning Commission that it doe:s hereby recommend
to t:�c: P.oa�-d o£ Cot:nt� Co�;ini.ssioners cf. Pi.L-i:in County,
Col.orado, tt�at it dc:r.y �.r,>roval of the Gencral Submission of the
C`:,.._ C7:t;... 1': ; - -�.. 1;, ....�,i:::l d:; Cc2�. ;7-cjCCL':
1. i �:.;;;;;.�r> a i-�.:;_.-�i.ru� ::�:�ii:h is both inappropriate and
premature.
2. Is inconsistent with the gDals of the 1966 Master Plan
and the Growtn Dianagement Plan.
3. Raises serious questions about the adequacy of a water
supply and without question drastically depletes
the amount of water presently available for agricultural
uses. � '
4. Is totally reliant on a transportation solution that
' is no longer being pursued by the community and, in
the absence of such a system would place unacceptable
demands on the existing road network and parking facilities.
5. Requires improvement to Owl Creek Road which, even with
the proposed transportation solution would be very
difficult to achieve without serious environmental damage.
6. Conflicts dramatically with the goals of the Land Use
Code in regard to preservation of agricultural lands
and uses.
7. Is unacceptable to the Colorado Division of Wildlife
in that it appears to infringe on elk movements to
critical winter range and jeopardizes a major elk .
calving area. •
8. Sites development within areas of questionable soils
characteristics, particularly with regard to the dam
site for the reservoir and any road realignment.
9. Sites development within areas identified as hazard
and stress areas and prime protection areas.
....� ��� .-
_ _-----_ . • _ ._
-- . ____ _ ,
I
.. . . , '
i
�.p, Provici.:�s in�c?r.,u�te enployec housing to meet the goals
c�L L:?�_. C'uu;. . , i
:,��prov��,i 1:: Cii: i'il-::in Coun�}: Planning and �oning Commission �
a�� iis continucci re��ular meeting held February 8, 1978.
----�:i i:>>��.,.��i
�
.._..,_.4-.�-_ - .
� � EXHIBIT
� � � -
REZONItdG F�SOLUTIONS •
Prior to
7G-24 (2-23-7G) Adoption of Land Use Code
�7-6=71 (5-21-76)
/
. . /7-6'=8G (6-28-70) .
�,.?�6=1_12 (9-13-76) Establish PMH Zoning
�' '
/�6"�150 (11-22-76) Snowm�ss Report General Submission
� �77�-33 (3-14-77) �
��7- 4 (7-25--77) �
112 (9-26-77) . _ . .
a7-117 (9-19-77) Supplement to Snowmass Resort Rezoning
/ �
�7-7=I34 (10-3-?7j -- . .
� j . .
f18-9 (1-9-78) -
. RESOLUTIONS AMENDMENT THE LAND USE COAE
/77 Z24 (9-26-77) .
�7 -136 (10-3�T7) . � �
i
• 7J1$O (12-27--77) sOArtn QF C0. COHtttit'R'S
� / PITKIN C0.
�8�17 (1-23-78) Publia Hearing Exhibits '
78-23 (2-27-78) � ' Dato : _!�.:.LQ '�
�g . �� ��� �o .�g� � Sub�a�t . D�cu.�._.�c�.� � .
. Eyh: No.: __..._._ ._b..�
-�g. 3! C�i • �o . �8� _ �
�8 3 a �� �►o .-��� � .
�
, . . .;��: � - .
� EXHIBIT
. � /
RECUfTD QF F'ROC�FDIi�1GS 100 Lea��cs
__,�,�..__,�:�,_^_..,�._:—•--------_
rz�l'KIN coun�rt
PS,At"1L�iC AND '/,ON1.I:G CU.L`fI5SI0N
Rr:nular 1•iceting
DecemLer 21, 1977
PP.f•.SL'NT: Ch:,irm�n Pet�.r Gtry
Mi.r.hael Gastinitin bOARD OF C0. COMh['R'S '
Dan Levinsen PITKIN C0.
Tosn Turnbull Publia Hearing Exhibits
Dol-t.i.� Pox Date : _:.7:.1L1 '�
Pfurra}• Pope (al.l'ernate)
Tont lilal:2 (a].Lcrnate) ' Suh�eat : Ab�� ►��nCh
L'li.ie L'r.ic:tham (a1L-crn:iCC) Exh, No.: ____ _.._.
AUacus lt2nch Fl�. 2 Gen�.ral_5ubmi Ssi,on
� -- — - -
IJoe Wells, of the 1'lannin� Office, reported on the gr_neral sulimission
� appl.icati_on for the Ahacu> ttanch f.s_ling 2 subdivislon. This is an
j ap�>7.i.caLi.on by „ary FranF; tn suUdivi.dc a porti.un of her. 327 acre ianc:h
I inro 24 ].ocs of: from 3 to ,'_S acre� each. The ALacus Ranch filin� 1
j suhdivi.si.on of four loCS tras L•he oul� sut,divisicm appr.oced under RS-1fU
zoning. Frank plans to conCinue l�er. r.anchi.nK operaL-ions oii the re-
� mainder of. t:he prop2rtv. Dean 1-foffatC, a developer and planner, showed
the gro�p a l�laC and ac:rial photos f:or th�. suUdivi.si.on. The major areas
to lie su6divicled arewt the no�-CheasLern and nort:h�aestern por.tions of
itt�e land, wi.th oi�e l.oC on Chc soutl�ern tip of Che Fanch; Che northeaster.n
I edge is adj.:cenL• to Lhe LittZe Elk Creek suhdivisi.on. Acce.ss i.s proposed
frnm Isast Soptis I:oad or C�uuCy Road 9A. The p1aC also delineates the
� boundar.ies of the ].GO acre non-deve].opmenL ea5er�ent t}tiat c.�us parC of the
� approval for e1-�e fi.rsr f.ili.n�. We].l.s repor.ted Chat densi.ty is tize major
concern involveci in chis applicatios�. Afoffatt has cal.culated the
� allowable dersity usin� the enlire parcel under RS-30 zoni.ng. The Planning
Uffice ca]cu1aL-ed C•he density hased on G67 acres, e:;c.l.uding the l.and
included rn Che first �uUdivision. They al.so suUtr.acted thc e::isting
uniCS on the Ranch from L-he densit:y all.oti�ed� thn_tefo�e 16 unats are
avai.laUle. IndicaL-i.ons �re that• t:her.c will proUabl�• be adequate waeer
for tne developmenr, however referraJ_ conunenCS huve indicaCecl thal- a
c�m;i�c}n sewage treaCmenL facJ.lity, ia+:her L-h:n tiie iadividual septic
system5 Y.hat 4*c�-e proposed, wi11 be necess3ry h�cause some nf the property
is very weL aud t:here arc mamr arcas i•�i.ch 30% s.lopes. 'ihe CouiiL'y lingineer
conn�ented th�t tlie present road is very near capaciL'y now and needs
�,�i.dc:ninr. The 5chool bi.stricC �apressed concc-rn aUout Uus service Co L-he
subdivi.sion, anu the Gasa7L• Fire District said Lheir facilities are in-
adequate to scrve Che area. tdells poi.nC�d out tlie conilict ehat exists
bet�•reen tlie vi::ual vulner�bility of: the Uuilcling si.tes and the need to
preser.ve agri-ciilr.tu:aJ. c�ncc:rns. The Divisioa of Wildlife ulso i�as a
�>rr�bl.em with snme of L•hes nortl�western lols, whicli �.ill i.nCcrfere oJit-h the
ellcs' cri-L'ical Frinter r2n�,c. Thcy recoinmcnded i:hat the l:ase SoPris Road
access bc e].imina�ted. i4o;f,�lt fc1L- the aceivil:y in Little )slk CreeY.
subdi.vis9_on kceps tlie eli; awzy from the. road. P.c�ndy Cote, oE ehe Divisiun
oI 4?ildlif.e, sai.d they �.unC to preserve l-lra elks' mi.gr�tory path �nd
wi.nY.er L-caeclin}; area, whlch is acr.o:,s fr.om tii� proposed subdivision. 1,'el.1s
noted thae the buil.dinf; ,i.te.s thnt nrc J.eas,C inc�:usive for ay;r:LcuLtural.
RECO�D OF Pf?OC�EDtiVGS 100 Leaves
-",,:.., �...,,,.,..�,,....,.., '
-- --� PJ.:�m�9.ng and 'l.oning Cemmia.;sinn .
n��:�:�„i,�,- zi, iy»
r1f�� �r�o
pur.posc� are tlie mcist visibl.e. lle [elt L1i1C morc ::it'es near Litt].e
�].lc Creelc would he rit�proprizst:c, and rrcommei�ded e7.i.winal:ion of lots
9 Chrou;;h ].'L on lhe izartl�uesL• ec{c;e. 1Ji.th rc„ard Co phasing, We]..is
noted ChaL Lhe G�'owCh Mz�nas;cr�enC 1'].an proposed L'hai' FrcaaCh in the
ctownvnllc� nrea he l.imi.l-cd Co 44 uni.fs per ycat; ther.e nre roughly
126 i�ndevcloped pi-cvi.ously-sul�di.vided ]c�Cs in L'he an•ca. 'LhcoreCically,
� ' hhc 5»oiari�ss-C�pito.l freel: V�Iley's fair sli�re ot Che t;rowl'h iaould
amaunC Lo tour, uniLS p�r ye1c. Tl�e Pl:inn'Cn�; Uff:i.cc recammends l-hat,
if tliis subdi.visi.on is appruved, it procred at a ecr.y l.ew annual r.ate.
tdel.].s aJ.so poi.ncerl oul thac Lhe Land Usr Code stiJl requirec SO%
emp.lopce housi.ng, hnwever Che Poard of Commi.ssioners are pr.csently
cons:idering ch:tn�;iug that por�ion nf L'he Code. The app7.ic7nt has
� pYOpose'-d th7ei: a1L'G7't1;IL'l.VCS L'�� neeL' Llils section Of L'ite Code: r.ezoning �
a poLtion of L'i�e subcli.visi.on Lo Pt•ili, paymenL' of L-he proceeds of tlie
sa].c ot one l.ot- tuwar.d the purchase of County supp.lied cmplayee housing
in thc Ae:pen vlri.nity, or. di.:sconLi.nuinF the use oE Lhe e�:isL-ing employec
uni.ts and suUsti.Luling P'c7H lots. 7'he P].anning Oftice recommends the
foll.cr.�i.n�; condiCi.ons be imposed upon the suhliv:i.sinn: prohibition of
domesl:ic do�s, preser.vaCiun uf i.rrigaY.ion and utility easements in the
name of the c�auer, prot�i.bi,ti.on �f: the di-scliarge of f.irearms, dedicatioiis�
L-o 5chool llistrict and rire llistr.ict as rc�quesCed, Tire'I)istrict r�sponse
that L-he araa can be adc.qua.f:ely ,erviced, test- borin{;s and percolation
tests of appro�.ed sites, si.te dra:ina�e plans, se�aage dispo,al to Pitkin '
Co}�nty Standard::, wal'er avail�biliL-V aiid distribution system L'o state
standards, r.oad network improvemenl' p].an Co countp ;:L'andarJs, con-
sl'rucr.i.on on 301 slcpes Ue t�rohiUi.l-ed, cleed resCrirtion a�ai.nst future
devr_].opment on Che balance of the rancl7, and construction along Yhe
upper ed&es of L-he r]aLeau f-aces L-o be l.i�ni.t�d ta one level aL• grade.
Tlie applicanC has also suggc:sted the tollowin�; conditions: creation
oi a liomeowner's associati��n, Tceepinfl of: horses and caL•tl.e in specified
areas, accommodaL-ion of fazming o��erati_ons, and fencinS to accommodate
tliesc �oals. �.e11s nc�l-ed that unfavorat]e comcnent has been recei�ed
frc�m L'he Snowmass Caucus I-or L-hc proposal.
Dcai�l�t Shellman, represenCin�; the app].icanL-, said Lhe. bi_Egesl- issue
involved is wheC2�er to a�tempt to dieburse the uniCs 1.nto the acLive
� portion of. the Rancl�. l�e noted thaL Larry Dunn, l3r.tension Agent, agrees
cvith the proposc:d siting for the suUdivisi.on. They considered clustering
uniL-s Uut the Planning Uffice feJ.0 L'hat woul.d be an ur.ban land pal'tern in
a rur:tl area.
Levinson was �ppused to development on Che norChwesL• side of Che Ranch,
and felt it wou3.d Ue more appropriate to lceep Uui).di.ng sites near Little
�llc Creek, noL-ing L'hnt L-his caould help maintain ranching operations.
lie added that Uy allowing d<�vc.lopment on Che norL'hwesk side, L-he adjacenl-
l.ancloFnier could "Uack up" his development to the Abacus Ranch. Levi.nson
was also opposed to lot 24 in the soutlieast cor.ner. lie fe1C Che present
sil-c planniug is ver.y visually vulner�ble. I•:offatt said L•hey planned lot
24 hecause il- is not used Lor agri_cultur.e, and i.s noC visibl.e. Shellman
said thhy plamted Loz developmenC in Che norL'hw�sC corner because that
is not• used Cor ranchinf;. 1'ox and L'rickltam agr.eed Lhat development would
be mo1'e 1ppr�priaLC on tlie eastern s:i.d� oC l'lie R�»dt. 'Turnbull. poinced
oi.il• that deve7upmr.nL- on chr easter.n ed,^.,e r.�oulct be vi^ible ber.luse it is
on a ri.dFe. Levinson sai.d i L- would Uc Uctl:er to conti.nuc Lhe visibi.'lit:y
oE I.iL•tle ]'slk Cr�ek Lhan to sCarC it in a new area.
RECUt'D OF PROCE�DIPlGS 100 Lcaves
---- 1'l.:inni.n�, �nd 'l.ani-nr, Commi.ssi.nn ----.------ -- - . ----��_.__..
llecia;iF,cr. 21, 1977
P�jr,c Threr
1'urnLull said L-hey n�ed L•cr esL•ablish a f,.iir densi.ty L-or the ranch;
Ile wus o4�posed Co any employe+'� housing in L'l�e arca bcecause i.t would
increanc ttie road con�;esl-i.on on I{ighway 62. SI�e1LnTn asked I:he Cnminissi�n
to make a rcr_onmiendation on t:he employee Luusing qucstiun, noL.i.nF LhaL
L-f�crc� i_s some flexi.bili.�.y in the regulati.ans. lle added th�t they don'C
considc:r Che zccessory housing for peopl.e vho iaori: on Cl�e site to Ue
add'itional. units. ❑� :;aict if L'he�� musC be counCed againsl- Lhe densi.ty
they will 6e elimi.n<tc'ed so tt�e oi:{�er parcr_ls can be subdivided. Mary
7?ranl: i.s very opposc�d t:o riny inits in Chc paddocic or escreise �u-ea.s �
Uecause sl�r nc:eds Chis 1.md for the. rancliin�; o�erati.ons. Wcl.l.s a�.reed
L-haL- t:his i.s not tiu a��pcoprial'e aLe1 for einplvycc housing, however he
cannot suppnrt not counL'in[; Che exi-stinr, mtiL's �g<�insC Lhe denSiLy
a]lacaance. llc al�:o d�dtt'L• 7.5_ke the idea of eli.mi.naCtitg tlte e,;isting
uni.�s that are bc.i_nF uscd for llic r.anclii.ng operati.ons so they cait get
more developab7.e prn-cel�. Tur.nbul.l f'elt L'I�c e.::istinF; uniL-s sho�ildn'L'
bc countcd 5.n Clie d�nsit:y. Levi.nson said tlie mm�ber of ;�llowable units
shou.id be consa.dered 12sC; firsC they shoul.d esCal�].ish the area for
develuPment. lie s:iid he would be fle�iblc ab�ut Che boundaries Ler L•he
160 acris of open :.pace. Gu�� surgested that- the ori�;inal subdivi::ion
could Ue amended Lo obtain more flexi.biliCy for fil.in� two, since Che
units in filiiig one kiaven't bacn sold yet. Shellman su�;p,ested tl�at Che
.160 acr.e boundary could Ue amcnded Lo allo:u more unil-s un L•he easCern
side of: clie Fanch. idells said l�e taoulJ have no pr.ohlems wiCh this
�evelo��ment it t:Le Bo�r.d would approve the c].usCer concept.
Guy had a problem wi.th justiCying this subdivision with sespecC ta the.
numbers in Che Gr.owCh Ftanagemenl P].an. He sn�gesl'ed Shellman return wiL-h
a Jiffer.ent layove. Shellm:,n objected to addressiny, ehe le�al regu]aLlons
in L'he Plan because iC is an amorphous thing; be agreed to return with a
revised pla�i and adciress the Gra�Ch Managemen� P].an question aL- that timc.
Turnbull fe7,t the rozd access yuesCion shou].d Ue resolved. tle di.sagreed
with the llivision of [Jildl.ife concern in thi.s case heca��se ef tl�e L-utuze
of tl�e areu. He `el� East Sopr.is Road shoul.d be dead-ended in Clie winter,
so the e.lk could keep tlieir mirratory rout�:. TurnUull said the road in-
tersection on �ast Sopris wil.l Ue surrounded with homes within five years in
any casc, so accc;ss from Ea3e Sopris woul�i be prefer.able to using County
road 9.1. Guy felt two access roads wou].d Ue needed for a developmenL- of
this �ize. Jeff Davis, County �ngineer, said �ast So��ris Road can't be
closed in the winl-er because in ordet to derive liighway User's 'Pa:s they
must keep it ploweci.
Gassman agreed thaL- the Crowlh I9an:i�emeut Plan is amnrpltous, but it is
getting clearer as L-hey conL•i.nue to work on it. He reminded the Commission
Chat' the Lone Pine DevelopmenC was tur.ned down because of L'he PJ.an, and said
it wou].ct be difficult to consider another development with no couipe:lling
public Uc�nefit by sayi.ng che Plan doesn't apply. He felt they need L-o
develop consisCeucy in 3.00king at development appl.ications under the Plan.
TurnUull. disagreed and sai.d the Growl'h hi�nagemenL Yl.an is Aspen�s probl.em
and doe,n'L- app7.y dc�wnvalley. Levinson af;r.eecl LLat L-lie Plan 1s noL appro-
priate in L-ttis area.
Shel.lman said hc would like l-o a1Ler. L'he suhmi-ssion, nnd havc a re�o].uCi.on
draf'L-ed sLaCinf; lhc mncer.n:, ot the- Y 6 %. I,evinson moved Co tahle the
S�)�111C:IL'1011 until. che January 4th waeLing,. Turnbul.l seconded and Che moCion
passed Eoi:r Lo one.
_ �...,......� . _ _.
,_._ -
f�cco�;t� aF �r�ocr_EQ�n�cs t00 Leaves
..,, �
7?lanni.n{� and 'l,oni.nl; Commissi.on - _�__. __
neccn:Uc�r 2.1„ 1J77
1'aPc Tuur.
T.and U�`e Code Ame�,clment - hon_conf.nrmi���_l;srs
I�1Cffl Snit:h prer.enLed a i,and Usc CoJe amendm!mC for non-cotiformi�7g
usc.. 7'hi.s is bein;; Ur.ou�hL bacl: fr.om a previous proposnZ at Che
requesl: of the P.oarci of. Com,mi_:;s.ioners. Tlie new amendmc�nt conC::i.ns
p�-ovisi.on, for. extr_nding Che time Lor alTal'ement, or exempring a
non-coitif<�rnrin,r, usc cnYircl} frnm thi abatement requiremenc. Thc P & 2
�.�i].l. r.evi.etio �I�e u:�s aLl•er thcy I-�avc becn nuti.C3ed and reviewed bi�
l-he %uning Fai[orcenenL Oificer. Gass�nan moved L-o approve L-he Code
auie�idment concenlin;; secti.ou 7.12. Fo�: seconded L-he motion and iC
p�s�ecl four. �� one.
Land Use Cnde /�mendrie.nt -- Yc,�rJ.'i Suhdt�ision kevie�a
SmJ.CL Pre::ented a Code amc:ndment which wuul.d provicie toz consider.ing
new si:hdivicion applications on3.y once a ,year, a:a is presently being
donc with rezvnirig appl.icaLic>n.,. Smich fel.t L-hi.s wou.l.d allow the
13uar.d L-o treaL- Peopl.e fairl.y i�nder the Crowch 2•faiia�emenL Pl�in, a�id
to use [lie Plan ae, on� o°. taany conaidcrat:�tons for .i new suUclivi.sion.
The Planning ULfice pzescmt].Y ret:s f.reyuenL applications for n�w suU-
divis�i.ouc and it is hard tn rel:ite Lhese to Che numUers in the Plan.
SmiCh said the fuCUre poCenlizl for new aPpl'.cacior.s needs L'u he
orgmii.red so they can Lc con:;idered in an orderl.y manner. If applica-
l-i.uns are accepted oi�ly once a pear, they cau all Ue reviewed under
l-he s�me cri.CCri�, and the P 6 'L caci cumpare the proposecl arnounC of
deve].opmenL iai.ct� Che Plan Uui.ld-out in l-hat area for thae year. It
is hard Co �ive an app]icanL- ciny i.dea of the lil:eJ.ihood of �p>>r.oval
wheri che applica�ions are scaCter.ed tlirough Che year. Stuller cai.d it
maY.es sense to revica� app7.i.caL-.ions once a year, buC she is not sur.e
th�t the County has decided to use Ch�t mel'hod Lor impl.emenl'ation of.
the Cr.etrCh N.anaf;emcnt Plan. She aidded L-haL' the number of huildiiig
permiCS issued in a year can'c directly appl.y to subdi.vision applica-
tions since the suUdivision craul.dn'C Uc cunstructed until the ner.t year.
Tw-nbul.l asked Low it would be possiUle to consider. subdivisions only
once a ye.u: since the CounLy r.er_eives sn many applica�ions. 5mith felt
it is necessary tn looi: at the net eff:ect of subd:ivisions witli respect
to �1�e Plan; oCherwise, approval i.s firsL- come, fi.rsL• ser.ved, so the
besl' appli.cant m�y nol• recei�•e approva].. Turnbull. suggested revi.ewing ,
sul�divisions l-hroughou� tlie year and taUling them, so a decision can
Ue made on all of L-hem at one L-imc. SL-uller aslced t-hc group if they
want Co handle thc 1'lan allotment on:�y Lhrough ne.ca �uUdivision review.
Gassm�n said yes. Levin�an said if al]. applicaCi.ons caere considered 'in
OcL'ober the P & 'L couldn't do si.le inspecti.ons. SmitL suggcsted con-
sider.ing L-hem i.n t_h� spring, hcwever L•hi.s may present a proUlem si.nce
rezoni.iig appl.icaeiens are cansi.clared 'S.n AuFusl-. Gas>nan felt Chcy should
consider. rezoni.n�; and subdivision appl.icati.ons at Lhe.same L-ime.
Ga:;Smar moved L'o amend tlie Land Use Cc�de as autJ.i.ned i.n Che T'lanniuF
Office iaeino wiL-h the deleclon of. the secl-J.on concerninf; publiclCi.on o£
nomr.icceptanre of appli.cations and to chaiige Che daL-r_ for aceeplance of
suUdiv:i.si.oa or rezuning epl,].icaL-:i.nns to h1.iy lst-, or some oCh�r d�l-e that
may be mure accept:�ble Lo the 1']:.�nnin}; Offir_e. Po:; asked if thcy wanL•
to con::i.der exc:mpt'inF lot sp7.its Por esLatc= purposes from Lhi.s regulaL-ion.
RGCORF� OF PROCL-EQI�!GS 100 Lalves
<, • .
Planning and 7.oning Commissi.un------------ -----_'------ __ �
Aci�embcr 'I_]., l_977 •
PaF;e T�ive
5Cu17er s.iid an estcite settlement could fet a courC or.der f:or the
partit'ic+n of land.
Stul].er asl:ed ho�.� l•lie P 5 7 is f;oing to con�ider 16 app].ications for
subdivi.sion i.f only four uniL-5 ar.c availabla. She rointcd out that they
st-ill nc:ed to ;iddress Che questiun of im.plcmenl:ing the Plan and what
cr:i.l'eria tai.l.l be used in dc�ter.n:iui.ng approval. 131a1:e a�reed thaC L'his
yuesLion necds Co Ui: resolved once aud for all because L-l�e P S '1, i.s
l.eepin�; t��any app.licants lia.nding and L'al;in}; lhe easy way out. T.evinson
seconded Gassnan's r,iul'i.on. (.uy agrecd L-i�at i_L taill be a horrendous
Cas}: eo r.on,idr_c al] subdi.vi.sion ard rezoni.n� applicaLlons aL• one time,
anJ he c::,pressed conccrn o��er Llie difterenL crays L•o implement the Plan.
He fcl[ L'i�ey should noC consi.de.r uny applicatluns until tltey h�vr_
an,wer.ed Chc ques�icn of. wiiaC criteri.a w:ill be uscd to deLerminc the
Uest suUdivisi.on. l.evinson feJC Chey sti].1 necd to e�tablish this
chronc�7.ogiea.l order. Smith SH7.CI Lhe P 6 7. could consi.der subdi��is�.on
applic�Lzvns on an informal basis thruughoul' L-he year, it- Lhe applicant
neecls fe�dbac;:. ]'o�; felt the criteria for subdivision appr.oval should be
determined at Cl�e tiiae Cl�e appli.canC appears before ��he P 6 "L. Gasstnan's
motion passcd Cliree Lo Lwo.
Owl Creci; Pre,enl:atinn
Joe Porter. and Georce rliEchell, of 24iL•chell Deve].opmenC Company, were
present Co djSCLIS:; chc: gene.ral submission aPpllcaL'iotl for Owl Creek.
T,'ells noted L'i�at t}ie Pl�iming OYfice will no� presenC L-heir commenCS on
the app].:ication until the January lf3tlt meeL'ing.
PorL•er esplained tliat they ha�•e been c.•orking on L'he Oc�l Creel: �.dr.-a for
Chree ye�rs. It is a conlr.over.sial proposal, however the County neecls to
resolve thce conflir_t that er.ists between upen si�ace and touri.sm. In 1967
tii.L-chell purci�ascd 165Q acres o[ land on Uc�l Creek. Pre).iminary feasil�ility
sL•udies wc.r.e done in 1973, at whi.ch time Chey began lovking at c��iteria for
Gevelr,p�rtcnt. In 1974 they began Lhe Diastc-r Plan study, and consulL-ants
were hired Lo help uiL-h c.al-er and air qual.i.ty, soil.s, g�ology, etc. ?fitchel.l
decided not tn present the appli.cation to the County al' the time the studies
�aere crnnp].eted because the light rail issi�e was so controversial. Porter
noL-ed that 1•fitchell Lully supported L-he County's trinsportation efforL• and
oifered l.1nd and finanr_ial help for the sysL-em. 411ien Y.he Sno:��aass approval
was gr�nL-ed and the GrowCh Managcan�nt Y].an caas ena_eted, i•fitchell decided to
pursue thcir r�pplic�Cion. '1'hey feel the t:ime is right for L-he communiL-y to
address Lli�. issue oi wiiat's going to happen at ON1 Creek. Porter showed
the Cu�mnission maps and dr.awing. outl.inin�, tlieir propo^al. The concentraL'ed
devel.opment area i.ncludes a ycar-round conf.erence faci].ity, 200 room�, golf
and tennis fac-i.lilies. The remainder of t:l�eir. land will be useci for 1500
tourist eonduminiums, empl�pee housing and >�ciing facilities from I3urnl-
1•founCain. 9'he firsL' phase of theis deve.lopment: is �:n applicati.ur. to suUdivlde
300 acr�.s ialo a 30 i�niC subdivisi.on. Sevicen yr.ars later L-hey F71).]. COOSL'1'LLCL
L'lie conference faci.li.Cies and ].00 condomini.ums, z�nd Cen years later they
wi]] complel'e L-he deve].n.pment. IL the County decides af;alnst L'his option
14itchell �:�i.11 pr.esenL an alCernat-ive to suUdivide the land under L-he presenl-
zoning.
-I� _ �...r,_..-=--,.............._..,......._.»..»...__.,
r�zco�r� oF r�r;ac�r-_�«�s �oo ���►ves
,�.... ��.�.,.,,,..�.,,.�, .
Planni.ug and %ottiny; Gunmi.ssion '
• Dr.cemUcr. :?], ].J77
1'�Fe S:i.r.
I
� Geor�,e ]di.;:nc�ll noled that he has Uecn invoJ.ved in develorment i.n Che
Aspen a�c:� Eor. LwenC�� ycars. lle Peel.s Lhei.r prese�it pl:uis make sense
f:or L'he C�iunty. If. Phey are torred to dividc :1�c9.r i.and intn Len
acr.e parce].5 for da�vel.npment imder Lhe pr.e:;ent zoning, thaL would pre—
cl.ude the oppnrtunil'y L'o connecL- Snot�.�ma:;s 1'0 ]iuttrrm9.lk. T•fit-clie7l said
Chcy have a].rcady i.nvested $5 mi].l.ion in Chc: proji�r.l'. Siirnom�ss taas
. . approved for '1�i00 uni.Cs, �uci they are now sel.l.inti it Lor $7 milliou,
so 1di.Cclicll feels iY. wr,uid be unf�iir to deny them any ui�its s9.nce thcy
havc such a suUscantial. invesL-meut. t)c ztddcd L'1�z�C recr.eaCiun ar�as
wiL-l� only a four. month bu,y sea,ou are in �rouble; t-he L•ourisr seasuu '
fox Aspen needs L'o be l�alanced. Fie concl.uded Uy stating thaL- a3.1
Tfitr.hel.l. DevelopmenC is asid.ng Lor i, EaJ.rness.
Levinson asked a�hy ;di_tchell didi�'L buy ino::m�ass. Ifit:cLel.l repl.i.ed L'hey
tnade a bid bul i.0 was noL accepted. Lad.t Vr.aney menlioned L-he proUlem
L-l�at exists in L'be O:al Creek arca �aith watcr, seker and transportal'i-on
concerns. lle added Lhal' Che amo�ml' of water i.s decrea.:in� eacl� year,
�nd Chere wil.l not bc c;nough to supporL- a JevelopmenC of thi.s size.
Porter agreed that Lhal is someL•L:in� Y.o be consider.�d, and said tlzey
�aill addr.ess the water. prohle.m i.0 detail in tlieir applicata.on. G1»
said thc Y S `/, would like to get the Plannin;; Office's ri:sponse to L-his
dPYlicati.on on .Jamiziy ].8th �ind Chen discuss arhat L'he Uasi.c issue iii '
reviecring Okl Creek sheuld be. M:iLchell said L-he County needs to pro—
cee� wi_Lh as much diligence as possi_ble to reso).ve thi.s quesL'ion. Guy
said they t,�zll L•r.y to accommodate t:haL- r.equest.
There Ueing na further business, Che meeting was adj�urned.
• Rcspectfully submitted,
I
; ,�z �t���.�'
Liz Stewart, Deputy County Clerk
I
I
1
r
1
,
i
I
_ _ �_.�....�., � --- � �
. EXHIBIT
_ � � � y
-/d-
�ECORD OF I'ROC�F_f�iRGS • .100 Leaves
l'I'1'K7:N COUN7'Y
' P1,A11WIi�'G ANU %O;d'I.@G COMi•f]:55ION
Jantiary 4, ].973
P.egular i•teel-ing
PI2TiS�td7': Cha:i�'rian Petcr Guy BOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S
Tlichael Gas:;inan PITKIN C0.
. . lloCCi.e Fox Publie Hearing Eahibits
llrm T.cvinson . Dato �'/Q '��
riu�,-�y Pope (vol'i.nY :�iltern.tCe)
J.R. 1•IcClrt:hq (:ilY.erncite) Sub�eet : .�.�;rt,...1jG�i,+")C�
7'am 'CurnbulJ. (urri.ved late) E�-11. No.:
MinuCes
Fox moved and Yope sc-cornl�d to approve L-he mi.nuLcs nt DeccmUer 2], 1977. The
mot:ion passed unanimously.
L�nd Use Codc Aciendmc:nl-�Annual Suhdivision P.evicw
Y.aren SmiCh present•ed a resc�].uL'i.on reconunenJinp, ariendment of the Land iJse
Cnde l'o provi.de f.or revi.c:ca nf. suUdi.��i.si.on appli.caCi.uns oilc� a year. The
� Planning Of:L-i.ce f.].t thaL- a June f.itsL- deadline f.or. suUmissi.on of applica-
Cions caou.ld bc_ preteraUle to 11ay Lirst, and thc resolution was changed according-
).p• 'Phe n�roup discussed apPendix B, tialiicl� cuncerns e:cemption of loL' splits,
i..e. two-loL- suhdivisC�ns, ir.om Che yearl.y appLication pr.ocedure. They felt
� Che real issuu i_nvolved �,�illi thi.s resolution i.s implementaCi_on of the Growth
Tfan�gement' P7.an, and 7.oL spl.i.ts �:�ou1.d have ver.y l.itile eff:ect an the Plan
so L'hey shou]d be e;:einpted. Guy signed the resolution.
AUacus Ranch
� --
�
I llezn Tlolfatt showed the Commi.ssion a modi.E9.ed p].an for the Abacus Ranch
sitbdivision �•7i.th reconflvurati.on of Clie lot lines. On the loaer porCi.on ot
the land ar.e loCs 1 - 10 (3'4 acres each),11. - 13 (3 acres each), 14 - ]J
(4!z to G'� acr.es each) and lot 18 (se.paraCed from the others and 23 acr.es in
size). On Che upper bench are lots 19 - ?.4. The siting and road access have
bec:n changed. Steve CLild, represccnCi.ng the Snv:aniass-Capil-ol Cr.eek Caucus,
said t]ieir major objecL-3.on� taould Ue eli.minaLed by these changes. The �Ji].d-
� lif-e Off:3cer aJ.so preferr.ed the amended desi�n. Joe tlells noCed that tl�e
� moneCary loss to the County for closinF; a ro�d, due to dec�rease in lligliway
I Users tax, Hould Ue $1200/mile, noL' $17.,000/mile as was menL-ioned at the last
; meetin�. Turnbull asl:ed :if: this �aould apply if. Llie rond �aere closed only
temporar.ily.
i
I
� Ihaight Shel.lman, repr.esenti.ng the app7.i.c�nt, nol'ed that the poinL's st'ill to
be addressed are: cahich oY the co�o cvnfigurati.ons of lor.s Clie Cominissinn
prefer:�, �ahc:l-her the existing houuinr on Lhe ranch is accessor}� housing,
� adjustmenC of the non-devel.opmenc easement, and solution ut the access problem.
ILevi.nson'asked why lot 78 was creaCc-.d, and �:�liy iC conCains so many acr.es.
� Mot•faCL- r.eplie�l Lha� iC i.s visual.lY cut off from Lhe resL• ot Chc subdivision.
PicCarCBy :,slced why Chi:; application i.s Ueing consl.dered i.0 tl�ere �re 11].
� e:;ist-ing uni Cs in L'he Sno�•m�ass irea and 126 undevclopetl p�'eviously-<ipprnved
l.ol•s. lir_ questioned ti�heclier L-his subdivi.sicm helps mainCain agricull-ural
l.ntexests, or i.f iC mnsL- t>e allowed because of Lhe: zoning 1n Chc arca and
i
i
� .
RL`COPD OF PRUCEEDIf�GS 100 Leaves
P.lanni.ng nnd %orii.n�; L'nmmi.ssi.on � .
J.�nucir.y 4, 1978
P�j{C 7�T0
' Chc lacl.: of an imp7.emenlaL'ion plc�n for Che Growt'h i•Janage�nenL 1'1an. Sandy
Slull.cr rrPlicd L-hat Lhi� �ppli.caliou could be denied bec��tise of. the Laiid
Use Cude 7711CttcI111Q11L which ca:l].:; for consider.aCion of subdivision app].ic.ations
once: a pear.
I 7'ttie f;ro�ip tlien discussed thc numUex of units be be al.tncaed if the suUcii.vision
is J])j�YOVL'(I. TIIC'. Plan�iing Of.f:i.ce reco:nmends 16 units, �aiL-li Lhe exclus.i��n
i of the P.S-]60 subdivision (two loL's) :ipproved earl.i.er and Che six unit-s
already exis�i_ng as part oL- L-he ranr.hing operatinn. Atoffatt and She].J.man
sugf;esCed 24 units. Shel:l.mati noted that iE Che six e::isL-ing unil'O. HCC
counLecl as parC of Che subdivision eliey could tlien be put on Che open markeC
for salc.
On a su�;gesL•ion from Turnbu7.7., Gassrie�n move.d and Lr_vinson seconded to
allow 22 units, i_f. Che, suUdivision i_s a���roved, asid to include Che si-x exist-
iug uuits in that' figure. The uiot.ion passed unanimous.ly.
SLel.l.man asl:ed if the P 6 'l. �aould desigiiate five more lots, besi.des the 16
new loLS, which could be but].L- upon �i_E any or all af tlie five accessory units
Co Lhe r.anchinp, operaCion were remo��ed at a latcr date. St:uller felt t•his
could be done al,though il• 4iould create an enf:orc:ement problem.
7.'urnb�el.l recommended individual acce., to the new lots f.roni the County road,
thaC the adjacen� prope�:Ly own�rs (tfaurin, ltay 5noca and the t•lonast'ery) Ue
consu.lted, and that water ri.ghCS Lrom the ditcl� fvr all lots be assured.
]loU Ne7.soi1, L-he CounCy San9.l-arian, noCe.d that � hi�li c•�ater L-able esisCS here
which mzy creatc a set•rage disposal problem. He asked for engineering
j specifical-i.ons aL' the Cine of: detai].cd submission. �fcCar.thy as);ed whe�t
! road, school and fire faciliti.es would be discussed.
I
I
iPos moved and Pope seconded to table thc� disucssion uatil the January 18,
� 1978, meeting. The motion passed four. L-o one.
i
� Snowmass Sani.tation Solld Slud�r,e Disposal Site - Special Review
I _ ._� ----- -
Karen Smitli presenL-ed a special. rev9.ew applicaL•i.on f.or the Snoc.mass Sani-
tation Ai.strict Solid Sludge llisposal Site on 22 acres of land between
Clie t�foore and t1/J properti.e� in Floody Creek. A subdivision exeinption will
Ue neceesary to permit Snnwmass [Jater nnd San Co purcl�ase the land from
JaL•fee; tl�e P,nard of Commi.ssion�rs cai.11 rule on L-his matter. T.he Planning
Office r.ecommends that an�� special revi.ew approval include Che s�me condi-
L-ions that were in�posed on tl-�e Aspen :4etro S1ni�ati.on speciaJ. review in
1)74. These condiL•ions concer.n dr.ainagc, noise and hours of operaL-ion,
odor conCrol, well contami.nlCion, etc.
i
{ Bob l�elson, Cpunty SaniCarian, commenL'.ed Cl�at sludge is a resource Chat is
� o�it of place, and should Le used for. agricultural benef.it. There i.s a soils
� proUJ.em at the TJ/.T locnL-ion, huwever iio cnntamiu�Lion has becn oUsezved so
' far, altl�ounh it :is noL- II �l1'O(�qCL'1VC'. siL•e yet. Tize fac3.liCy aL Woody Cr.eek
I
I cuu.ld bccome a possible ne:�� source for top soil. to be used i.ii reseeding raad
� cuCe, etc. He reco�mnrnded L•hat exacLJ.y Che same conditions L•hat were im-
't posed on Aspen t•Setxo Sanitation apply Lo Lhis �pplical•ic�n. He added thaC
Snuti•�m�ss I,�aLer aud San3taCion sl�ould designate :i speci.fic siee on thei.r 22
' acrc parcel fnr L'he disposa.l faeili.l-y. The sludf;c t✓ill. Uc scored �L' Snormiass
i
i Vi].lay;e and Criicked Co the S•;/J sitc� i.n L-hc spring; one lorict a day would
be po�sible in tl�r pc:ak scason. 1'Iie ;;ludUe is st:ored i.n Lr.enches whcre lhe
� ' • .
iI
I
1
. RECORD OF F[iOCECDIIVGS 100 l.caves
...,.. �.«,,,-K,�,.�, � ,,. '
1']aimi.n�, anc{ '/.i��tinl: Comm.isslon '
J:inuary �i, ].978 �
Paye Thrce
�
i '
� waCer percolaLes it• away; an escavator �-ou�;hs it up and it is [hinly
� sprcad on r.he ::i_te i.n che simmier. 7'he spring runoff is diverL•ed Irom Che
i
si.Ce. 1`elson nnted the two eaa��s i.n �ahich L'his app].i.calion diffcrs from
iAspzn ,lc+t'r.a Sani.l'ation�s. i:�w stal'e hea.11'I� p,uideli.nes, c.�il'h which all
i d'ist'ricLS ,nist �.omply, ���i7.1. be more str.ingei�t than the present onr_s; Lhe
Froup :�sked \elson to brin,^, Lhcse in c,hen Che,y are in eL•fect rnl.l�er. Chan
I add L-l�em to Llic: appl.icaCiori nc��a. Also, ve�et_aLion to screcn the active
sludF;c sil•e j.s i;nl- necessarv. .�'el.son pr.edi.cl'ed thae this sil'e could be
� used alriose indr.(ini.Cely; i.t: i.s possi.l�le that � maintenance and st-orage
L-uildin�; wil.1 bc: con,L-ructecl by Snrnarua_ts 1\T1L'l.l and SanitaLion in coi�-
junr_Lion �uich l.lie �ispen :•ictro San3taCiun. \o powcr c•�ill be needed at Che
f�ci:lity. Thi.s bui.l.ding is nc�t included in L-he speci.al. reviet.+ appl.ication
Uein„ consi.dered, so it �oould havc to Ue approvecl as a change of: use at
a l;iter ciate.
Levi.nson movc.d and Gassman seconded xo anprove the speca.al review applica-
L'ion for the sludFc� disposal site, cvi.th L'he setback to Ue deL-er.miued by
Bob \elson, and caith al.l condiCions Lhat taere imposcd on Aspen rietro
S:mitation [or eheir. ar,plicaLi.on with the e:xeption of the vegelation
requircment. 'fhe moL•ion pass�d unanimously.
Len:ado Ski 1'ourin�`
Gass�an moved and Po•r. sec�nded t•o tabie action on th� Lenado Ski Touring
application until a USTS reterral is received. The mo�ion passed unani-
mously.
Sae.•mi17. Pr.opert�� Subdi.vi.si.on - Conc�tua] Revie�a
, Smitli rresented tlie Sa�:�rnil.l Property suUdivision fur concertual revieu�.
i The appl.icant i.s requesting f:eedback on the cancept of zer.o lot lines which
iaould allow for cheaper buildin�; throu;h the use of common walls. The
� area consists of f�ur acres in the R-15 zone, r7itli two flat acres wh3.ch
{ �•�oul.d l:e sui.taUle for bui.ldin�. They ar.e proposing si� units, Lhree of
I �rhich c�ould Ue employee hoizsi.ng. The Afidland ri.rht-of-r�ay �ahich crosses
1 L-he pr.oper.ty is a problem thaL- has noL- yet Ueen resolved. SL-uller comment-
� ed on Lhe zero lot line concept, nol-ing that the PUD does nol- allosa a use
ea:cluded irom L-he zoni.ng regt�l.ations; the common wall concepC constitutes
a dupl.er, and is not allow�d in Lhe R-15 zone.
There being no furLher Uusiness, the meet'ing c�as adjourned.
Respecl'ful.ly suUmitted,
-�`�-�.� ��/J��'�-----•---,�
Ju7.i •Itai� County Clerk
f/
I , ,
i
I •
' EXHIBIT .
� � 3�Y
RECORD OF PROCEEDl�1GS 100 Lclvr,s
rilxzr� couta'rr
rr,nra��.�c i: zowT.NC cu;•�:tiss.r.ov
l:egular rleeti.ng
Jaiwary 13, 1978
PI:Ii5L•'idT: Chairm�n Pe:-cr Guy
' ' llotL-ic Pux
7'om 7'urnbull ' SOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S
Dan Levl.�ison PITHIN C0.
Tlicliael c;nssman Public Hearing Exhibits
1•fur�-ay Yopc: (alternaCe) N • !O'-��
E11i.e Ericl:Larn (aJ.terna�te) Date .
J.R. 1�icCarti�,y (aLternaL'e) Sub3ect : 13b�-r.e��nGfh
Tom ];lal;�> (alternaCe)
i
;
; Lone Pi.ne Cener.�l SuUmi.ssi.on
]3i11 Kane, of C'lic PlanninF OFficr_•, plesented the r�.zoning and gr_ncral
subml.sSl�]Il applicaCions for L'he Lonc Pinc development on L-he ,T.B.
I Wil.liams properey. The proposal :invoJ.ves a rezoning from R-15 to PPffl
f:or ].8 f:reemarl:eL aud 27 PI•�I1 units. Kane mentioned thaL- sel'tlement
,i for a la:asuit im�olv:ing Che Cnunty is incJ.uded in Lhe proposal, however
Cha[ has no eff.ecL on pl.anni.ng concerns. Uf L-he 27 Pt•lll uniCS, there
� wil.l be 7.1 one-hedroom unil's c•�iCh a monl'hly psymen.t r.ate of $25]_.00,
� 1]. two-bedroom imits with a mont'i�ly paymenl' raCe of $344.00, and Live
� l-hree-bcdr.00m units wi_th a monl'hl.y paymenL rate of $437.00. Kane noted
� thac Cutmty Piana�er Ceorge Uchs felt L-hese figures v:er.e unrealisti.cally
� low. Of L'he L'en�issucs identi.fied by thc Plam�ing Office, P F '!. has
onl.y consi.dered the first, urhi.ch is consisl'ency with Che Gro�ath 1•fanage-
i ment Plan. They recommended denial of t}ic project on thaL- basis, how-
� ever tlic_ Board of: Commissioners felt- Lonc-. 1'i.na shoul.d be fu].ly eonsider-
ed imder all tl�c criteria, and did not w:tnL' L'o deny the application on
� Lhe �roi.incis of incompatibility wi.th Lhe 1'lan. They favor exempCin� PPiH
� uni.ts fr.om Lhc: Pl�n �•�ith no separaL-e yearly 1'rtll quota to Ue estaUlished.
j Any freemarl:et units exetnpted for. a rrn� project would Ue counted against Che
i next ye�r's Grocath Afanagement Pl.an a1loCment. Rick Perr.ell commenCed that
; L'he Commissl.oners have always supported L'he concepl' of Lone Pine, and
L-hey arr_ now coitsider.ing tl�e physical., ral'her [hnn phi.7.osophical, 2spects
of the p].an. The L'oar.d of. Commissi.oners cotltinued their January 3rd public
l�ear.ing to rehruary 13th to give the P & 7. an opportunity to con.ment on the
ot:her mateer.s in Che proposa.l. Pox fel.c the trnff-ic circulation problem
on Ptill Str.eet- i: 1 Uig probl.em, and �.�as gl.ossed over in the P.lanning ;
Of.fice's memo. Pupe ay;reed CLat it is an important item. Ferre7.1 noted
that tj.me is an issu� in the �pp].icai'iou; he holds an opt:ion on l'lie pro-
per.ty thaL' has cr.pi.reil once, ancl he i5 presently L'r.yiiig to ha�re it extended.
If apprnval is gra!1Led lie woi4.d like to consLr.uct the project t.his summer.
Gassm:in f.elt- that sinre the growlh quceei.on has been decided by t-he IIoard
of Commissi.onexs l'Lal issue i. wool-, and tLe ]' & Z shou].d nuc.� cunsider L'he
siL-e planning dclails. Levinson ..iid iC is di.L•L':icult L'o comment o*.t some-
Ching Vou don�l, wanL-. lIc fult' thal' sincc P fi 7, has al.r.cady deci.ded on the
Lonc: Pine appl.:ic:itinn Lhe growLFi issue cannol he i.f;nored. *IcCart-hy fe1C
L-he deL•�:il.s chould be r.evier.�ed rltl�er tlian ignored. Gi.iy suFgesl•ed lc.tl:in�,
a voL•c on whether L'o ignore L-he yuestion oF the P7.:�n and procrced wi.th the
I
i
i
I
I;EC�J�E7 OF PI�C3CEEDIPlGS . 100 Leaves
Pl.�nn'in;; and 7,nni.ny; Caimni.,:;iun
.L•muarp 7.8, J.978
P'i::e T�ao
�Chei :L:sues in Llie pl:in, or. nol' L'o comment' on Ll�e app.l9_caLion at- all.
Gaseman felt Ll�et:e woul.d be nothi-ng l'o Fain by not <_onsideri.nF Lhe
malter. Ltrlckham nfrr�yed. 99ic group decidrd Co procced, i.gnoring Lhe
gror!I'h i.sue L'haC h�.s bc�r_n 'dec.i.ded up��n b}' L-he Board of Cc�mm'issianers.
Pcr.rc7.l iden�ified seven premises used in p]ann:inf l.onc: Pine. These
�rc thni ear_h uni.t' would have au unol?scured, pr.imary view sou�h Co
Aspen t•?o�mtain, Ch:iC all �uil.dina;s would have a solar energ)• orienta-
L•ion, thaL• eacl� unit would hnvu iL-s oc��n outside s�>rice on the soutl�ern
expusnre, that no un.i.t' wou7.c1 havc a pri.mary view !'��ward pa:-king
facl.].i.l':ies, t:haL- each gr.nde 1c:ve1 uni_t wuu].d hrive pri�racy from pedes-
Lrian �vud veh:icu]c�r routcs, that' L-lie 1'MIl uniCS would bc separated L-rom
L-hc frce•m:irkcC units because of L'he cif:f:cr�nl patCcr.ns of use, �nd that
t:6crn �aou]d hc: a ci'oss site ��edesl-rian li.r�k hel-wecn tos�n, Lone Yine
and Sil��crlcin�. 1{e shot:ed t-lie fr.oup dc_::i.�;n plans for Lone Pine and
noCc:d L-hat: the P:dfl bui.l.dings ar.e low profile, one, two or L•hree story
unil's.
One nf the centr.al. issues to be considercd is density; Lone Pine's
denzity is 15 ur�its j�er acre, which cnmpares with Che RK1� zone in Che
cily. i:ane felt- Uie looP-drive in L-he center. oL the. site should be moved
so the pr�.ject �ai_l.l have cenCral green space. He shoo�eci an alY.cr.naCe
site pl.an i_n which the liunter Creek Crai.l would Ue in the centcr. of the
siL-e s•:i tii parki.nf; on tlie si.des. 1•fcCarL-hy f�vored the Plamiing Office
idea of e1i_minaC:in.� Lhe drive Chrough Uie cenl-�r of Che proper.L-y. I'errell
said he prefcrs syr.eading the uniCe ouC <ind s�.uroundin�; them with open
spac�., raLher Chau c.lustr_r.in�; the uni.ts into high d�nsiey areas with lar.ge
picce.s of open space. Levinson said he had no probl�ms wiL-h Che proposed
densi.L'y, and L-el.0 titc layout of the buildi.ngs is �i minor point- at this
�C;�ne, ro�: exprest:ed concern aUout L-lie roi.x of freemarket and P!•ili uni.ts; .
this proposal contains onJ.y l:ive moire empl.oyee liousiein unit:s than whaC
would Ue required for a nonna.l. subdivisi.on. Fer.rell felt the 5Ui employee
housint; r.equirement is Lher,reti.cal si_nr_e no developer. has complied with
iC ycC. 1�fcCarCliy fe1.L the $90.00 per square foot' cost for L-he freemarkct
units i.s vcry low; he sugges�ed it- L'he Ireemarket uniLs had a more rea].is-
ti_c sales price the,Y may Le able lo provide tao or tllree more Pbill uniCS.
Terrcall. said he does;n't feel Che $90.00 per squar.e foot tigure is unreaJ.i.s-
tic, adding L'hat he is tryi.n£ to keep his numbers consen�:tCi.ve aL' L'Lis poinl'.
Levi.nson said he �roul.d likc ta see a Prfll p�'ojecC take place rathcr. than
cr.e7ti.ng adminisL'iatiVe h�sslus jusL- Co �;eL- two ruore PIfH uni.ts. llis mosl' �
i.mportant considc�rll-iun is to obtain er.act sales price. figur.es for the
YMII units before zuy appr.oval. is given by the P 6 7.. lle noted L-haC the
sales pri.ces for. PSidland Yarl: chanp,ed substantially afCer approval was
f;r1nC cd.
Guy said Chere wi7.1 not Ue L-i.me L•o discuss all t]ic details at L-oday's meet-
ing, aud sugre>Led scliedul.i.nr a joint meetino wi.th the livar�l nf Commissionrrs.
hane af;rc�d, adding Lhat prescntly thcre is an awl:ward communication set up,
because Che Pl�nniny; Office musL' acL as a go-beCw..�en. Pox sai.d she would
].il:e L'o hear Che commenCS of t}ie member.:, of. tlie publ.i.c Chat aLtend the
meeti.ngs bec�use L-hey may i.nflueucc her opin:irni. 7'I�e P 6 '1, a�reed L•o schedul.e
a joint meetinh for Dfonday, J,tnunry 30Ch, and Lo ].isl•en L-o the comments oi•
L•lie people present.
RECOE3D nF !'F;OCi�LDlNGS 100 t_cavcs
-------' PlanninT rind %onin�; Commi.ssion _
Janu�u-y l.t�, 7.978
Page Three
Nancy O�len fel.� tl�e denslL-y of: CLe enl-i�-e ar.ea shoul.d be consi.derecl,
not jusl' Chnt oL L•he prujecL• itsr_l.f:. 7'hc aclded densi.ty of Lone Pi.u�
wl7.l, jusC i.ncrea�e the prc�hlems in an a.lre:ady-bad area. Ol'her consid-
erati_ons :;he mcutirined included L-r.tffi-c and the cosL- of Che units. Slie
PeI.0 Chc Lanc} Use Cod� shoul.d nol• be cumpromised fo�: the �ettlemeut- of.
a lawsui.C. Qden concluded that' the Grrnath t�fanag,�ment Ylan and Land Use
Cocle c:u,noe be capr.i.cinusl.p chan£�d, l�ec:�use cach l'i�ne L'hey are exempL-ed
their value i.s neg;:tcd. Ji.m Coc•�ee �gr.ec�d, and sai.d he was gl.ad the P & Z
isn'L wiJ.l.i.ng to °�-��bbe�: sLamp" Lhe Commi_ssioncrs. Marcia Cowee asl.ed
whal liap��ened tn Cli. Cc�unty's plan Lor gr.ec:n space betwecn town and Lhe
neia communi.ey center; slie Pelt L•�,o and tliree-sLOry buildings woul.dn't fit
inL-o tLi:; concept.
t9cCartlty asl:ed thal when C}ic P 6 'L meets wiCh L•lie Board of Commis::ioner.s,
eraffic f]_nw prujr-_cLi.ons, inclurii.n�; tlie cost Lor the replacement of Mill
Strcel- P,ridge, Ue av:iilahle. tle telt L-he e.f.fect of ll�ese cars, along
wSL'h Che cars fr.om :;i.dland Par}., should he considered, and the nel'
:increased density f:or L'he area should be cn:npared l'o the master. pl.an fur
the ar.ea.
Owl Creelc General ^tihmi.ssion
The group considered tl�e �eneral submission applicat.ion for 1950 units
at Owl Creelc. Joe [Jel.ls, of the Planninb Office, read the f.olloiri.ng ten
reasons th� Planni.ng Office lias ].is�ed fo�- recorunending denial of the
application:
1. l:equires a re-zoning wlticli is botli inappropriate and
prematurc.
2. Is inconsistent wi.th thr_ goa.ls of Cbe Gr.o��th Manafiement Plan.
3. liasies seri.ous questions ahout l'he adequacy of a water supply
and without quesL-i.on drasCical2y depletes the amoun[ of waLer
present'].y availabl.e For agricul.taral uses.
4. Is Col-a].ly re].ianl- on a �ransportati.on solution that i.s no longer
being pur.sued Uy the coitmiunity and, in the absence of. such a
system �oould place miaccepCable demands on the exist:i.ng roal
network and parking facilities.
� 5. Reyuir.es iniprovement to (hol Creek }:oad cahich, even with the
propo�ed L-r.ansporL•ati.on salut-ion, woul.d be ver.y dif£icult to
achieve 4Tj_L"I1011L' serious environmental damag,e.
G. Canfli.cCS dramaCically wil•h tlie goals of tlle Land Use Code in
regar.d to preservaCion of: agricu7.tural lands and iises.
7. Is unar_cepCaUle Lo L'he Colorldo Division of Wildlif:e ln that it
appears L'o i.nfr.inge on ell: movenients to crit'ical winLer range
and jeoparclizes a major ellc calving area.
8. Sites develnpment wiL�ii.n areas uf quesei.onaUle soils cl�aracter-
istics, particular.ly with re�ard L-o tl�e dam site for the r.eservoir
and any road realignment.
9. Si.tes dcvelopment wiL-hin areas idenCified as hazard and sl'r.ess
areas and pri.ne proCection ar.cas.
10. Providcs i.nadequate. empl.oyee housi.ng to mcet• the goals of L'he County.
Kane added that Chi:; applic�L'ion also r.caises broader l.a�id use planni.ng issves.
l•?hen Owl Cr.cel; wa� f:i.rsL- discus:;ed L-ransportat•i.on planni.ng was aimed in the
direcCi.on c�C the li.F;ht rai.l system; evenr.s in Che pasL- two yenr.s have changed
L'hat conr.�pC. The Snriwmass t;eiieral submission L-haC was approved uas intended
. rccor�� oF r�r,oc�E�ir•.cs �oo, �o1�os
1'7.annlnF :�nd 'l.onin�; Cnmr.ri.ssi.on �
.J�nuary ]g, J97S
Pa�r-_ I�our
Co cr.e�te � r.:el:f-,uffici.ene v3.].lnf;e to reducc the traffic f-1ow hetween
Aspen an.1 Sno�miass. Tltc Owl. Crecek proposa7. cauu.ld create a potential
for slri.p drvclopment f:ram A.spcn L'o Snowmass. 7'f the Gr.owtli Ptanagemenl
Plan i.s adl�ered Co, in 1990 tl�c pral: populati.on of Snn:u�nasa will Ue 1$,000
and Aspen's peak populat:ion will. be 25,000. }:une noted the importance
of u±ainl�ining � luw dcveJ.opwenL- character in Lhe v:illey and fel.t a
devr-.loPmcnr. of. thi:: matp��i.tude would encour.aPe oCher devel.opinent beL•�.•een
Sno:•fm�ss and Aspen.
4;clls t:lien r.evi.c:�•:cd thc fol].a:oing a�>pendices Chat kere. studied under the
gencral submir.sion:
!t. Geolo;ti.r. Studp of t:h�> O�r! Crecl•: l'ro�ert-Y (Dr.. Thomas Pr.ather)
B. H�'dr.olr�}r.y Anal,_sJ__ of thc�_Pr.oppsed O:ol_Crcei: Devel.osment
Oi,pey, }IusCUn aad lssociaCC�) .
C. P.elorts on Air qual.itti I�r?cf (Piarletf and Associates)
ll. u u n '-i i- -n — n n n u
E. F]ater_and Sewer S��steris for Ocol Creck (Leonard Rice and
iir�ight:-2•fcLau�hli.n }:ngineers)
F. Devcl.o�ent PoCenL•ia].s for [he Oa:l Creel: Pro eP rty (Hammar,
Si).es, GeorFe Associ.ates)
G. 1•femorandum on Soc9.a1 Serv:ices for. Owl. Creelc (Dr. Ci:arles Ke�ley)
li. Transpol'tati.on ]_n;nacC of �JY�]=Crcek�a I'relimina� ltel�o�_L
(Transpnrtation lleveJ.opmenl- kssoci.ates)
I. Pedr_stri.an anzt Vehi.cul_ar i•Sovement Consi.de�'aCions at Owl. Creek
(Tran,Portation Dt:velopment AssociaCes)
.J. Pisc�7. Tmpact Sr.tid�� for. O;,rl Cree}� (StepLens Associates)
K. Feasib:ilitv Study f.or. Oal Creek (4lallace, t•1cHard, Todd � Ruberts)
L. Stud� Uralt_Bal.anced Groaieh (Desi_gn 4loricshop, 7nc.)
p. Assessment: Inforr.,alion and PfarketaUil.it�v Aisclosure (James 14ollica)
}:ane submitted�the January 9ch and January 12tb 1'lanning Office memos for
L-he recard.
Joe Porter, r.epreser�ting Otal Creek, said that if- the Planning Office�e main
conclusion is that thc developnenL and zonin� change is premature, they have
no proU.lem with thaC and Lhey ackno�.•l.ed�;e th1t. They caish to amend the
applicaCion L-o a si.ngie-f.amily AT-1 PUll suUdi.vision under the e�isting zoning.
The hi.gh den>ity portion c�i tlu_ applic�ir_i.on has Ueen e7.iminated, and Cltey
are now Proposing a 300 acr.e, 30-uniC subdivision as the first phase. They
are prepared to do another plan on that basis and work with the Planning Ofiice
L•o Lry to reduce their objecCions to Owl Creek. They would like to amend the
app].ication, not withdraw it, to avoid a possible administrative delap, and
�et in L'hc approval process as fast as possib7.e.
Guy quESCioncd i.f this amendment constitutes a significant enoiigh change so
the application should be withdr.acrn. l:ane said in Che submissions L-he Planni.ng
Uffi.ce has r.ecei.ved to d�te, no loL-CinF has becn shown for a single-family
pro;ject. 'Phe gceneral submis�ion requir.ements i.n the Lanci �se Code require a
niap showing ]oL's and streets, park:i.ng, school Uus sL-4ps, siFnif-icant n.^_tural
featur.es, etc. Jim Moran, representing the applicanl, asked why thaL informa-
Cion caimut b�� supplicd l�y amendmcnL-.
Gassman �a.id ehe P & ? hns hef.or•e Chc�m an appliczLion for rezoni.ng; how ean
they act on ChaL- rezonin}; il` J.nat i� not wliat the appl:Cr_aitL• wants? Wells
said L'he ref'erral. process woul.d havc to Uc redane for L•hi� new proposal,
�cco�n o�= PRac��oir�ics � .�oo �e1��s
I'l.:nni n!; and '7,oning Cnnnnissi.on
J.inu:ir}� 18, J9%S
P:�gc: Pive •
Uc.cause l-he r.eFerr.a].s received to date are for an eutirel.y diff.erent-
p�-o,jecL. Ator..�n asked how Che County can knoca chaL- unl-il the}• have seen
the awcndmenL-. T_evinson :;aid going f:rom 1500 un.CCS to 165 is mvr.e Chan
an�mendmenC; it i; a radica_.l ch:ange. The inform�tion presenl-ed doesn't:
rcic:te to tlt� appl.i.eaL-ivn they are propos:i.nr. Yorl-r_r. said they could
amend the :�ppli.cakion Ly dr.op��ing l'l�c tnuri.sC sect.ion and returning with
. . a PUI) deve].opmeuL' pl.�n and wake L-hc appli.r.ation for. PUD for Che rest of
L-hc property at Lhe same ti.me. SLul.ler saict thc proc�dures for a PUD
app]icaCion are even more uuer.uus thr�n thase for a subdivision. She
agr�ed th:.it Lhis i.s � radical. deparCure f.rom thc proposaJ. beinr con,ider-
ed, �md L•hc only purposc for the amendment• is �o avo:Ld L•he adninistrative
del.ay on new suUdivisi.an�., nhich i.s no� a ).r.gi.timate purpose. Levinscm
sa:i_d he is sympattietir_ t� thei.r reasoning, buL- the pr.esent applicat-ion
must: Ue taY.en Co a concJusi.on. I4oran mot�ed L'o taUle the application
and all.ow thc app7.i.r_anL Lhree weeks Co respond to L'he Planning Off-ice's
commr_nis. I'orler a£r.eecl, saying Lhey do not ��<int to wi.thdraia the app.lica-
ti_on b�cause o1' tLe tiuie loss. IL- tiiey cannol' amend it, tl�ey need L'ime
Co prepare Lhci-r responses.
Levineon moved to L'able any action on Che application at' the request of
the applicanC. Gassman secouded and Lhe moli_on passed f.our to one.
N�acus Y.anch Gener.al SuUmission
Wel.ls again pr.esenLed Y.he Abacus Ranr_h genr-.ral sul,mission. IIe felt the
' ].ast time the P 6 Z discussed this they coizsidcred thin&s secondary L-o L-lie
r.eal quesl'ions, which invu]ve L•he ett'ecL- on the Grocath Management Plan,
pha�in�, and r.uad syslems, rathcr Chan the paCtern of. developmenC. It
is essential Cha� Che I' � '/. decide how l'o l�andle suUdivision applicati.ons,
especially do��nvalley, cui_L-hin the framework of L-he Plan.
Dwight Shellman, representing the apPlic�nt, presenLed a draft resoluL-ion
for the P & 7.'s concideration. Kane sald there are sevcra]. areas for
discussion in the resolurion, r.he first of �7hich is employee housing. The
Board of Commissioners i.s adamanL•ly committed to thc 50% employee housing
r.eyuirement; a proposed Code amendment �o dre�p thaL- requiretnent from certain
•r.unes did not receive Commis::ioner appr.oval.. Since tlie Land Use Code s�ill
requires SO`/,'employee housi.ng, subdiv:i:;ions cannol be approved withouC
uieet'inp, that requixemenC. Shell.man asiced if Che memhers of L'he P & 'L share
hane's vie�.�puint. Kane said Lhat is a mout poinl-. Gassman a�;reed, saying
tl�at since the Board of Commissionrrs didn'C agr.ee wilh the P 6 '1.'s amend-
ment L'o L-he housing requirr_menC, th�• Code as pr.ese�ntl.y wriL•ten must be
fol.7.owed. Shellman aslced if Lhe majoril-y of Che P & 'L fee].s the requi.remenC
is onerous, or if they agre� with the Cummi.ssioners. Guy said the P & Z
stated their di:sagreemcnL- �aith thc 50% requirement, but L'he Board of
Cnmmi.ssioners ignored l-heir recomi:�endaLir.n. Gassman relt�a subdivision
app].i.cat-ion i.s not the proper vehi.cle for amendinF the Land Use Code.
Sliellman said eLe Code rc:quisement is a guideli.ne. The Cornmissicmers £�1L-
a "generalizeJ amendment" iaould iiot be appropriatc, liowever at leasl' one
Commis>i.oner i.nciicated flexibil.iCy i_n consi_dcrinf; a1L-ernati.ves to the 5U%
j r�quiremert. P.ane said tl�e 13oard oL Cunmiissi.onc�r.s ruled Lhat Lhey would
ccinsi.�ler creaCi.ng exernptions on envirorimen�al g,roui�ds, and woul.d consider
i esC�l?].ishing 1 var.ying requirement for. var.ying dcnslL-ies. Stuller. aQded
thal• L-he sCipulal-i��n iii the Land Use Code is a mandaCOry elemenL, nnL a
RECO�o ar- ���occ��fN�s . �oo �.e����s
�., , ,, �
Plnnnin;; ancl 2oning Commi.:ssion - — ._ ,__....
J::nuary ].f�, ]978
P:I�,C'. ^1•: � .
guidel,:tne, lio:•�ei�er titere is n cc:�-t�i�i amouiit- of f1c::iUilit� in tlte �..�y
to address thc� requirer.�ent if L-he ap��l.ic�nC cam show thztl' the. develop-
menl i:; nol• e::r:7.usionary. Siic askcd wh�t soJ.uti.on Shellman ha� L•o the.
requi.re�meitt. >l�e.ilm:.in repl.:ied fha1: be doesn't �aanl• to address the solul-ion
at this poinC; he fi.r�e i:-;ui��s a c1.�;�r cci�cen�us Prom thc P .r 7. on khce
m�L�.er. Hc� �ai_d tlrcy are nol' re>i_::L'inF dcalin{; tafth the question, and
. . feel_^• tliey can rnect Che er_i�nn;nLc ci':i.Y.eria t-.Ii�L Lhe CounL� mceL-s in Aspen
for empinyec l�ousiii�;. I:�ne s<<i.d -if. Chc procc:cds frorn Che sa.le of` one ].ot
of Abacus R;,�ncli �•�erc: used to buy emp]o�•ce houeing in the Aspen area, i_L-
would not mec� t?�c SOi requi.r�menr_; Chc numbet of u�iiL-s �,�ould havc to
equal 507 of Lhe suLdi.vi�l��d loL's. 6hel.lman fclt i.0 �.�oul.d Ue leci.cal to
transfcr thc [�ousiu�; tu tLa urban �rca whcrc it �.roul.d be. more appropriatc.
I3c askc<i thn I' & 'J, iC l.hey caanl' L'hc 50� requiremcnt Co he satisEied on the
si.L-e of thc sub<iivi.sion. Y.ane s::id there i.s na auChori.Cy for Che "p�yment
in lieu" of 1��proacii; the :tpplicant muGC make SU% ef. the subdivi.ded uni.ts
subject to pricc conLr.o7s. St:uller sai-d if Shcllman wants to prove L-hzl
thr:e un:i.CS in the suUdivis9nn nrr. nc�L- c��:clusiouary or Co devisc: .•in innova-
tive �olut'ion to L'he huus:i_nE requirewent, L'he ozius is on lii:n; the hnusii�g
r.equiremc.nt i� not thc quest:i.on here. 5he].1man s�a.d thc ].and use r.eview
pracess i.s dc.s:igned tu obL•ain Lhc: vie:as oL• Che 1' � Z �neinbers as to l-he
condit:ions und�_r �rhi_ch a �abdivi.sio�i would he. �?er�ni.tted., Flis at-L-emnCs L-o
get' t}�� viecas uf the P S 'l. mt�mbers h.�ve met with na responsa�, znd lie Peels
he is not receiuing any com±nuni.r_ation from therR. Shellman said the nexC
drafC resolution Chey do will cont'ai.n the requi_�-e���enL' Lor 50:6 empJ.oyee �
housing unless Cltcy can come up wi.l'h �n alCernalivc that thc P & 2 is
will.ing to com:nent on. l.evi.nsen said thaL• si.nce thcir Fcelings hlve Ur.en
mesde known and cheir recommcndatio« was not �dr.�pCed, there is no room
f:or discussion; Che Land Use Code i.s ].aw. Sh�-].lman sa:id llic P & 7. has
:.n ohligation L•o roake recnr.�mendations on 7.and use applicaCions. Guy gave
his l�ersvnl7. �uarantee tl�r:�t he �aill express his tl�oughL-s on Che housing
requiremenL wheu the P 6 7, gets to the point of recrnnme:ncii.n£ eiCher approval
or den3.a1 of Ahacus Rancli L-o the 73oard of Com:nissinners.
Itane said th�t portic�n of Shellman's resoluCion dealing ti�ith consCructi.on
on 3fl"/. slopes :is not necessary, because Che Land Use Code designates
sl.opes over 30% as areas of sCate��ri_cle concern and >pecial revi.ec•J is r.equired.
Siuller Lelt t:hc concept of transferring density for Five additional iots if
Lhe present dwelliugs are eliminated is a fair propos�J., a:; long as the zoning
i.n th� area isn't changed. She sug�;ested that condition could Ue approved
with L-he qualifier Ltiat Che density c�n be cr�nsferred if it i.s an x2lowable
d�nsil-y at Che Lime.
ldith r.ebard to phasing, Kane said the Growth T;aiiagement )'lan has an �nnual.
quol-a of 44 uniCS per year in Che downvalley area; L•hat quota was exceeded
in 1977. lle �-ecomnends ph�sing four units per year over t:he ner.t Lour.
years in Abacu:: Itanch. Turnbull fclt iC is unfaix Lo ctnmt the previ.ously-
approved .lots a�ains[ the qucL-a. Ilerh Kl.ein, lepresenC2ng L-1ie appli.can�,
,aid they would l.il:e Lo phase ei�,ht uniLS over the first- L-wn years, rather
than four per year, in order to cove.r Cheir iniCi.�.l deveJ.opment costs. The
net: r.esults would be ehc ::amc:. };nnc di.sa�;r.eed wil-h thal pr.oposai7.. Levinson
,1id 1:7.ein's soluL9.on woui.d be accept:abl.e Lo Lim. Pos saicl she wuu.Ld preter
four uniL•s per yesr. G.tssntzn f:ell- l-1ie di.sr.ussion was academic Uccausc hc
doesn'L• approve oL tUis d<�.velopmenl- :in the firSL• place. lic is not prepared
i -
I
FiECOf�� OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
P.lanni.nF: and %on3.ng Comr�i.::si.on •
Jcuivary )8, 197t3
P:igc Seven
L'u CbraN out thc Groc•tth 1•f:ine��,em�:nt Pl�n at Lhis point; the ral'e of �
Frrnath in L'hc duwnvn7ley :irca haa bc.en excecded, so CLc qucsl'ion is a �
simple onc. Ile Fe7t nn im��lemenCntion ordinance for thc Ylan will nol• i
he necessary unCi]. the }carl.y raLe ot' t;r.uwlh doc.s nol' cxceed L'he quoCa.
Gtry aFrced wi.th C:ssrian, I�uC fr.LC Che Board oL' Conunissiunm•s c.�ill reCurn ;
L-hc proposal. Cu Chc Y 6 '7., for con<:i.dcr.lC�.on any�ray. Gassman saicl he
dorsn't wanL- Ln use thc. su��posed �:ctious of auoL-her board as a basi.s for
. . r.ecommenJati.on.
Turnbu7.1 said lie wou].d pr�.fer. nol- to see Lhe devclupment, hut lic L'hinks
Pf:�r� Pr:inl: has n risi,r tc� do soroethin;; to preserve lier ].and. ]ie doesn't
L'hink L'he meml,rrs of P 6 '!. ar.c- in a posi.Lion to say "I don`t: �annt it".
�a>sman s:ii.d Pr:nl: ha:; :i ri.ght L'o subd�.vi_de her land, bul- nol at- thi,
Ltme. Levi.nson zgrced w�.l'h 'L'ur.nbull, 1nd said a loY of cEfc�rt caent into
adol�tiinf; Chc� ]tS •r,oninti for the dvcrnvall.ey area. 1Tllj hc feels L-haL- efforC
wn, for nau,r,hl Uccause al.l develqpmc�nl is beint; prohibi.ted by the GrowLh
1•tanaLr-.�,�ent P7an. Turnhi�l.l sa id wh�t is invol.ved in this application is
t:�e pr.eservur9on of: open spar_e, not agricu7.tural l.and. tie felt the othcr
meinb�r, of the P & Z do no[ have any idea of whaL- i.s i.nvolved iii keeping
land r.unning, li.lcc: he does, hecause Chey do not oti�n ranches. They do
noi' per.ce:Lvc tUe economic tealiti.es i.nv�lved in mainL-aininF and paying
taxes for lars;e r.�nches. He £el.t Franlc should roal:e L-hese kinds of decisions
abnut' her land, nut the P & 7.. Guy sai_d he could see. Tuxnbuil`s yoint of
viecv, haoever someone has to decide on tlie larger c�uesL-ions ot roads,
sdioo.ls, f.ire proCection, eL•c., and that is thc 1' � Z's res��onsi.biliL-y.
He does not c+n;joy "L'aLi.n�, a:aay someone's r.i�hL-s", b�t Lhe oUligation of
Lhe CounL'y L'o Uc respoilsibl.c for these co�mnutiitp-wide concerns cannoL' be
ignored. Turnbiill sai.d L-hc�� Ualance. bel-ween gro:.�h and Che sc:rvices necessary
to accommudaL'e tttat gr.oi,•Ch ki7.l never be reacLed because mure people will.
always want L-o come to Pi.ticin County. Ile fe].t the Ligures i.n the Growl-h
AfanagemenC P].an ar�n't r.��].evsnt do�anvall.ey.
Shellman reaue:;teJ tl�at L'he maCter be LaUled so tl�e Y � Z can r.om»il� their
re��on� fo.-. dc::.ial. H: added *_lia�• it is the r.�sp�msiUi.l.il'y of• Lhis
Coirmi.ssion t� adciress tlic oY.her developmc-nL- issucs in L-]ie ma�ter, so the
app].icant caill not' havc� L'o continue going back and forth betcacen L'he P � 7.
and Che lioar.d of Commissioner.s for each i.ssue. Guy sai.d he aould prefer
z moti.on lo dra[C a resolut:i.oii eitlier approvi.n�, or denying the applicaL•ion
L'o Le voCed ou at the next meeCing. S1�e17.mau asked if Che P E� 7, taould con-
sider an a1LC��n1Li.ve resoluCion aL L-liat Lime. Guy said it would be i.n order
Lo cunsider al.Lernatives iheu. He is in general a�;ceemenC cuitl� the concerns
menLi.oned i.n Cltc Y].anning Offi.ce memo, incl.uding fire pr.otecti.on, school.s,
rolds, el'c., uliich show L'haC the cunnxlati.ve ef.fect of Lhese items inclicate
thaL the development is noL' in an approprlate area.
Tox move<1 L'c� dr�ft a resolu�ion t'ecommending dettial of the Abacus Ranch
gener.al SuUm:ission on the bas:is oL the rnajor po:Lnt's in L'hr_ Y].anning Office
memo. Gassm�n ^.econded �nd added L'liat tLe Count:y ALtor.ney ai.d 'in the
dr�fting of thaC resolut:Lon, and Lhat :it mention Chc incomp�L:iUiliCy of:
this devel.opmenL' caiCli the Coun�y master plan, and the di.fficulty toil-li L-lie
prnvi.si.nZ of rublic. servi.ces in a relati_ve'ly r.emotc area. Levinson sai.d he
is d:isappoi.nCed to see Cliis liappen afl-er Clie •r.on:iny., in the �rca has been
etile+bl.i.sl�ed, and apologiz��d to tir�. L'ranlc. Bric.};hain said she a&rees wi.L-h
TurttUull and Le.vin.on.
RECQ�;D QF f'ROCEE.DlPJGS . 100 Lcaves
.�.�, .
1'l..inn.i.n�; and 7.oninF; Counni.ssimi
J:.inuary l.E, 1978
Pa};e 13i�;lit
/t rc�l.e cal.l. voCe wa, t��ken on Fox`s moi-i_on, whicL pa,sed with oppo�ition
Pram 7'utnbu.11 and Lcvinson.
Kanc :i+,r.ced Cc� pr��vide Sl�e7.l.man wiCh a copy of the draft resoluL-ion and
PL.tnning OEfice mcino aC leasL• turo dnys pri.or to Lhe ne::t mee�ing.
There Uei.ng no f:urtl��cr Uusine::s, L-he meet'i.ng was ad_journed.
Rcnpectfu7.l.�• snbmi.t't�d, .
�Cl_�.�tv.A�'f
Liz SCe��rarl', Depul-y Counl-y C].er.lc
, ' EXHIBIT
� � Y
-io-
RE�COF;D 0� PF�OCEFf�ifVGS , 100 1_cavcs
PITl:I�� COUI�tTY
PLANFfTIVG & ZOt•!II•1G COh1i�1ISSI0IJ
Reyul�r f�ieeting
February i, 1978
I'R[SEP�1': Chaii°man Peter Guy soaxn oF Co. CotYtnt�a�s
Dot'cie �UX PITHIN CO3
DFtll LCV1I1S011 �blic Heering Exhibits
ifichael Gassman Date : _�._ZQ •.`7�,
J. ft. t•�cC�rl.h,y (voting} sut�ect : �"�ar.t�_S ��i-j
E7iie Lr-icl:hum (alternate)
h]urray Pope (altcrnate)
Tom 131a1;e (alternatc)
AUzcus Ranch
A resolu�ioti denying Lhe general submission of the Abacus Rar�ch was presented
by the Cuunty Attorney. Ih��i�ht Shellt�an asked for time L-o pi°esenL- a i�ebuttal
to the points listed in the rrsolution. Uean hioffat presented revision G of
the lot pian; 24 lots are s�TOt:�n includii�y Ll�e G 7ots which �•rould replace tlie
ranch units p�•esently i:here. Sh�llman and Nerb Klein, attornays for Frank,
the» preser•�L-ed for i:he r�cord five more items in addition to the lot plan:
a roud ai�alysis dc�ne by a regisY.ered engineer• showing that the capacity of
the Sno�•rmass �roads ;ervicing the proposed subdivision �•�ill not be er.ceeded by
i:he praposed increase in density; a letter fi�om i:he fire chief c,f the BasaTt
& Rut-al Fire Pr,oLectiun D�st+�icL stating tl�at, if there is an adequate supply
of �•�ater storage on site, L-hey will be ahle to provide fire protection; a
employee housing analysis done by the for;ner Pitkin Courity huusing director, �
13rian Goodl7eim, ind�cati��g that the �roposal meets the 50i employee housing
criteria of the land use code and that this proposal is in er.cess of the
percentage of employee hnusing in the Snot•imass Plan approved by the Pitkin
County Coi!+miss�one�°s; r.cr�ox copies of the m9nutes of the Ca��missia�ers' meet-
ing of S�pte,nber 26, 1977 approviiig the t4idland Park detailed submission,
the Planniny and Zoninq Conunission meetirig of Uccernber 7> 1977 granting gen-
eral submission appruva7 to the /lspen River Va77ey Ranch subdivision and the
t�uvember 16, 197% P'lanning and Zoning Conmiission meeting granting dei:ailed
submission appro��al i:o •the Stern Ranch subdivision--Shellman noted that all
these a+�prnvals were �in er.cess of the Gro�•rth ASanagement Plan; and finally a
letter from Y.lein requestiny speci�Fic findinys of compliance with the land
use code--�n cxhibit is atLached to the Tetter which is a fiil-in-tlie-blanks
resoluLion for the Conun�ission's consideration. Sheilman then stai;ed that the
applicant has con•fc�med r�ith tl�e roning for the arca, that: the County has
approved other appl�ications in er.cess of the Gro�rth �4anagement Pian and the
Com�r�ission should be a4�are o� this if they deny Frank's submission. aill
I:ane of i:he I�7dIlI11t1Q OF1'l�f! ans�•rei°ed these coirarients saying ihis was the first
time the Planning Office has hea��d of i;he housri�g proposai and that there
is no �•eference to numbers or economic analysis; in addition, the Stern Ranch
t•ras aapro��ed prior to the Grot•rth 1'aaagement Plan, t�iid7and Park is exempi:ed
from t:l�e Groti•rth t�taiiagemei�t Pian unde�� the PMN zuning and the Aspen River Val-
ley Rarich subdivision has not yet receivcd general submission approval by
the Conm�ission�rs. 7he ��roup i;hen d•iscussed zoning versus the Gro�•�th Manage-
ment Pldll. SI1C1�IOd11 suggested Lhat i:Fie s�.ibmission confoi-me�d t•�ith the zon9�ig
and that Lhe Cantuiss•ir,n could resLrict the applicant's release of lots into
i:he marNet after i:echnit:al asper.ts o-i con�p7iar�ce 1•�ith tlie land• use code had
. . ,
�3eca�!� or ��or.,�r_aEr��s Yoo �e:�vcs
Pl:ann7ng f� 7_nning Conunission
February T, t978
page 1;rro
been addressed and approvrd. The Covni:y llttorne� noted that the Grosrth i•1an-
agement Plan a!as part of tht Ptaster Plan i'or the County and tliat the t•iaster
P1an m��st be coi^pi�ied �•rith according i:o the I_and Use Pian; the onus is on the
applicant to confc�rm a�ith trie Land Use Code including the hlaster Plan �•equire-
� • ment and that: this requirement hud not been met prior to today's tneeting.
Discussian folloG:ed as ta �:heth�r fio return the application Lo thc� Planning
Office 4vith i:he nc•;l I�1dtG1°ial subn�iti:ed today for iurtl�er processing and con-
siderai:ion or •w piiasincf �:lan for i:he lots. Kane noted that his office i��as
spent considerabie time on the application and i:hat they t•rould be wasting
Lheir time and the applicant's muney if the Comnission is ultimately guiny to
rej�ct th,e appTication t,as��d on the Gro�•rth Ptanagement Plan any�•;ay. On a
motiun by Fcu: ard secnnd b,y Gas�man tl�e gi°uup vated to deny tf�e app7ication
based upon th^ Grc�wth hianactement P1an, the Plaster Pian for Fitkin County
and i:he Land Use Code. The vote was Q-1 alith onposition by Levinson.
Ot•rl Ct�eek General Submission
Tftc folloo-�ing discUssion is in response to the January 74th meet�nq �dher; the
applicant rec;uested and T�ecei��ed perriission to make a-rebuttal to the Planning
Ofiice memo regurding theii� uriginal application for 1,950 unit subdivision
along 0�•rl Creek. Jim 1•for•an and Joe Fo��ter t•rere preser�t to do tl�is. Porte►�
}���tr� �;f;�t in 1977 39 building permii:s ��:ere issued in the P,spen Metro area
U�1��° tcr�Oti•�l Creek l>elon9s--in excess of i:he 27 units allo�•ted under the Groe�th Iran-
age+�u>nt Pian; he ex.press�cl conc.ern Lhat it uould be years beforP Os•r7 Cree}:
could be develonn_d. He feels i:hai: since Aspen t•ietro 5an�itation District has
long-ranoe plans to put a se����ge line oufi to Chvl Creek and that they have
i:he rfght of e.minent do�aa�in, ttie pr�ob�ciT� of seivage facilit-ies could be so]ved.
The applicant thinks the numUer quoted by the Planning Office for police pro-
tectian are overly high hut that the tar, r•evenues generated by i:he development
tivoi�ld he suff�icier�t to fun<1 tY�e proteci:ion neede<!. Their present plans, based
on si:ate and county criteriri and on tlie »ater guaying they ha��e done to date,
indicate that they ��rill not have as much water as they originall,y thought
i but that the�-c rrill be er�ougl� for LP,c� develupment p]anned and 50w of Lhe agri-
I cultural needs in the area; i:hey aiill need another �vater source but feel 1:hey
' can provide tliis. They are in agreement a�ith the transportation goals of
� the county; they i;�oul d 1 i l;e to reach conceptua] agreenient now and ti��ork tvi th
the coui�ty for a joint private-public implementation plan. In addition, they
feeT that they can come up with aii alignment for the Qw1 Craek Road without
j environmental damage. Ile fee]s that the county has not given them credit
for invesiigating all the areas of soils problems spotliyhted by the Ftcliarg
I report and that they arc providiny for adcquate agricultural lands in their
j submission. They have Lalked exLensive]y w�ith the State Division of tJildlife
concerning el{: and deer areas and feel thai: they have located their develop-
! ment so as to cause minimal interference a�ith i:he wild7ife. They have done
much ��:ork on the soils prablem and are pre�ared to place their developmeni: in
areas ��rhere it ti�rill co,t more ti•�hen cenflicts ex�i�t �-�ith agricultural lands
and �-�on't develop at aii w,here the soils studies indicai;e that the land is
undc.velopable; they �,rill nr>t develop at ail a�i�thin hazard and stress areas.
� I"inal7y he not�d that they have done a lot of �,�ork at- this sLaye> Lhat they
; hope the Cour�i.y �-riil ai7os•� Ptif;chell C�,nrpany to do something arith theii^ land,
� that i:Fiey arc prepared to ��rork ���ith 1;he County on the above itemsand will re-
spond to the c,uployee hous�ing need of the Caunty in whatev�r t•ra,y the County
desi�es. J�� l•le11s i-es{�r�nded briefly ta these comments; he sho;•red the soils
maps �n-epared by the P�1cHarg repor•t ind asl:ed hot�r anyone could develop a tti�ro-
` land hiqh��ay through ihc area; he fin~ther stated that he vrould today oppose
' a public tran�portatiun aiignment throuyh thai: area for the sarne reason.
�
. . , .
Rf�CURD OF RROCEr�lfVGS 100 Leaves
Planning & Zonirig Coinnission
February l, 1978
page three
hloran tl�en asked if the Cou:mission would entertain an altered ap�lication in
conformance with existing zaning. Levinson felt that such a drastic ciiange
necessii:ated a net•� applicaticm; the other n�embers agi°eed. Guy noted that
he is further opposed to the original �y>plication because it is i�� divere}ence
. • with Lhe I�faster Plan c;oal of establishing seP�rate communities at Sno�•nnass
Villaye and Aspen ���ith an intervening gi•een belt. Levinson ma��ed and Fox
second�d that a resolution recomn�ending denial be prepared in::orporatin� the
Planning Office c.orr,nents p�,eviously outlined; the motion passed unanimously.
Int�lerncntation Plan - Gro:vth htun�ement Plan
The County 1lttoi�ney preseni:ed all the members �•�ith a draft implementation
plan for the Grotdth t�lanageinerit I�lan; it will be considered at a continuation
of this meeting ne>;t �ednesd�.�y, Februai�y 8th.
1�1ee1:in� Datn Cha��qed
Thc Con�mission changed tiieir seco»d February meeting to February 22nd to
alleviate pressure an the Nlanning Office. The chang� will 6e noted in
the Aspen Tirnes.
Land Use Cod�, Sect•ion 5.30 - Airendmenfi
Kane p��esented an a;�iendment to the Land Use Code concerning employee housing
requiremeni:s in one or i:wo lot subclivisions. Tliis amendment ��rill exempt L-hese
subdivisions from the employee housing i•equirement tvhen it is clear that the
applicanl: is not submitting a series of small subdi��ision applications for
tlie purpose of avoiding the employee housing requirements. The amendment to
Section 5.30 of the Land Use Gode 4�as unariimously approved on a motion by
Gassman and second by Levinson.
Traffic vs. Flight fliyhts study
Gassman then suggested that i:h•r_ Commission sponsor a study designed to deter-
mine �•;hether additional night flights do �indeed dec�-ease the amount of
traffic on tligh��ay 32. He was encouragecl ta puti-sue this subject ti.tith the
Planning Office and return a�ith a concrete proposal.
Respeci:ful ly si bmii:ted, ;
, l/�CC ��'-�---� �
ulie Hane
Pitl:in County Cler{; F� Recorder
� • -
i
�
i
f �
i
' . ,
i
I
�
, , • i • , , '
- •' soaxn oF co. cot�M�x��
PITKIN C0.
,, ' Puhlia Hearing Exhibit9
PITKIN COUNTY QOARD OF COUNTY C0�4��IISSIOWCRS : ,y.�� ,��
Data
• RESOLUTIOt� N0. 77- Gf.�/ sub�eot s ^�hT,�Ci•L.5 /�'�.i?Ch
• � • � Eah.; xo.- EXNlBIT
Re: Amendment to 4later Resources Impact Regulation, �
Incorporating t4inimwn Streamflovr. Irrigation, and _
� Groundwater Maps • , .
� 41HEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 25, 1977, to consider
the adoption of several maps and amendments to the Water Resources
Impact Regulation of the Pitkin County Land Use Cbde (Section 5.09), and
• tJNEREAS, the mapping of minimum streamf7or�s, irrigated areas, •
� and grounds•later resources was accomplished by 4lright t4cLaughlin Engineers
pursuant to Contract �76-49, which was•funded by 1041 supplemental
funds granted for the purpose of improved aquatic�habitat protection,
and � �
� WHEREAS, the.proposed amendments to Section 5.09, the �later .
• Resources Impact�ReguTations are intended to incarporate the newly pre-
- pared maps and thereby refine and clarify that regulation, and
' WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the.
maps and code amendments at their P1ay 25th and June Sth meetings and
by resoTution recommended approval of the maps and proposed code changes
� . conditioned on the maps being returned to Wright �icLaughlin .for stamping •
rrith their Engineer's seal and on the minimum streamflota maps•being
referred to the Colorado l•later Conservation Board for verification. The
maps have been stamped ��ith the Engineer's seal and by letter of July
22, Anthony Dtartinez, Water Resource Specialist with the Colorado
Idater Conservation Board (C4106) certified the maps as correct, and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that the adoption of these maps
and proposed Code amendments are necessary and in the public interest
in that: � ' � .
' 1. The minimum streamflow and lake level map show amounts
of flow that the CI•JCB in conjunction with the•Division ,
of Wildlife ha's, prepared as stand'ards for the minimum
flo�:�s nec�ssury to r:aintain fisheries and protect '
• ac�:ia�ic {tii.il:.iC. ��:Cfl rcccs;:;:�;�:ir'�:d values have br_en
� Resolution No. 77-
Pitkin Cow�ty Couanissioners .
A�nendment to 41aLer Resources Impact Regulation ' �
� . i
� submitt'ed to the Division 5 Vlater Court for adjudication.
(The County has undertaken its ovrn independent analysis�
. � however� to determine whether these minimums are high
� enough). •The values can•be u,sed to determine whether '
aay subdivision proposal will "adversely affect", that
is, removea�ater to levels below those recommended and
� will therefore assist in development application reviews,
until such values may be amended higher study. � . .
2. The minimum streamfloa� and iake levei maps and relevant
guidelines in•Section 5.09 are referenced in Section 5.44, �
' , the i0h1 Wildlife Habitat r.egulations, and therefore
these proposed improvements will strengthen the 1041
protections for wildlife, particularly for aquatic species.
� 3. 7he groundwater resources map and relevant code changes,
delineating critical recharge areas and major ground- .
� water aquifers, will improve our abilities to review the
• specific siting of various land uses (such as structures,
• . waste deposits, paving, or mining wastes) whici� might • ,
contiminate or cause reduction in the amount or duration .
' of the supply of water available to satisfy an existing '
groundwater resource. . ' .
4. The irrigated area maps and relevant pronosed regulatory
. changes will enable the county to detei�nine whether a
proposed land use will take irrigated areas out of irri-
gation or otherwise adversely affect an irrigation water
� right and thus destroy the agricuttrual productivity or
. • potential of existing agricultural land. �
• NOW THEREFORE l3E. IT RESOLVED, that the Board of County Commis-
sioners hereby approves the adoption of the Pit�cin County Minimu� Stream
' Flow and Lake Level Maps, the Irrigated Lands Maps, and the 6roundwater
Geology Maps prepared by 4lright P1cLaughlin, December, ]976, along with
their explanatory text attached hereto as Aopendix A, and� .
°C IT �t';�:'�^ ..__.:.,�'?, t",t this �''1'd �:;?;:i•cvrs the recom�rended
• a�:•:�•!'���•:t�>•ta Section 5.�) as attach�d hereto �s AFpendix Q �f the Land .
�)5•' ,.� .. .��.iC.. t�'.i ' , :f�;'n i� . C':�idi'•.!t�:'if P;2;li d!ic� �1ithE!rally Pefine the
��..L..� �... . �� . . � .�. .. �u� .��1. •
• . �
i
i
�� ��.�.
• • � Resolution No. 77-
Pitl:in County Conunissioners •
Amendment Lo 4later Resources Impact Re�ulation
DATED this . o7,s day af ,��/u , 1977.
• ATTEST: . �PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUt�TY CO��L�•1ISSIONERS
. . . . . � /' .,
� � �r.��t By �G G��/ �'L
j,�fj� �nfl, �f�y� �. • Michael Kinsley
�� . - Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORI�I: • � . �
�✓/��f'i�.'G'���y?7��_C` • •
Sandra M. Stu ler- . •
County Attorney • • • . •
. ' � � . �. •
- 3 - �
' ' '' ' APPENDIX A • ' •
I. •
. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 70 THE '
� MIPlIMU"I STREAM FLOI� � IAKE LEVEL MAP
� . FOR �
� PITI:IPI COUP�TY �
• This written descriptio� is to accompany, and is part of, the �
Minimum Stream Floa� and Lake Level Map for Pitkin County. The map and
supplemental reporthave been prepared as a too.l to `acilitate the implement-
ation.and inter.pretation of the Piikin Coun�y Land Use Code (Sections
2.22 and 5.09). The map is a 40 inch by 80 inch map of Pitkin County
at a scale of 1" = 4,000', Approximately SO reaches of stream channel •
are identified on the map by means of a heavy line bettacen quarter-inch
, dots. Each reach is identified by the stream name and .the minimum
recommended flow in,cfs (cubic feet per second).� Certain streams have
ts�o minimum fiosa c�iteria, one for the v�inter fioty and one for the summer '
,, flow. ln the cases o-�here there are two flows, there are two lines of
� numbers. The first number in each line is the amount of flow in cfs,
the second and third numbers define the months during which that flow •
is recommended as the minimum. '
' The map also identifies iakes in Pitkin County that have minimum
lake levels assigned to them. After the name of each lake the amount of
Acre Feet Lhat ere assigned as the minimum lake level. .
ESTABLISHED CRfTERIA • � � •
The flow in cu6ic feet per second (cfs) and level in acre feet (AF)
values on the Minimum Stream Flow and Lake Level�Ftap are the amounts that
the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has developed in conjunction
with the Cotorado Division of Wild�ife. These recommended values
have fieen submitted to the Division 5 Water Court for adjudication.
Minimum stream flows for mos[ stt-eam��eacf�es a�ere. determi,ned bY the Diyisjon
of Wildlife for the C1•lCB. To arrive at these figures, the Division of
. Wildiife physically measured the geometry of each stream�and with the
use of certain biologic mi�nimum parameters,determined the minimum flow
for each of the stream reaches shown on the map. .
The CWCS has determined that the volume of water in a lake is the
eritical definition of "lake level" and have m.�de their applications to
reflect Chis. A specific volume of ��ater i� a lake can be related to "
a specific lake eleva[ioh or store9e. The pivision of Wi1dlife inspected . •
each of the lakes on the ir,;p, mcisurrd Che �.�ter surface, took several
d�ath rcadi�gs, and ��lcul.:l�d L;ic valw�:e of t•�alcr in tlie lakc at its .
n�tural ouClet icvcl. �
. ���
__..
• INTERIM IAKE LEVEL CRITERIA
All lakes in Pitkin County that have a surface area of greater
than 5 acres and/or a volume of greater than 15 Acre Feet and are not
sho�an on the tlinimur� Stream Flow and Lake Level Map shall have a
minimum lake level criteria as follows: For na'tural lakes having a
, surface area greater than 5 acres and/or a volume of 15 Acre Feet or ' ,'
more, the minimum level is assumed to be a level• at the lake's natural
outfall. (It is recognized that natural outfall of a lake may not
correspond to a surface overflovr but could relate to the .perr�eability
of the geologic formations creating the lake.,) ,
• Prepared by
' , ' WRIGHT t��ATER ENGI��EERS, IWC.� �
• .January, 1977
NUTE: The numbers specified on these maps have been.adopted by the
• Colorado Water Conservation Board. .Since the County is under-
. • taking an independent analysis of the adequacy of these values, .
� ' . the .County reserves the right to revise these numbers upward. '
. � ;
� . .
. . : ;:,:�..
... . _ _... ..,...._.�...,„...._. _ .��I ..,__,__ "_' _ _..___ .
,,
� SUPPLEt1ENTAL REPORT 70 THE � � '
� � I RRI G/�TEL� LANDS � . • .
. . . . OF � .
� . � PITKIN COUNTY
This written description is to accompany, and is part of., 'four maps �
entitled, "Irrigated Acreagcs tlaps for Pitkin CounCy". The maps and •
descriptionshave becn prepared for the purpose of facilitating implement-
. ation of the Pitkin County Land Use�Code (Sections 2,22 and 5.09).
The extent of land that has been irrigated in Pitkin County toas
estimated by use of aerial photo inspection and limited field inspection.
The maps also show. lands that have been taken out of irrigation in � '
recent years and cqnverted to municipal and/or domestic type land use.
. � • •
• _ • Prepared by �
! � � WRlGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC. �
. ' ' - ' January, 1977 . .
1 • • •
� •
i � . �
i � . • . �
i • ' • .
, .
� • , -
I � , ..
i -
. .
� .
i . _ , • .
� ;.y: _�, . ' .
� � r SUPPL[�1ENTAL REPORT TO THE • . �
1 . � . GROUPIDI��TER GE�L�GY MAP .
� OF
� PITKIP� COUNTY �
� PURPOSE AND SCOPE � • , .
� The purpose of the Groundwater resources maps is two-fold: 1) to �
identify the major groundwater aquifers and 2) to identify critical
ground�aater recharge areas and areas where groundrlater recharge contributes
� to base flows of the streams. The four maps are to be used as a tool to
• facilitate the interpretation and implementation of the Pitkin County
land Use Code (Sections 2.22 and 5.09). . • .
Critical Recharge A�ea as mapped on the groundwater resources map
means an area of land possessing such geological characYeristics as render
. the surface of the area a prime factor in the maintenance of the ground-
• water cycle and in the maintenance of the adequacy of groundwater and
surface v+ater svpplies wfiich are capable of, or are currentiy being put '
to beneficiat use. • '
Mlajor Groundwater Aquifer as mapped on these grotindwater resources
' maps means any water-bearing stratum or zone below surface of the earth
• �which significantly contributes to surface flow or groun'dwater supplies.� .
GENERAL • �
' The basic methodotogy used was that of hydrogeological interpretatian .
of published geologic maps. The interpretation of these maps has beew
• aided by well logs found in the files of thc Colorado Division of tlate� � .
. �Resources and by past geophysical and hydrogeological experience in the
County. ' �
Due to the geologic nature of most of the consolidated bedrock units,
Lhe alluvial deposits have been considered the most important materials for
both recharge catchment areas and aquifers. In most cases, the bedrock
units have relatively jow primary porosity. Runoff is generally rapid
artd therefore .the areas where these un+ts�are exposed have been considered
• secondary recharge areas and secondary aquifers. It should be noted,
however, that in most�cases ihe ability of the surface materials to accept
• water and to yield water are site speeific. For exomple, the alluvia{
materials may, in some cases, be very fine g.-ained and retard infilitration
and yield very little water �ahile a specific fracture system in the
� bedrock may receive and yield acceptable quantities of good quality water.
Recharge Areas - Unconsolidated Materials '
Thc unr_Cfl50IliI�[od ��.;tcri�ls in Pi�kin �Co�:nly can Ue dividcd into
v,�r.. ., , �1. :r. . .-:•� .. . .. .. (I) � , :r alluvi,um - �•�aLer d�,�u�itcd '
+::.�:�rial,� (,'.) c�>�Iluvi���,. (3) `ill����ial f:�n�:', .•��Sits, (h) nl:•cial drr�sits
. . �;) ...!•... . . ,.i , .'i _- . � ,. . .i, . . :ii :f t;,..:r_ i,�ai�•iials h�s a
.�. . . . � . ' ' . . .. . ' • . . . , _•i ty. 'L,.•n r�,ns i�lvr�ng
. ..' , . , . .., :. . : . .. �t: •�s _., ....,�. .
i � .
{ ' ' . .
. 7hesc materials gencrally scrvc as catchmcnt arcas for bofh rai�fall
`' and sno�•+mclt. Some of the materiais whicfi lie at thc higher clevations
are draincd of water cluring parts of the ycar. The most important contri- �
• bution of thc highcr elevation dePosits is that of a dclaYed contribution
to aquifer rech�rge and base flow of arca strcams. Snot�nnelt percolates
downward into these unconsolidated materials. When a zone of saturation i.s
reacficd or established, movemeni is do+an gr.adient of the a�ater tabTe. '
7hi5 movement is rclatively slow, depending upon the grain size and degree '
' of consolidation of the material. !n many cases, the water makes its way .
into the streams during the�critical fall and winter low flow periods.
Recharge Areas - Bedrock � ' . ,
i
A number of bedrock units exist in.Pitkin County. Individual evaluation o�
the recharge contri6ution of each of these units is beyond the scope of this
analysis. In 9eneral, the Dakota Sandstone bedrock unit stands �
out above the others •with regard to infiltraCion and recharge capacities.
The Dakota Sandstone is composed predominatly af�a gr.ay quartzose
� sandstone. This unit is generally hard and contains a pebble conglomerate
with shale and siltstone beds near the midd)c of the formation. 7he
Dakota has moderate primary porosity and can be expected to receive . ,
infiltration and store groundt•tater. This is also true in some areas not
indicated on the maps, e.g. where the Dakota•is overlai.n by alluvi.al
deposits. Water percolates througfi the alluvium and into the Oakota
and is then stored. � _ . .
A number of�other f.ormations may also serve as �recharge areas. The
• Mancos Shale and the Mesa Verde Formation may provide local recharge
due to faulting, etc., but overall should not be considered as major , .
' � • recharge.areas. - -
It should be noted that at high elevations.a number of imporlant .
, , small recharge areas are found. 7o map these areas ��rould necessitate
considerable time in the field. Therefore they are not show� on the
. recharge map. Each i�dividual area contributes a small amount of �•�ater; �
fiowever, the combined contribution is large to.both base flow and aquifer
� recha�ge. lt appears that this critica) recharge zone exists above an
elevation of about 9,$00- feet. These areas receive large amounts of
precipitation and contribute mostly to springs. . ' .
Ayuifers - Ailuvial Aquifers_ , •
' As previously discussed, the all�vium varies considerably throughout
� Pitkin County. Water yielding characteristics also vary greatly. In .
�• general, where the alluvium is saturated, domestic supplies can be
� obtaJned. Along the Roaring Fork River, pumping rates of 250 gpm and
higher have been obtained from a number of alluvial wells. This is also
' the case along the Crystal Rive�. ln the smaller stream valleys, 60 gpm
' has been obtained. Hi9her yields might be obtained in the smaller
valleys, ho��ever, to date few users have aYtempted to develop larger
supplics. Tliese supplies would also be exp�cted to fluctuaYc seasonally.
l:��lcr ,,�::lity in lhc all�evi;in v,3rics. P,leng t'�c .°•^.�ring Fork Valley
.�:��•... •.�l 15 1�... . ..•; ..���nt,_.;d !�:,�•d .nt•.r :�i th I•��r:i�:rl is�c iYc� ::n:� ri.�r��::ni.se
•c: '.r� . , . .i 1�, . `� . :!•i :j. .. :�t tu ?'•, riti::r � .�.�r.tlly pr�,du�_�
� 1�i�. r . .ii •y� .. , i•. ��;. . i . _ �, _ . .•�li , � . .. .:rir�i � .�rk. Tnis "
.` . .... . .. .. . . ... . �. , ' . i., ._ ,:1:. `; .. ,� .', ..� �:i,.':k.
-���
. .__. ._. .. . . _ ' . . . ... _..._...__.v__ .._. ., ;
Aquifers - Bedrock Aquifcrs• • .
; . The same overail classification of aqui.fers has been established as '
�' , for recharge a�cas. The Dakota Sandstone has proven to be the best
� producing member of the bedrock units. Water production from wells .
tapping the Dakota has bcen found to be in excess of 50 gpm. The water
� quality is normally acceptable; ho�aever, in localities taliere the Dakota
is found at depth and distant from the recharge area, the quality has
been found to be unacccptable. The Dakota Formation can also be tapped
� for water supply where it is not exposed at the surface. In numerous . � .
' localities the Dakota is found underlying the Mancos Shale at shallow
depths. When this is the case, good quality is attainable. Wells '
penetrating otlier bedrock formations �vary greatly in yield and quality.
• The Mancos Shale, t•ihich is generally a low producer, (less than '
;. 1 gpm) has been found to produce yields in excess of 50 gpm. In some
instances good quality water is found. tn other localities very high . ,
- sulfate concentrations have been encountered. .The same has been found
' true for the Mesa Verde Formation. The Mancos could produce high yields
• of good quali.ty'vrater in fracture zones where a source of recharge is
•• connected to"the fracture system. The F1esa Verde has relatively good .
primary porosity; however,the water quality is generally poor unless a
recharge source is nearby. . •
; ' : • Prepared By. • . -
• WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
. January, 1977 • • ..._.. ' •�
f
_ �.�., �..�.� �.W��.�.
;' � � .
�; - . .
• . s �Ot e = �o� • l D �► . �:
. . . ./�� ��-�' ._ . � .P / .. . . _... .
f . � :
��k .' -• . � GROUNDWATER GEOIOGY BIDLIOGRAPHY ' . '
i� , bc�iin.E.S. 1975.O.xn.�irm C,n[u,CT.r's R. 1971.77�e �lolmn,K'.1{. Ik76.Rtpo:t o0
. on drc�icfi�?.�r o�c�of A�;an, L�olo�y of d,c Liocoln G�IcA tl.c jaok;r uf�'�c nmil.>c:ticm '
Cu!o�.do tkc►,PiM1in counly:Cofundo poni�n of t6a;:�1&�nte -
, • • Dn�in,E.S. 1915.06xnaticm (.tatr.] 11o+r11,Jr.c Y. t919.7�in
on t}�t ri.���i:.cr mn olA+r<n. • Grl�ic.W.A. It92.No�a�on� . I�la Gi�vict of Coivra.}o;i�le
. . Cu'o:�do � �put fif.srump ��P:�fin:omdict '
� . 6oyd,F�ed 5..lr. 1937. Devuaue,W.B. Ikt�.Noin on 1nCji.Amir Cow�en�. 1?SS.Tht
I � • • Rr:onnux�nct o�A.c As;eo ironoie dr,+iiu in Pi:1in G�uary Grolo�y of�be;tonlrrn Iewdo
� � uu.incla��j L�:Smu,-,tic1 DonnAl.)ohn R. ISSI.Tanjur of A�c�,Y:d,in Couuty.Celo:a.lo
' Dfinej Fii.in Counq,Ccloudo WQcr inJs:er.e ia b!,:000 lrvin�.l.A. 1911.Rr,�Lcemrol�
. _ ' , 8rew�q Lyno A. 19)4 fonnclion nur G�bn:sic�nd orc•ltE7n�nd tSe er'tcria foi
� En[inecrir.�tenlo�Y:Ci.�ide � Redr�one,ao�t4•�n:ara Cotu:ilo � tt�c7r ra:r�.�ition .
; ' . lunrcl.Lite aad S�Ain cournier, Doir.dl,lofin R. 1955.Celir.j Kemp.l.F,. 13!9.Qvi�e Uom
� , Cofou�o . coil Cc�s��of fhtin Counq, ti:!'�o
Ownton.D.W. 18f.l.A�xo Cclundo Knopf,Adolpk 19:6.Cvrcnt
pfounL•in,i:s oirs�nd thcir mtric E�ROn�S.F. ISSR.Prdlm��xy d��-��P����v in thc A,�-Kn
' of ax�auunce no�cs on A�t<n,Colonio ' . d:svic�C�7ondo .
Z Hq�ant,Hnec. IS59.Gcolcyic Em.nons,S.F. IL91.O�scrip::on L•lrs,.lr.hw. IL'e7.�:oi�gy of
. � • mng of tt.c b::iton tclb of Wc Cik.'.foual�iru thc Aspcn:ir.ir.t rre:on
. ' . qud:ant,e.Piiiia ar.d Gunniwn . �lcs.Anhur. 1.96.T7�e�cobty' .
E M.Fot h Asx,c�etei 197!' of As'<n enJ�la roatiri�ru
• Cnu�tics,Cclnaio �
Ro�rinj Fort end G�t_J ciCcys; �i.���� ��
, � ' • Hryznt,P.nxa 19:0.Gcofajie C in Ue Sru- u roine�t
� m:p e(tf.c 1teyGcn Puk . �n cm'iroir.xn�l:nd cr.ti.-,:crint thc li��c o(t.`.c tlre
. �rokay study;Eeylc,Ga�c�d, (,�tn,Ilnhua ISOI.A ici:an oo� �
' ' qcsCrnej;e,Fiilin and Guanison Gur.niwn md Pi�tin Cnunticf, •
�; Pitti!n Ceentl eeee:ics,Co'oi+do Colondo Gults:Sle:ch of i\e Aepen
' � AluaaEcq^aul 8. 15SE. � Dryen[,Cwc 197t.Groio�ia ninia��qiun in e�Sich�Sc d4!U
a Ceo�hysitnl c.�esli�xliom ei17�ie m+p of:he At�en C"elfen6lq Folnod..\'er.r.eth A. 196l. . . of f_d::ni io t7:t�st�aa6 itill
�r • Pi�lin Ceu.: Swcw�e enC pcUOleer of the oin en.ere t`o-a
�hc Cotor.do:.:�ud Fvlt cs:a; Y.Cc:o:rdo Z L
ne�'inGv:ti.t e:ce(ru.e�nclie Bryan(Sru;c 197I.Gcho�ie 4foe�t So;rs Sttek,Pi�liu Lxin,ArtSur. 14JE.SluCy o!
� inslrv�rcr.L•tion ntp.of ihe Uijh?and P<ak� �Couatr.CoSondo(r.Ts.� LaolcEinl f_ulp in s:a fSu:e diJ4
Allcn.l�ck C 145d.i�.n::�:r.� Q�ulrar�k.Pid in Counry. Fmc.r.sq V.1 L 1971. Gla,Anhw. 1S17.Eftcc•s nf
'r aon�cm;ornr.:��rifi Coloc•do Sa_tijnpt,y of tbc Sbtt D:Ejc Isn'uliEn in c:r.i_�uyiou .
� <myL:cnant o(en��i.o.-.il Sp•�r.t,Eruca 19]2.1!:p sF.o'-in� Fu:-aUCa in�Ac�t•n+:y Crcck «srtn and thc Stnli:.n)
! piu�o�.Elk AfC�r.ai�J.Ce'e:ilo • •r<:3 0(selec�ed;vtcnlial Qendua�te,Fiitin and L•Ele Lr,gcaE:i�n.Ralpfi L.Jr. f 452
���.] LcaleF;c hrurCs in ihc AsFen .coun�in.Ce:onJo , , Fcr,myl.�eni_�end Fcrrr.:sn
Anonymovz ILS9.Gcalc�y of��e � Q:�•rrerizte,Fi:Lin Counq, ;y����iM�•nl L }97?.G<ulo�ie flnt�yn;-`�y ef tF.e Elk RentC
Asp:n r..ir.inL cls:riet(r_vi:r) Cdoredo . map of tSt lx'�u!y Creek �1e:+Ao,ptel:m�nvy re�.�R
Aaon��n�ut IS:O.1Tt Sil�a Bq�rn4 2-'�e. f917.At:p shorir,f qu:.nndc.Pi�lin iad&tle ['t"tr.J .
■raL•nchc ur��in Ihc As a �-+�:rr.h<i:n,Rafph 1_,Jt. I953.
Sfincs o(:itlio i< co�ntia.ColcrsQo ' Co�uL:ion of tSc 7.fnr000
A:fcnJ•:aous. ISVl.DividcaEs pcid Qcr dr�tic.Pitfin Ca�nty. , G�nncu,H. 169f.Rou7u of formrtion ia tht Cqs=J Fi�cr
Or IO:OCS 111 FMLr,lqJ:l::i/l � CC.O:lGO pric:sry T�ier.lu':tioa Vet!cy.Gunnisan.Ciilin.ind
Y-LicS Lr:i:=7?�1 . 8ryan4 Rn+:c. 19)].1•!�p�ho�+n� .
Anon)�nous. 'IA�1.San.r._ry of Cro�nC•.atn{vtenlisl in ihe G stil�Cevid L �1966.G:cicrje �i°J�'d Cauatica,Ca(r��o
Out;�t of�.!irasia in3 b:r.�h As,�-n Qc.!�xr.�ls.PitFin Rsp o!�he A!���1e Q.adur.yle, t��i'�.� .
`... . fro:n Diffcrcnl Coantin o( - County,Co7or�3o Cumi!on�nd Pitlin CnuaGcs, U'��cr.}.cim,Ra!ph L..Jt. ISS<.
Color�do � 8q•eal Ecv:e. 197i.tfep aDoaint Ca!onQo Ce;rQ.tioa of h:u:�n�Fo:rct:oe
�r:iin, �n;�tf,:nd a�:ss o( in Cp•�:-1 P.ivcr vrlky.Gcr.�ison,.
, Anr.itsEt.!{.E IES9. D Cury,Dc�'cy N.,Jr. 1971.tiast � Piikin ar,d GTcld Cc�r.tin, .
Cenee��e�i?�ellea•'�^Ge orta signS_nt r'Irer.ir_4.end aine . .Tunnd tae��o:iva hclory Co!o::Co ' ' �
Bnilc �E.H.S ILSO.°frnt4u P:w'ucitc.n in thc/S;^n �,
r• Ga.•�tin,Cwr H. ISSl.Geetu�ie �n�en.eim.RefpS L..Jr. 1917.
4� ' d_�a"Ywn Colt.rndo�e'ev.� Qcrdrxn�le,Pitlin Ceunly. ry .
� @nifcy.E.H.S 1591.Oo . Cofmsdo mEp of�S.c R.sir Ffuuntsin lur..v7c stretilrz;�y in Elt
' F.a!e�rictiSle or fcelbct a!an,fwm Oq•eni,C�vte. I f11_5;:�sloGinj 4�'��-r.tle,Cunr.ivo end Pi�kin Sfa•ur.L•in�,FnFCC�vnl Co1o:cCo �
j � P::t3a Co�aty.Co'.aredo rdeteve u�af nca�o�ion in�he Cwn6m.Celom�o tic.1�•i1Gs'f?�o�r_s. IS99.
Bariie;���.8.L ISbE.Pcr:nFeL � As;en Quc��n�le,Pi�tio Hants,Ted L IS57,Gcolo�y ind Grlo�y of L4e Ar<a mir.�nj
' " c�d Per.ns�`se�ien�tnti;:e� Coon� Cu1or_do eual Qc'�fits,°e:•C:�C.lau C•s7riet[reriew) .
� ). A4 1. � �• -i Lou�S7in,Gcrnld Francii 1909.
� �nQ n.�.rcncle!-.�c,Efk . . 2q•1nq Cn.ce 1977.f•!np s`orin� TSoLL�u_�erc�,Picli�a�d O�c Qiy;.si�ion at A�:n,
F!ew:�%m,Color.-o • �c._u�t j<`r..r_:ility of rocls.cnd G��nn:un Cc��niin,Co!p:zdo ,Cuior_do
6�-L�eoa,8.L I5)i.Pcrc�r �urfc:_I Cr�n�u ot�he Asjcn ftsu,t.Fo;crs A. 145�. . L.ov�uEY.L D. 141 f.Ur.��ateria{ .
� fen�:jl'.�aTan f'v�ti�iySy end Qu_Lnr.tl<,F�tYin Co�nry, Stu:itrs;Sy:nd Fakc.-tr.�atY of. lhe s�.er�iino of A>;<u
1 . fiL•:a:y cf�ne Cr.�c.-d B�ne. • Cal.ve.lo • p_�;,;ina Roc1s in f:a e(�•nt ��ecf ny,4a li, tSSJ.Gcal;•y of
1f�a Rr�iou °por.�Sluce. 1972.}::p shoaini Ccr.:ral Coforn3e;F.:lin,Ejlq ��c T3olr._s�ille•\Y�+ds L•Ley
Iy�s c�:<dicct and!efcid snd G,r51.d Coor�.da• uaa,E!jle ond Pi:6in Coar.I�e{
� 6c�o::b in dm.S!�cn yinrich,Grl. 1FE7.6�f.ulttA Ca:or:do . .
i • � � Qwdr:.n;Je.Pittin Ca�nty, . � ASeeKey.4•n H. ISSJ.Gco'u�y af .
Colo�eQo . fisswe e:ways d.c olLn�.•a e7udy �}e 77:wnas.ilic•��'pad�Lele
Sq:n1,C:uce. 1472.Slc�x ir.sp nf of l.v1u
Arce,E:yle erd litlin Cuoaiin,
I �Ae A;+�Qcd�cn�le,Fi�tin Ncnrich,Csd !£!9.t:o�n en the Can:sdo �
I . Ceuaty.Ce:cr.do L�olnty ceE 4n forr.e cf�!�e ,l!�IIC'qO�W.G. l911.Conmcn • .
� . Cs,^..;bell loha A. 19i2.Lo+�er n.inn of As<<n�!nun��tn,Ilttin f<r.:u�^cf�?rer dis:.ieu %
Pdrolnic sj�lcr..f.157i1c Rira Co::n�y,Celor�so - Af�;tcaa,1V.G. l917.Gcr,oi:of i
Plcwu Hdt�,R.C S�ES.!:mc�cn fhe +8c<r C;;:siu �
� ' Ctmytcll 1o}•n A. 1^7i raetnl dito+ery uf netvnl�ef io h:e:Ir.oq W.G. 191J.7;ir,ueY � 1
Pc�:o7v�y c(tLc qm:;+cu Pitlin Co•�H • � " co:�nJa tu i:lv«fc,�siU
. ' - s:nt�[oac ef��e Cs:�int ' r " '
• Fo:e�ntiva ia�cel e:nud . IIiC�,R.C' 1Ft6.Ren:�rla oa�fie �"'�il'c eni/.�p:n) . I
e<cu:ur.ce oi ec.d i�6e . �::"'�•W.t. 1S?S.7Lc lisi.a��ou .
Cotcr_do c(�7��at cro Ly 4`.c FuucU t
' G^;•;cll.Ai.R I912 . GrL�aifeteea W�.aetiun e�A;�u
, p:u:aq at A!�n(c�i�h
h
Cor,u?u�ir.e�o Eto�omie sad Glcao�d S;Snp� ['uc�ioa� . . i
Geolery:.`.::s:dL•aeou Ane!�xf IiulT.eci�.J.R �E75.TEe Gu:d Almu,W.S. 1597.Ti:e li�iric5oe ,
�of CcJ Sir.p'n p�m V.ria� Bdl or r�:�tn�-a e�-:,s�o cf ru�er amly�!,e FaxU
Fie7la ol Cr U.S Co�au�s;\!incs Da.:i�d prc:ns et.l�;.n(E'.rc�funJ ' i
". � • ' ' Dibli�y�np}ya�d fnd:x of Co:ur;�o Gtolojy
. ' • . • • • i
. • . .' . . - -. . • . . � - _.� � ' - • ----,-�� _ :. . . . . . .
� .
. , �
(' ' _ . • . ,
4 , . . .
i . . • • � • .
� • . ' .
! � � � !
� , . , .. ...1'ilkin Cuun�Y .. . . _ .. . ... .......__. . , ..�__.�.... . ... . ._....c.:.i'__ ....._......�...._.. ........_
��•� +•• • . }.fumr.F.N. IS(a.Str.d¢npfir Smi�h.!.All,cn. 1SL7.Ftnn on �hn Tinq Anhm B. 19)9. . � •
� �nA Struatunl fre!i�GY of�Le �lm d:.dnrmcn�of itc r�innd, Cor.:ir.enul Roeat.il R�Sr�nA •
I • � • Gund IlotEack!.funttlinr(Rio r..nalLntiol.n��icufiunl. Tiqan Ln�w Irut.P�o+rn . •
� IILnto,GnfidA,Pitl.iry�nd pe{twel,.nd o�hu�nov�ei�of c��mr,ca�u..eo � '
� - G�mnEwn•CpuntinJ,f_Aondo ' Cota:ac�a fur th;ycus)6E)�nd Voc�cli;f:ul T.,56 19f-0, '
� ' hluluhlet.f dia E 1970. � 1b6I • . � Rcco�d�enE ictt of xlreiaE�elb • � � �
1 Ccotcyie mep of 11.e Sno�'mt�� Sp.r. 1661.A��rn.Iht E.xminj �nd t<st fioln,�nd�Acmital�nd '
ibSowuin quxC:entic,Piitin�nd f.n.p of fn�ornAo uCroir.:�rie enel��is of Eiou� ' ' ,
� C_nnison e�untio,Cutu:.do �pu:r,Jc:iah E 169b.Geoto�r of •'.�cr,Pw+m Cnumy,folondo .
t:ed:�u,Je�:ph. 197].• thc As;:n minir.�Qisl�ic4 V«�rli,P.ul T.,S�. 1965.
Metisvpa:�n stn�ilupby of C�to:.do Groloyy�nd po�nd-•ner
«nlnl Co!ando Spurt,)o�i.h E 1909.Ore rcaou�cn of Proucn Coun:
i Fcn.'.cld,S:�au:l L IS97.On Q�r�.y���on�t A�cn,Colorsdo� Colo:zdo r� .
poly6�itc d�d Irn.^.entiit Gnm 5 R'�kntt.CF.�do D. 1E97. • .
� . . purt.Ima�E 19D9.O�e ,
�hc:.totlie Gtson mir.c in As�xry dc,�ar,i�ion at A��cn.Celo�edo Trisniub�ion md spirit 1c.ciinj
Culondo '�7�ecicr,Miched M. 1967. .
Pcnficld.Samucl L 1892.Ou «�art
I Gcolesy of<as�cm�ortion, K'ct1s.F.P. )973.l'u o(Fnitn •
polyD:site aad tcnnsn�iu from Difkrcn<c Art•
I ti.e Sio:lic Gi:fo�minc in Asjt4 . Ce�E:.nCel<fyaclinc,Pitlin_,. � )'s of OD.m�ation
' ' Canr.ty.Cdw:Go[als.j \P�IIs to FKims�e . .
Co1c�:eCo�e sv.�, Ton�c,Thomrs. 1[97.Somt Eve�otonfpintion Frem�i:nund •
Ftnficld,S:��el L It9I.Oo im;onant minin�tnnn�ls in � W.icr in�Te Ar►a•:�s Fi�cr
' pol�.>site and Icn.;�r.�i�e from • ' VaTic
' - �hc\tollit Gi:•.on r..inc in As�<n. �bndo Y.Colondo • .
GuloreJo jnDsv.] Tonye.Thoma. (n.d.).Colo:ado' ' , • .
PcnSdd,Sm,ud 1. JEiS.On' mincral�cwurccf • .
' r<uctite.i tul�..`,r�nite of U.S.Dcpnrun<nt of A�ric�ltur� � .
� sil.•ct.tnd on�fia crysbllimlEoa 1913.\t',yiie Ri.cr\:iion�l ' ,
of{vl�r_�ite Foras�,Celondo
. Pcnficld,Samucl L ILSl.On Vn�dcnilt,lohn W,.1935. . _ .
I . y:auci�c,a su'p}cncr.i�c of . Rcviiioo oCstruclum and . '
�l.cr.snd on the crys�fGuiion ftr_ti�nphy of the Asran Qis�ritt, . .
! of�vlybnsi�t ' Cotu�rCo,end iu taerint on Ihe
Pil:int�on.Iltiold D. ISS<.• orc E:raiu ' . .
• biour.t Sopris�stc�t,Pi�lio Vendc�..�ilt,lo.`.n W. 19+2.Te '
• Ca_•nry,Color_do(tt•sv:J Aepcn m7�inl dia�ric�,Cc'u:ado .
Pilkintlon.Il:�old D. 195�. {•cndc��il�.JoSn W. (I?�7]. • .
� • T<�royr.phy xnd Pctrolc�y o(� . Az�<n and�Se Ro:ring Fork �
; Pert of\fovn�Scrris Slcct, ' �'.f1<y . ' .
. Pirk�n Cnunty,Colo:ado �'anAcn+�ilt.lobn W. 1969.Thc ' . •
Pel:tck,S:rrDcn G. ISL9. qs<<n m:r,inj d:sirict,Coloreao •
iFatrolney end stnrcr re uf�he � Polin.61.E. 19`.0.Inv:sti�.tions - .
Snew•m:ss Ctcct Plu!on.Fi!1in of Smu�;lcr I�r.d-ii�c minc, +
, ' Counly,Cn;oreQa�c.`ntt.) Asi<M`�����Ctunty,Co'.ursdo � � � �
Peo�r,F.G. 195�.G�nlu,�,y of the p•;����� S�cr�an R. 156E. '
..... . ' $nuA.un GranQ Hcg:.�.ck Arct, �tclimiasp•rcNn on thc E<ofo`r . • . . •
' Ga�dE and Pillia Couniics; of U�c m.oSy:Ecai�e devsis al • . • •
Co?o:.do � FcJ A:ocnu7n.Dalyiaininj . .
� Prs�2,<r.TT.nmu L<ESh. IS6�. • distriat.Col�r>do(aF.s.) . . • - • • ' .
� Su.�i:uphy:nd Sui•ctcid py�cr�:.+n,NcrS:rt Dout�ss. 1955. ' ' '
� G<el�ly o(rt�c Elk�!oi:o�im Gco!ogy of tAe A:h.�nfc Arct, '
I �� (1'itLin znd G�:�.:i:on Coc:�ics), - .
� � Co.orado Pitt;n Coenty.Celo:ndo .
. Ricicrd,Fo:S:s. 1SN.Colo�+do µ�0�"O•C'�OtL°E 19SJ.Gcob�y � ,
in:y03 •of�A:P.es.d�/.r<�.Ee�le end � .
� Riulon,Jem<s B. I95�. Fi:kin Coon�i:s,Cala:�do . . • ,
nli' � e!P�{ce�tolo of WEI!ie�rs,C.P. IRU.Ci:slcd
S� s�•4••Y ar
7Ae Cclden Fr.mz�ian Cu�ie minint eemr
� (°cnnsyl�.r.ic�)in('sn et�t'<st Younl.Js�ncs C 19'0.A
i . Ceet:al ColwrEu:PiU.in�nd n:oylrcinl c}ranot<•6Y fm�fie � . . _
E��IC Coua�icy Ind�rndcn:e Pass ein(S:v.•eteh . .
• Roi'n,Austin Flin� 1>A6. reny-),Cotn:do�nFn6 6�apM ' .
9r>uni�e fwr_`•no'�neu,Pi!►ia •Ihceretit dx�:ifiee:ion mctheds . �
i_ Cour.�Y.comr:eo � r.o..n co��� . .
� Fotcrs./.uiir.iline 19<6: D�no.CaJe Uanift�n. 197�. � .
8�ecni:e Gom Saow'ir.ass,PiQin .
j • ' Coun�y,Culo:�Go• • Fos�il sick ho7n in Gatnccom � � .
Rolrta,l.mtia)lint is:s. . t�e��r r�o.���co��q, . �
6rcuniic hom Sao�•u+zss,Pitlin Ccln��do
' • Cusnly.Ce:a_do(e:+�t.] • D�ne.GAe,lfsr.�iNon. 19J4 � . '
` Ful�fint.D.P. 19Jl.7`.e ' F�nfl sir.t kuln in Cre�.�tcoua ' .
� C�lo:_Co mnc�cl::li end Ae . � k_4 of Pio�cn Co�a�r, . . . . .
C�tu::do iSitr. � "
� At�.n niniai di�uic4 Pi�lin••� • � � • . . . .
Co�nty,Colo:rdo Y.an:nvda,Omer 5. 197�. .
! &l��aie.Gcortc:Sc1.ia t9?0. tnll�:nre of tTe prt- ' f .
�:. . Pse•rdC•tututie I<a�wu Per.r.:j�I.rr.iia wcmdormiiy op .
Scon,Kcwnrth E 1SS�.Fr�n� dr�.si�icn of�:oiroW San.'.s:onc • . � • �
i rnd AI<u(I,orlrillc 1-i�..nlone in Kio�a,Oeat,and P�oecn � , , .
(1:inir.:;�ba)in P:rt of�`:.sl. Coumin,wcifi�:�t l'<!orrAo. ' . , .
� Ccntnl G•to:r�o;P::lin>nd �IG!.c��.aA.IV.F. 19Cq. ' . . , '
F.e;'c Cc.ca:�a . .D�nr�.nioa rnd ycin:itati.s .
. � Sir}e�,LaonuA D. I::D.Tl�e acunv�.rr of.�a:.i.:iu:n�nd � � , �. .
. �colo�y af t2�c A��<n,C..lwado, . mn:�:•::r.un in�.vtf uf�he ' . . . . .
crc 1ry�tiu Uni�ad 5'up . � ��
Cou�ty Ir..fc■ • , . •-^ '• ... �. ,. � , . • � .
• .. ... , �
. ' �
_....... • . . __............_._.__._'_.__.._.....___....�.-_._.__'_____�__"'_'.___'"_'"'...__.___._.._._._.. .. V
, i .
, . aPPeuoix.a � , . ;
. . . �
AMl'llUl�f.I1TS 70 SCCTI01! 5.09, 4ll1TCR RESOURCC•S 1t1PACTS� INCORPUItATII;G !
' � � ��
, . . . i
Delete Section 5.09.02 b. and replace with the follov�ing: �
. . . �
b. 1rri��tcd Area • • i
1. In addition to complying'rrith Section 5.06, any �
� � applic��i�n sFiall sl��o�•r that th� devciopment proposal
will not «dversely affect tiin_ adequacy uf I:t�e � . '
supply uf }rater•available fbr the irrigation of
� � • , the agricultural lands �•ritfiin the County sho��m as
. . "historically irrigated lands" on the maps, and ' �
suppler.:ertal report, entitled "Irrigated lands of •
' � PiLkin County" (4lright 4later Engineers, January 1977).
• .
� 2. Any application sha11 further sho�•� that the �roposed
� ' dev°loprrent t•�i 11 not adverse�y affect the er.ercise of '
• any exisiing an� decreed irri�ation «ater right on .
the �historically irrigated;;,�nus�•{ith•in thz County . . '
, • sh�:•in on the ma�s re�er.red to�U��.siibsection b.l. ,
above. : • � � �-,'�� ' '�:`• .
� J
3. "Adversely affect" as used in this Section 5.09.02
' . means to cause a reduction in the amount, duration ' '
• . or quality o� the su;?�ly of r:ater available to
. , satisfy an existing ti•rater use, or an alteration•
• ' of the historic pat�ern of e�ater availability for
an existing 4•�ater use. _ �
• . Delete Section 5.09.02 c. and•replace viith the follotiing: ,
• , c.. Groundwater Resources . �- � ' • .
. Any ap�lication shall show: � " � .�
. ' 1. That the proposal t•�ill not cause undue inter- �
• . • • ference �vith any critical recharge area or ►•:i±h
! � any major e�round�:ater aquifer as depicted on
` maps;�and supplemental report, entitled "Ground
� Water Geology Piap of Pitkin County" (1•lrigh� • . �
� Water Engineers, January 1977). .
� .
; . : � 2. That the proposal w.ill not cause ground�•�ater
j . _ ' withdrar:als ���hich interfere t•rith compliance � •
I with other policies and regulations of this '
f . ' • • Code concernin9 4vater supply, ►vater quality, .
) drai nage, o►• �•�i th the exerci se of any seni oi�
; . decreed ►aater rights.
j � �
. 3. "Undue Interference" as used in this Section
' � 5.09.02 mcans th� creation of a condition or an '
� • activity ►•:hich t•rill diminish the suitability of . '
j land that is a critical reUiarge area or a riijar .
groimd�v,�Ler acquifei- for thaC purpose, regard-
; less.of �rh��re the condition is created or tlie
� • activiCy u::curs. Th:� crcation of a con�li l ion
I• • • or an activity incTudes, withaut limitation, thc
pa��in� a�• othcr sealinq of tl�e sin•face of l�nd: -
I ' , t�IC C�iS4�0:+i1� of tra$�l� Od�'���lt�(`• SCi'd}7� SL`I�d�C,
ptiniiin �:�istrs or toilinq: causing a reductiun
in thr ��miuutt ur durltion c�f the sup��ly oi watcr
' , �1Yi11�.1����• �U S.ltl�l.)' d11 t`\I':lltul nl'OUIIi�Yl.l1�`t' USl!; ,
' • nr altrriu�► Ih� hi:,?��rir p.itl�•rn: ,Zad a��ail.�l,ilit'y � � .
, . of a�,►tc�r ui' �in �r�ist irnl �i�•o�n�,!;;�trr usc.
. � '
. Delete Section 5.09.02 d.] iv and d.2 and replace with the following:
. • Subsection d.l. . � •
' . ' 'i
iv. Further reduction in•the level of a natural or J
recreational man-made lake if the level of that , •
' lake is already below the minimum acceptable level.
• !
. v. The "minimum acceptable flow" for natural streams, �
and the "minimum acceptaale leve7" for'natural �
or recreational man-made lakes, as used in this
' Sect•ion 5.09.02, shall be determined from the map,
. and supp7ementa7 report, entitled "14inimum Stream . '
' . Flow and Lake Level Ptap for Pitkin County" (lJright
Water Engineers, December 1976). Note: These numbers
• have been�adopted by the Colorado.Water Conservation
� Board. Since the County is undertaking an indepen- .
. dent analysis of the adequacy of these values; the �
. County reserves the right to revise these numbers �
upward. • •
2. In the event the map and supplemental report
referred to in Subsection l.v. above should fail
' to establish the minimum acc�eptable flow in a .
� natura] stream or the minimum acceptable level in
• •a natural and recreational man-made lake, •then such
, " minimum acceptable flow or level .shali be iden- .
tified by reference to factors including, but not � .
� • limited to, the follorring: .
• , i, Satisfaction of existing water uses; .
� • ii. Aesthetic impact upon foreshore areas and
• dewatered stream channels created by the
reduction cf stream flow or lake level; and
• iii. Maintenance of desirable popu7ations of .. '
� - - acquatic animal tife, particularly game .
� � . fish, determined by the Board with the
_ cooperation, when availabie, of the
County Director of Recreation and agencies
• " • of the State and Federal governments.
i • � . •
i - � � �
� • . • • • .. ,
i •
, • . • .
i . . . .
.
; .
;'� � . .
. :
�. .
l . . .
_ , , . . .
'
. i
OCTOQER, 1974 !
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNIN6 AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE GENERAL GOALS AND OaJECTIVES OF '�� oF co. con��R�s
PITKIN C0.
, SNOWMASS-CAPITOL CREEKS CAUCUS Public EXHIBIT
. � • Dato �
Sub�ect ___�T�.�M���� �l
Er.h. xo -7�0
WHEREAS, the Snowmass-Capitol Creeks Caucus has pre-
pared and adopted certain goals and objectives for land use within
the Snowmass-Capitol Creeks drainage, and
WNEREAS, the 1966 ASPEN AREA GENERAL PLAN and subsequent
updates including the Caucus Land Use Concepts have not specifically
address�ed the issues of Goals and Objectives for the caucus area, and
• WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning�and Zoning Commission
has reviewed the Snowmass-Capitol Creeks Goals and Objectives and
finds them consistent with County policies, • .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commission hereby adopts the following Snowmass'-Capitol
Creeks General Goals and Objectives as land use policy:
The over-riding goal is the preservation of the exist-
ing visual, spatial and natural characteristics of the
valleys.
' Continuance�of rural atmosphere and lifestyle.
• ' Continuance of historical land use patterns
� • of. agriculture and ranching.
, ' Continuance of natural wildlife patterns, plant
associations, stream flows, and physiographic
features of the land.
' Maintain the high quality aspects of air; water, .
sound and`vision.
' Continued use of the valley as a place of re-
i , treat to a natural environment.
I • ' •
Allota certain development which hannonizes• with the
visual, spatial and natural characteristics of the
• land. ' �
' Encourac�e clustering of development to lessen
environmental impacts.
' Avoid development in areas of natural hazards,
' exceptional natural beaut,y, view obstruction,
►vildlife corridors or winter range.
SN04lMASS-CAPITOL CREEKS CAUCUS
GOALS AND OQJECTIVES ' -
Page Two .
' ' Minimize traffic congestion.
' Avoid excessive expense for county roads and
. services. • '
� Discourage parcelling land.into small lot sub-
divisions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Pitkin County Planning
' Comnission hereby certifies to the Pitkin County Cortanissioners the
above said Snowmass-Capitol Creeks General Goals and Objectives.
� . .
C airman • .
• .PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIQN ' .
. Dated this ��' day of 7J��ttK�u , 1974.
i
,.
;.
, • �
'. . �
� �- � �
. ,_• . , � . � �
� � C� '
�1 PLAi�I I�O�t T�1i:D �i�:�'. :Oi 'Tl1� CAPITOL A1:fl .`;IC''fi:ASS C;2?:;� 'VAT�L.�:YS
. �__ , . .____
� T.PI7'?OnU^TTCt�: Th� 5r.��,��rna;s and Ca�itol f:reek vall.eys az•e an zlmost
comalet�l,y ^e�aratc en�cif;f �rom th� 2•est of. ?'i.�Ll;in Coun�;� because of
�t�c� difiicuZt ��ac�ss �:^rou!;h �;he r:rro:i nortaon of the Countl �oad f.'rom ' •
. 1ti�}ir:ay f32� and 'oecau.;e 1,hr vzl.le;�s are sti.l7. essrntiall�/ a�;rarian i.n .
natur.e except for recer.� linited re�idenl;ial d��ve7.on;�ents. Those oeople °
attracted i:o these ne:•t developnenl;� 1•:ere �e:neralla� attrwctcd b� th� basic
cl:arac�:er oi tiie vall�fs, and thnir desirvs tor the �utare of. the vallefs
a:a remarl:able in Lheir s-%a:!ilarity to �he ue�ires o� the lonf;-esi;ab].:i�hed
r�?ncher�. These recoM-�nndations, ther�for, do r.ot nave to cal;er to the
yrishes of one �;rou� to the detriment oS another, but are supported with '
_ a u�ia.ni.r.►ity t•;hich is unusaal, f.or Y:it::a.n Count�l.
� � ' Almost; zaitnou� e.::.eption t'�e i•f:sic!ents and/or lando;mers o£ the .
v�t7.ley� sun�o:t a nro�r�.� of linited ryro:•rth, reca:;n.i�,in� th.zt thc ver3�
' qu:.:l.ii:y oi' life •.:hich atti•aci:eci trte:� to the ar�a i•rould br: eroi•nously
diriin:i.shed by eXCCJJ�.VI�i gro:rL•h WP.].C}7 i�rould brir.�; i�rith it the plethora
of a3.]�uents foun�l in �:tlf A?'ban seti;it�.�. ine ai�olication oi those sy�tems
�es�en�a.a]. tia the he2li,h and t•lelfare or an urb,n nonul.ace (trar��oor�Lat�.on,
tira�:er, ser:a�ey rire and police nrotection, oo;;er) overlaid on t�e e:ci.st-
• it�� crazy quilt ot exi:tin�; f�cilitie� �toccZd entail t:ie er.�enclituz ' o.f
' corisidera�le fur.d.,; for capi�:� impro�fensnt b;� Pitl:�.n Couni;y.
T�+.�:1�SP0=�"i'A'FT�t; One of the siiL;�.e r�ost ira�o:'Lan� keys to the co:itrol '
ol g'ro:•ith is Lile tr�nsnortation sfste:�. /,CCCJJ cal be rain�d to �h�
valleys ai; nr=sent b,y th� Cornt�l ra�d n:�sszn? �;he �ao::�7ass Post C�'�%ce
and store, by the ?�:3tscn �i•rS.de road� by tii� �.�st coaris L'ree'.�c road,
` � and by i:',is road liniir.; 3r,tsh Cree-: and the head o" �no;m;ass Cre:ek.
I•fassivc deye?op:;�nt ai.tsid� 1;ne confin�s ot th� vr�lleys threatens
� o sl�ill over into tii� Capii;ol/Sno:•r.n::ss valle�ts •ria tne ':�st :�opris
reek road and tiie Sno::��as� Creek road. It i.s reco:unendcd that:
� � F
a "� m � Z) The liiLk bet:,e�n the firush Cree;t valley and th^ Sno•amass Cree':
� X= alle;l be se.rered bf cerman�nt c7.asure of tYie Sno=.•r^��ss Cr�ek road Ue:/or.d
U o W ho �ho:?mass r��tLl.s Rti:nch. iie nassibili�y aS de�din� the clos�d nor�ion
. z f the road ri�ht-c+�:-�•ray ta the Pit?�:in Coun�t;� Par3c �ssociation �hould
°o � �, E e�lored� ::-ith the ultL-nate �ou? being Lhe est�blistL�ent of an
o � x attractivc fooi: and tiorse trail.
� � � � 2) �1.l�:ernate routes to Iiigh:•:a;� 82 be deve].oned i:o serve ar�y de- �
°w � � � � velopr.:�nt of the :•ii�dca�: or otlisr lar�;e tr,�cts of].a.^.d l;/ir.� to tre
�� �' `'' East of Sno,�Tias� Crc�k. '['Yiose limited areu� of dcvelor.aole land L�t::een
thc Sno�mass Creek road �zn3 .�on^a�.ss Cree)c should be d�s�.;*n�tcd as onen
� �i:CC• `I't1J.S (?G:i].?I11t..t02'2 �'I..1S j'.:2� t::•10--fO�.C� �C11T1t2.(;C Of .�CI'V??1� �1S cltl
attractive recre�.tion lrea for ttie re�iden�s o.0 these cltt,t�r t;,lse
develop:r.ent�, and o� reducin� tnv !�OJJ�.uZ�Z�f or heavy venicUlar i:rlffi.c
on the Sno:a:.►zss Creck road. .
�
3) The construr,ticn o!' ttie "Casa��round Village" as a part of the
Dru^,h Creek nalley devclop.r,cn� not be permitted.
!t} An;�' dev�3o�:�ont o: °cection 3G't o1• oth�r n^onci•�ics in thc
l��nma area be p1lnr�ecl to e►zcourar^ ar.ce�� via tlie �':n:r.z-t?1�zlt i•o�d.
�) 1�z�'fic 'I:O �111� fro:n thc ::�o:.;.�1s:; c�•a:�;ro��nd be �inited b;r .the
,;tsst:�blishsr:cnt o1' a pez•r•tit :;ys ta� ichich �,ioul.ci al.lo�,t no �;re:.tcr thnii the
, � .
prosent densities of�i;he cunp�round ni ea. �
. �6) Thc� .:'�tson I1ivi.de road ba i~�proved i;!u•ou�h �rlvellin� and the
insttl].ations oP cul.vcrts to brin�; it un to a raini.mum standard ot s�lfety.
Addita.on�,7. i:lprove:�en� is not encouraged. ihe vie�� o� i:he !lest �l.k
I•iountains �Crn;n thc i.o� ot tha Ihvide should be preserved by open space �
de:�i;nation of �he adjoini.ne privzte lands.
7) Travel, by oLher than ov�r-the-snot•r vehi.cle�� be cliscouraned
beyond the Czpitol Creek "co�a ca�n" �Lhrou�h postinE� ot si�;ns and the
bui.lciin� of a rcco�nizable turnar�anci at this poir.t.
fI) Establish��nt of biY,et•rays besa.de the existin� roads be en�
coiira�ed� t•rith a p}�ysical seperation oS the ro�.d and th� bi�e-aay.
�' 9} £or the }1°3��i�1 :.Lnd *.•tel,fare of the residents, th^ road f�•om
-'tho Sno�-r.aas� Post O�f ice be ��ro�•ed by a i:�idening or the riRht-or-:•ray
to ner;nit �he bua.lclin; o�' �;rave7. shou7.der�o Adequate r.�arkin� af 1;he • �
dan�erous curves, th� nosi;inb of sneed li�nit„� more frecu�nt natz•oZli.ng�
and the re.-�ovaJ. of v?e::-obstructin� sluubUex^,/' are measures w�ged for
the entire road s-,�ste.:� of the va7.leys.
10) Zhe builciin� or turn-of� lanes on Iiighs:�ay 62 by the �no:•rmass
. , Po,t O�i'ice be nade a hi�h prio:it;� ite!� by �:z^ State :?i�h:r��y D�t�a�•t:nnnt� p}�tla
Pa���x�� �T -r� ����2s�r�f�,� ar��v�n �� c,�xd7��u.►:7� so �s ��or re �;�d;fr�� �4
� . 11) tio ne:•r ancillar3• nublic roads be cor.s�rucf;�d in the area, • h�i 2,=;;.
and that ar� such roads recuired to service n�:•� construction bc m�de
the res�onsi.bility of the bui.lder or develooer for bo�h origina]. cost
a.�d maintenancc. "
�.2) That nlotr.i.n� ot snow f�om the County roads be contained 1:0
the area norr bein� cleared.
1.3) The casual visitor to the valleys b� be�t�r in�'ormed of the
road net:.ork by th�: oostinQ o� si�ns at the lo:�rer er.d of each road, the
signs to inclica,te L•he termi.n��7. point of ths road oi• °deadend", as the
ca�e may be.
� �.1t) I1: be reco�nized that these val2eys are pri.riarily a?ricultur- '
37.1y oricnt.ed �,ritl� modest resi.dential develo��nent, �nd tha1: the roati
syst�:i be Mai.ntain�d or ir�proved in kcepin� z,rith the needs o£ thiy t;rne
� � • of co:n.munity. '
AGTtICUI.TIL3AT, T�..P;n i A resource of najor concern in this land use plan
- is the aRricul.ttu�al lands fa7.l.in� yrii:hi.n the sphcre of t�ie nlan. These
lands have a nositi.ve val.ue for their food producin� �oilities and for
open .�ace x}iich can be ret��.in�d t�rithout r..ajor �apita]. e�ror,nse to local
government. Incen��.ves aad re�ulations :,hould be nro-,rici�d •t� increase
the czn1oi?it,y of 't:�� o:•mers ot the bul.k of t�le;;e 7.ands to hold tlic�m for.
_ . their ure:,ent use. To tliis end the �01.lo:rin� snecific action is recom-
mended: � ,
1} Thc proneri:f t�x va2uation o±' arricttti:ur��il. lands ,hoi�7.d be .
adjusted to rc�ilect its pui•ely a=-ricultural v:lues, Thi� s:ioi�l.d have
the t::o-f'old advantas;n of incre:�sinc; i;}�e cu:^_��nt ni•ofit m1r?�n of. t}i�:�e
operltians by redi:cin� the ad vator�:m taxe� and of 1s�irin;; thc abilit,y
or �icceecL�.n� �cne�•ztions to in.hcrit i:he laiid for z�rictil.tiu•al use witki-
out t:�r. pa,�ent o� �excessive dezth tl.ties. �
. ��..� _ .� _
u _. ���
' 2) Continuccl���rai:cr availarili.ty tnust� bo maintlin^d :Cor a�ri-
`cu7.tural ].�nd�. I.�f;i,l.ai;ion �hotlld b� aci:ive7.y nur�ted, 1e�i:,lal;ion •
• , 1•l�l].C}1 i•ri.11 stiren;;tlten au;juri�.ca�:ed a.rri;r.i;ion trat�r 1 l��lt.s a�;ainst the
contintun�; in:�act oi' �'onc:tic iisc. Purc}ia:�c o£ irri�-.itcd Zands and
the sub�eouent transf�r of �aater ri�lits accruin; to tiiat land mus�L be� .
�orbidden by statul:r. if t�re i;ruty va].ue our �recn splce.
3) `!'he use of land fallin� ::a,thin the a,ricu7.tw�al cate�;ory
shou].d be rCJ ILiZ��C lied f:o 1:he nractice af ag�•icult;ure l�rith �.1DCL't:n_a rec-
reational and resicl�n�ia7. us� ner,�itt.ed, subject i;o revie�r� 1:o i;he
exi:ent that it does not conflict ti-ri�h the nr3r.iary land use.
IJILDLIF:; R?iOiT?Cr Ttie v�illeyJ Il4ve a plentiil�7.••..*ildlite re�ource� '
. bui: �1;�p� sl:o�ild be taken no.� to preserve thi.s resource ior the enjoy� .
� ment of future f�n�rai;ions. The .fol.lo:�rin� are the actzons recon,-nended
for t�ie attairunent of Lhis goal.
� "].) Il�velop;nent of Ha�jstack I•iount�in as a t•rinter snorts area should
not be �ermitted. �'nis r�p'resents a serious threat n�t only to the
wildlife (e��ncially elk), but tv the con�irni�d prc:.ence of �:hc ;'>3int
Benedict�1 J•?on�ster,,f and tho a�;rarian nattern of li.ie in the valleys.
- This rnay be the moyt ir.mortant recomm�nda-tion o£ this ,land uce p].an.
2) A �;ame corri.dor shov1.@ be defined �ahich :•rill offer the large
� mam^�als r�latiti►�ly safe freedo:.► of r�ove�ent fro*� �u:�.-,t�r rans;e in i:he -
Haystac�; i�:ountain, and otner, area,;.to :rinter 'ran�e on�'.•Ji1lia;n�s Hi17:
and Li�ht�s tl�ll. Tne �neca.fic t�:idtn ancl loca�ion of tl�;.� corrydor
shotil.d be escablished rro^� xec��nendations b;l -the Color4do ni�sion �
�- of 4JilcLlife. I:o cievelop:nnnt slloiLld be per.�i.tted t•rithin t;ie corridor�
� � � . and only li.�i.ted deve).on:�cnt on �.�111C�S ir�ez:iate;ly adjoin�n� tne corri-
dor. Do�; o:rn�rsnin should be ri;idly controlled atong the g�rne corri-
�---dor and near ,•lillium�s Ha.11 and Li�ht�s ililZ. �tl o I-ha:J 77 NG 5 Nl��dl.a
8�� Au"��ri�7T'.�'� `t1l�7-t�� ��;�•� ��Ir�fC' :'��'/,?/���.
3) To protect i;11e �uality o£ i:he t•rater and the :Cish •rrilcilife re-
source, no addition�l. builcii.n� shotld be p�I'.^.'.1.t''.ted t;•i_thin on� 2iundred
feet (100�) oi the t�:atex�r*ays of the v�11e;�r� or on the flooci nla�i�s o£
. the z��ater:•raJs. t�.r�y such use presently e�stir:� shot�l.d b� considered
a non-co::fo�in� use. lne purchase of ilood plain� for use as oubli.c
parks of�erin� access to rist�in� and shor�;-t�rm ca.^�pin� is recommended.
1i) �I�ierever a cluster type develon*�ent is �djacent, to a game
corridor or arrf major ti•rzlcl7."i£e haUitat eve�y e£fort s}iould be made to .
locate the open space so that it may serve as an adclitional bu�fer
xone bet;reen animal and man. •
" ' S) Strelm flo�;s should be maintaincd in all ti•ratcr:ya,ys in con-
Sormance i•ritn the levels proposed by the Colorado Lc�isl.ature.
D��.�Iri.OP►t��.T It is reco�;nized that so�c forms or a��,�lonr�ent are
� incvit�:ble. To lessen their �maact the follorra.n� li.ni.tations are
� recommended. • •
' 1) A reduc�ion in dcnsity of �Lbclivi�ions aLready ao�roved is �
recommen�led t•:herev�r stanri.�s•d; e�ta:�Iisiicd by •the Statc sanit�:y code
; cannot Ue met. :�.snecial?,y ta be di.scotu•�u;r,cl i� a h�:•rf conccntrl+,.ion '
' of lI1C�'L1��l:itial senti.c �J:;�ems in arc�s l!].'t21 noor le::ci�i.nr c:�:u•1ct.r.r-
i.:tics or tne cicvclop:�ent of arezs w2iich camiot o�icr both �ood i,ratcr
, znd ca�c of �ccess. ' ' �
� � .
. ,._
_ - ��,�
� ' . • .
• ,� •r
� ?_) t�.o dcvelor:n^.rrt �hou7.d bc, p^rm�i�ted after �:he no?u].ati.on of
the v�z].ley�� to be comnuteci b;� tmil.t3nlf:tn� ciuel�i»;; imits b;f � fzci:or .
' . of thrce, ha� rc:achec! three hunci�ed !'�._"ty (3�0), �u�].ess it is deter:lined
' . that; a J.o:�rer pont�J.a�:ion is tt.^.ces�^sy i:o Lhe h.al�h 1nd :rel�are or the
� r�sidents or tn� v::tile;� �tsVi� �'Jo i,tiS��L�F'J:ia.�JT �;tlr�[JC,� ,C3fi l�c":'�'�11'lTi l�
�..._��'r .���Y�vr3•r,: ��2r:� f'��-r�ria.J c.��JN��� �� P:a1/i,��7J�.
• 3) ?�lherever thc terrain pcx;aits, devclop*�rnts .�hould be o£ the •
. P].anned Unit B:velo�:nent, or cluster type, in order to l:eep as much
open space as possiblc. -
� � .
. 1t} ''i7ze p].ace:nent o£ bu-i7.cli.n�s alon� public road� shoutd be sub--
ject to revie:•r xn a11 cases to insure the main�enance of the aesthei;ic ,
v�.l.ue� of t}ie valleys. .
5) Buildin�s shou7.d be set back three hundred feet (�JO�) from '
; al]. ridges or ovcr].00ks o� any nature.
'� � � 6) I�*o develon:�ent should be nei�.i.tted on sZopes �n_th more than
;' a 30� grade. • � '
�._
7) Car.cnercial uses, other than �Lhose no:•� e;dsting, should not
' be permit�.ed er.ccut•£or the "limi�ed reci•eation�l." use nei;.Litted under
the a�riciL.tiu:1. lands classirieati.on. �ansion of tne cot:�mercial
core at tlie juncti.on of the Sno��r;�sss ro�d and �:i�;h�•ray t32 is not en--
� cvtu anec�,u;_�•.�-c-��t�rr�-c�s*_o}o�»�Pa _ � ., t�?Y��vcras?d�-��e���-�• .
ti�13L1.o...SL'.f�:�7a�3::�s6�'A}4���55 . .. ...,..._ . *.fs`a �
� f3) D3stin� uses not no�•r con�"o .r�ing �o these, or a�l oi:her :�ro-
.. . , visions of this.land use plan shou].d bc considered as non-contorr�i.n�
uses. " ,
ZOi37,�iC, 1•tarrf of these reco�unendai;ion can be imple:�ented tlu�ou;h the
� . strict enforcer�ent of exi.stin; Colorado subdivi.s-i.on and health re,�il.-
ations; the u�dat�.n�� and sL•rict adherence to th� i'it}.�n County J•:��ster
Plan; ].obb;�ring eftorts by i;he L'ountf Co.�issioners on behalf o� ta;c
relief� :,rzi;er rz�hts, stream fl.o,�, �nd other State �.e�isla�;ion; t.he
. proper instr�c�ion to the Col:nty road superini:endeni: re�ardin; the trans-
por�Lation system; action Uy tne Pitl:in County Uexl:s lssociation to
acqtu.re nar�:s t.�here reco^nRended; cooperative efroz-t �,� tr.� local Forest
Service and t��e Colorado ?•:91ci7.ife Di.vision; p�.ssa�e of dog control
arclinanc:es ai�:ed sneci:Cically at the prot;�etion oS e�rilclife; and the
f�zl.l c�o�eration o.� �.aca7. residents and 1.ndo:�rr.crs.
Zoni.n� lal•rs a�oe::r {:o be inevi.tlole ::fiether applied at the r.ai;iona7.,
state, or loc�1 leveJ.s, but it is to be hooed that zonin; regulations
, for t�iis az•ea r��;,r be held to the minimlL-n necessary to secure the type
of cooaRUnity foz• t�:hi.c.h residents and lando�•mers t�ave er.oressed thcir
� clesi.i•e throu�*rh this �.3nd tise pZan.
• The i,*,:�len^ntztion of this nlan shol�7.d not be undu�.y �claycd.
The hone for t!ic� continued }iealthy etiistence of tiLis c�:^�T�nity lies
now t�titti land cicve�.ot�crs atid sncciil.1toi•;,. '!'he citizens of i;Yie Clnitol
and ^t�o�:�^ass val.leys sce�; the tran:;fei•encc of thi� hone to tticir oc�rn .
control� 7?j�'AC�G,y 7Ni� yL��.�l �yv� Th'G' 63 r-t�C3 t.�xy.t�J�;.vl' �F /'f
�O C ff C. C'i 7`Y:�'.�/ �D.��.y1/1'?'�" ��;: Titf'.�' /C'�.1/<;7j/ O� C�'�/T.,�'/17
D1�7"L�.ti/(�"� If�i�-:�r�.�1:
. '/ /���7-_� �/ ����,/�� ,r>ontzD or� co, cor.z:a�a�s
���y��`.N' � �.J�/ :�� � 7 �a PITICIN C0.
Public
EXHIBIT
Aato
Subjoct � �
. , a ���Q CI;
Er.tt. No.
� �HISTORICALLY IRRIGATED LANDS
.,�, - . .
�--�:�� �=" - HISTORICALLY IRRIGATED LANDS
��''� - THAT HA.VE BEEN SUBDIVIDED
t�i'-- . ,- - _.a�-,. � �' •%. /. .w , t . :,.
` _._._� I 1 ' 32F`�="' r �3r ' �3 . p} `��. 5
Y`� J�--� ! : '�' •� � �� 1 ... . , �.. �, • .
� • 6 >f ' . � � ��
" � •;�l ��f' � ',' .'�—��
.i .., ,.. .
_ � •,� t���i3��tll�', ��'—
�'• � �,;,.� . . y,.
.� � � �=.��� � �A .� � . .
t • • �i���= 2 `
_,,`. C �',�L:,';�_;.__,�,y "F,:R
�. . , , � ,' � ,�:
� .; , � -�
�, , t.
-� � � ��` � �. , .�.. , ,� � �'"
... 1. r�` -,.;:',;::'�s� a ° - Y� ' 1
� • � ,v 5 •'=`l��!i;��i ' s! ro� r , . •�< 3
i. . . .,% �%:i.�.ij.:i� `� �. t
- • I �\ �!� :,L�' :� �� .
, r 1 �.� � �. , �i:.����r��� /}`-i'"
" I / �, . � * .,� � t1 1 i� �� l:� / � !Z�- .
� L . K�' _ �' , c� ��_• _ ` `j`,-^� '� . , ¢ r
. �., . ��� �`% ���,�V/J- , � r
I - � �., . , � '
`, �''` �� - � � `�.� ��� '!� +,y._°� � .�.j � ;�,� �r a +.f�r
•, r' : ;�r, r
. i• ,i ^+ i . C r. � � .
. � . s . J I� .� ,..��� t:'1
. �.� .; ; ;s �; ... ���, �, r
;i g - ) � ti �.;5( l:
!1.`f "�t.i I 1 '��` � .,
:,� '. � I - ���< t. . - ia��`��a. � g' � .� �� ti. .�� LO •
. . . i ..•%�'�j . ` � , �� T ;l "' .
� i �./.y1, �J � � f � `.
; i t . d� �;` -«. .: . 1, � ...
; �-' ��/` �; %'. ;, � i� ; �:--��
�' ',�`- -� £ __. �� � � �'. � t i -.��' ....
//-- - , � .���� -` � ..�
�•j r,�\ r ��� - -� f ��--�-� .'',�' . ;:
,�(i. '� � � �.. - _ . ' .- .;� - j, � I-�I .. W � ,` ;_.-J
�/�c ' 1 i i����". .,. , i \ .: t.• ` ��� � .: \ CJ, ; J^� .
[�•�' �` , �. :` ` �` `� `•� . 'j,' \ `''�"� L ''�^'% `- '�
�j . � r ,_ �` . P 1_ r ....
/ � � � i «._.,�.' �f,..c` �., . � \.- �. , • T,� { ` ^� � ' �`~/�.._ .
�J� o^ i• � Z ,lil� JI � � . ,/� !! ' °�R �� 161 � 26 . \ .�� ..tS,'
I � � y`F ,i� , 51 y ,� , J�,.f _` " {'�
1 �1 � �`' N� � '.� �.\ � - � T���ll
� � ' � '.� �. � � C�� l/^.. �+``v, �, ^ .3 ,..� »'�: (� <" ;
> . y �i ti
�� �. i ) �„ � •} �/' JJ ' � ',t
� �•�`••� �t^,' 1' V . � r �` }�� J.. T - ` . � �i J • •�''�,��
� �. . �,vr� C� � � , � � .; � � f , , `p , J �: „ -
� \� -� • � r,-,,, . - , r. . - r , . . ._.. _ .;<< .�• �';ti'-/�.�
:. j i� 1 � . V• � �� , �, � � � . tr�' .✓�'rY'r�! ;.\.,� . f ( - �' �
/ � r � � _ o-: �� i �v
.. �._7 �.��a �f; .c - j ' c � -1 ��, % � ;;;�: ��:� .� i �J+ \� \
� �� �. i+ ,;• . . . ; .. ` ` --w''..- . � �:'� � ,;� �,� /,,
sl'� �.� ':� f ;� , :' �1� f �, J C �.
�, � �'�1 . , �, %�
��.i - `� � � � � F- �� -�►�, , r �2�
.a �t, „�'� J ' � •. .�� . ^I 1 '� � � f�.'�,`1��` l� . 21� ,'I� G
;;`'���'' i l ��"j���.��'.`'. �„ ;� � l , t _ • a-`'f:� ;.) j �o
� , ` .� .W �, �(J ,. l ., y �.`�� �� f �—v � y1,� � "�;;
.1 � f. /h�� t� , ` �'� ,'
d �• � '•1- f�� .� ' �1 / � � `„J. \�• '`! '�1 �.
.. i. !`�y� .,: .. i�' • _••,1 jN i'�-`�.�',.`.;2@� 1 '� �: � �o-- �i ,r2���.F.,li,�S\ }` , .. .'
� �, 1 A r �
_•'i _ _ t . v:� _�r� ti...�.:
. . . I , • ` , �✓.. ,� ... • . . ,. t
'� ' • �1`, , : . �` , ; . 1 , _ _ t
l -
��k.�/�1�,�� r � .
. LEG N �
MAJ4R GROUNDWATER AQUIFER
MAJOR STREAM ALLUVIAL DEPOSITS
. . .
.': ..
' ''' '' ' ' , DAKOTA SANDSTONE
. . . . . ,
, . .
. .
. , •. ,
CRITICAL RECHARGE AREAS �
� - MAJ4R RECHARGE� AREAS IN� ALLUVIAL, �
COLLUVIAL, GLACIAL, TALUS� AND SOLIFLUCTION
^f � �--. --' :�-- v!.�`�'..� -- -ti�-..�.
-�--- -� '��.
. .� . ,� -���-. .� � l -�-�` .��
���. - ,. �L- � � �- ._ .--� ,`�� ��`:
. �� � . ti,�. L :'� . �� , t`,
. :_ ,,,o-1 �. • / � .� .
se \��7 � Z 3�3 ' 33
%� i, '--- _•`, "'. `' � ( ;��• � � � �._.
�
•` _� ��''•-' ' � I r�' :�, � . l � � 1 '°" `.
t� . , S 1 I i �' � � � ' �.
. r r � ;�' � � - �
�._ . �_ ,� � :r� ,
. .— — , �, —�= -- � '.•
�� �_. . .�•
. . r-' ! �y,•'.' , �-� .. ;�
�' , �, (•(�� � •� �/ V f.. _/
+ F i . • . / I.' ' 1 •i,, - .
� ,,� , � ;
� �� ,• .� 4
/ 1 t^ /
!•' �.:� ' • /� r . .
• '•1.^ �.� ��y. � � / : ,
� �
�� � . /' • f. �•• •y i/ � : " / �-
. K. ` !_� . �. � [ • . �
_., `1 ' ��`\ ` ' �•�' ����' �� ��-R� _ , ' . �_.
� ' . ` 1; '( , � / / � ,T�:.j , ``� .. '1...��~' ,,•
. . t � /� '� �� � � ,��•
`
F " ' . . � ' °=_ ; y �. ' .
. ,.� i � 1 ;- �, . ..�._.:_." �.
•♦ g �z . . � . '�' � � — / �� \,- ..�`/ `� . 9�w�T , Z � '.
• , � � �I��..l�/�I�p7
• .;� . _ ' / � % . � ��,'.
� - I �
. � • ' ,
� i. 1 , r' � ai/- � �
•• , • ,) ; /_ . ��,.
� a. � _ _ � � '� �� � �,`�:.--�„�;.
V � I � �.�p•
��• � � /' 1 �' '. l' /
1!�'���i• � • _ _ �. � .� .
t� ry ` �,' -�_� .^.. '.�. '.S �
. "1 �� '' .
�} � i - / � � ; , ` ' � � e/'; , \..r �, •-���—���;`�.�' �
.� o i / / `�� '� �`� �.', ` --.: . �. 7 I
� � / �- � � " '
:, � ` ' �/ �' /. %' i /. � � �
��,y i� / - � �. �' / `` . ,16 � •1�i,�_
�` ! � ; lr , .l' '-% j . ��-..',�: :�.
a�� ,i/ � �. 1 ' f �' ~� � + �'� �
� t � i � / �`k t
�?' S �Lr ' t �� , . % ':,r , `; �;�,r ,`�•
y/ � J, � � .'\ /j.� ;r ' �/ I ..., _. �/ /,/ �b;�.*. . .. \��.`q l,. .• i
`�. � � �' � ,•fj ' / / �!�� �i � � � ' �,. /:,i.-./ ' � 'r �'• i�J
. ;'; i• � ��.' �' ) f./.,,. ,;y /
i. •f , � ''� .. � s, � �� A .
�:,. , r . , ,, �'�, s � ,
� �i
EXHIBIT
' 9 �
, . .. ..�._...___._. __._ .. . ..._ ... __ •��.:�,_ .......__._u_. .._:.�,. .. ._ _.. ._.,. ..::.�•.._-
�� •
� !i � e � ., ��1 , � ��
� r�a-_ fi: G' �
s • �� � �� ��� � � �,a � ��� ��'c�� �
t.i�.:;b� �9
,�: � Lo�er. �o��in ���k Va11� - .
� . _ Y
��:�, .
:�' Scale 1�31680 �
`�� � v: a �r�a
�' Contour Interval 40 Feet '
��.
'�� L�n� ��i�a����� � ����
���� Y �
:�; �
L\ LEGEND �
`
❑ OCCUPANCY LANDS suited for uses involving long term humon occupancy .
✓' ;:_��' - Pote�teal Geologic Consirainfs: � ' SOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S
'� F-Aliuvial Fan 5-Morrcos Shale PITKIN CO.
` L-Landslide P-PorentiallyUnstable5lope �b1i0 Hearing.Exhihits - -
;� ---- - Fa�l�s Date.'. __/��¢ •�'� .
� � PRODUCTIVE LANDS best suited for agricultural uses Sub�oct � ..L"1�.�1.�.�[�f'1�'h
� S.C.S. Land Capability Classes:
_�• III *
` N I Increasing Agricultural C-Currenlly or Mistorically Cuhivofed � - . ,
�' V I Feasibiliey - .
�'\ y� .
� � . ' . � � � � �
.�
y:`: .
� ■ NON-OCCUPANCY LANDS best suited for range,forestry,and other uses not involving
j human occupancy
i
� � PROTECTED LANDS where extreme hazards or fragile ecosystems exist !
_ . A'AvalantAe Trock . AI'Alpine Vegetation � �
K-Rxk(all Area R-Riporion Vegeration � _ �
T•Tolus Slope . W•Wet Meadow
. r ` ' . V-High Scenic Value �
�•� �
`; 'Crificol EI4 Winter Range L� f -Crifical Deer Winter Range -
.� �
� Elk Migration ' . •
� i
`; Deer Migration See individual resourte maps (w tietuil� �����P�e�ationi. �
/ \ • �.
• , �.
. ' �
� Colorado Statc University-Environmenfal Resources Anulysis•197q . :
- • F-
t ... . ., . .�'T<rm-srar�'^ �.ca..�:t'�......^_�a"L3::.�'.- .:=7a��
. �
� }
,��'
�:� �l :
,_ -- � �. . ; , �.
_ � ,. . .. . ,.� .
�_... : _ �.�.
, _ ,- -_
- ��,
*...�' - , ,
,` "�,,;r; �\ M��111��,,,;
\ ,�w ���"'"`e1.,,-- '"' . ! . n
'l r .M1' � �
� }
�.�t�����i��l� � -�� � . f"l ,�...
� ,,�. 4
, t , _..- ,� , , r . .
. y.^
f. `��f
1_.' \1 ',�}1 �.,.�. Y / ��` ���F 1 '.�.�.r'.,. `I
�_�- , � ' • � ' �,>� 'lt, � r t �' �1 y� ^}' `� ,'.. �; _�:`
�,
- ,� s ... -..''�.}(� �:.
� �.��' = �_ ��'.....,t ` � ',( '�. f°'°u�, V, ••J •�r``` � � -•J`.
�_�. �
. +� , n`. �� � ,., , ,�L�'i,-�� •� ���.-- � �7:"�
. . � 1 ' "�� t+�, �. f- �-.
�� '1:. � `_�' .J
. 4. 19 A q�( .`,�J(', 1� .ow�- '� ..;�•''
.' � •t�w ,�1�'r.�� � — � '''� ,rL 14 �{'o.= .
��' �'� ' ,1,� � �, ,,.-4��` .\I(� ` lr \Z:.
�.c:_ , rM1 rt!",.'•"•m j�,. � , � „ � , �� / -� � 4� ;f.-� ': . .`'t,
,r'w � ; ,L�✓� y�r �i` t• � ,t � ,� r -CL��.
' �, �,t \�t • '���. ;�' u �Z ''�
� ,_„w+t. 1 R � ' - a, �►o�° j. .� � ' � ' .,._--:1
x„�� . ' � 'i . . s�
E� 1, � ; 'iL :✓ r- '.�i t� s.», t,.i
.• ,�•�.L•"'~;: � � '� .
• '�z /
�'' .��+�/ '��-- �:.a 1-- ..` ` ,�.
.e., � �� �\., . — •. �'� ,� l
�. { .:, . `� k.`''- . = `,� � . 3,• 33 , ' - �+"
` '`! Z
, ._! / .�"� � �i ,t.,, %�„?'.`,rv 1
Z M1
� ' `� ` � �
�: , �� a. �:� .
�� � f � �.� � '� �' \~� � r����'y .
i �• �� ?� .-""--� . �----�
`;'�� ��� C ." l �•
� •� J � .F � :( i �, v�'�i _ •..
*¢R� r r ' � t � I /` \ ,,� �,
�5._��,� ) ..�.: `, . g ' p_ �j \,' ,,r �..
� � � jF �f � � j }
t �. �� ��� '-�. �1 '; r �'�•'"�7 .
} '`� � `'-r, / `J� ��'�•j/ *f�,/
. �.},
r t y�; 'G j 'fi f
� 1. � 1 ��' � . '�''' , -
. r",
..�- / , ,f�. � ' .._ � I'. 1 . . r.
`� ��� � . �. - � T
_��� .. S - � .-� ��� �5� 'S� f � �� �.� 5� �' _.` .
�'-d J •.��f �• t', .
.1�'....5,. .� `„+� ,S f+ 'j; � i. ..
�' �
,.� $� . ,5 5 � �, �,� �f �. . .
...�-��- . r v � ,- ��; �-��
-,.. � ,, �
,,, � ; . � .�;; ;�... � ..
e . rw ,..: r.
5 '' 1 " � ' 4�
�� . :�
s � 4 i/ ; �:t;, �! ' / � `
��"'1,�,.ti!'_ ' .t " � :l + , %(� t
� �a `t 5 `..tf r . `�� t' �� Y .�,'/ �
t-. �� r ' �'�
�/a � �_ ��..� � .
S �t i�: � � .. � . .y ' . +'" ' .
�P � !
_ �`:' �:. '''� +�- +{f.:! '.,� y' -�
� 'J�i�. '- ' , `v tt \ •lr. ` � �.c � , 1 ,�•
�� j� '� � r j f '` ��`�� ��t�" � �� � ^
y , �i� L• r� ff r . .. ' � r r'.`v r"+ � : '�S'�
_ °� .. � ` �, t �� �. 1�+ .. ���, W�� •v�_ '+ rrS.
� f j f , .,� `, ' 4u
5 (f . t , , � _ . � _
^K, .i' to}, f�� .ri. '�rr i ` ' , ;1 �'y � \.. � f:.t:
� j�� ���, � .r �.� �-�� �Y i-• ���
�:. :�Vti' , ' ' �v �:� r � �� .. ,51
�+ ��"y j`��• ; a�v ��... . .:- ,i,�
5 ; `., �� ,,s, � � , ' S '� �, 4.
.r•- . '�I1/`�.� 5�,� �+�� , , SI •,.,,��.�.\_
,� -,t ,� ., � � . � :� ��,; -
,� . � -,,� � �. .� ; � , 1�... �;. l.
r �•� ��r. �� %� ,�- `:` t .
' � / �stt� t�" r , ,�� J�
:. '�:F � d+��� i._ , Yr,. , !:-
. ���V� �+., 'j �' ' �
,:h 1 :,���,: -...
+ ��.
, .
i
' � � , . � �7' ��'.o_?t�!7�S/T��vl�o�'y S/S
• . � r �"—" �T
. . ' (
' �, :.
. . - LF�#_ ' a� .
r �
�:�:�:;::i{�}:;::;:;i:; .
�•>���:
:��:
.�:• :a% •��.i�
l.fl
��'���• .:�:•:: �2
r,,
.�. �..
.�.
{:::::::::::::::�:<�?':::��:;`•''t::r:�:�:•>'.;.c_.�:.:••:::'>:�::.�'•:s::::•:-»::;:::'t:��'�:�'�:
;;•>::2 .�..
• :.:.+. . .
EE�:[:;s°:::'`::;�:�:�::�i;`:�:�:��:..
:::::_:�:%�' �:;�:<:�:�::�::':�:�i:�::�::�:�:�::�
.,•:.,� i.:t•.1..:...::ok4�'w-L�[r:]::�'L.':kC�:�:
3>. ��..
::::�::.::;.. .
..S.l- :
.�.•i:;:'�°:;�:;EEE.�i :t;.�•`�:;?:;:c.`:;�ii;��;:::?;i�;�i%;i:
:::::•:;;•:•»:::�:�>:::r:�:�:::•:: .::::<�:<�:�:
.:::.�:.�.::�.�.�:::::.... .. .....:..........::::::::..,.:.
:;�>:�:::•::•:::•i::�>:•
:::::.:�:.:.�::•:.�..::•:: :::•:::•>:•:::;. .�.;•:.:;:�:�:::•:;:;;:
;:;::::•s:::•:::::•:..:�:.�::.._. : •::Zc�2`;:;:::�ri�:�':''::�:�::�:;:::;�:i�i=:;�•`•s. .:::::::::.
.�f::•::.�::::::::::::.�:::::•::t•:•:•s:,., :..�i.:::••.::...
:.:�;
�
.:�
..::•.;.::::.�.::�:::::::::::::.�.�:.�:::.::�.:::�::.�:•::::::::.�.�..�.,•.�..
......:::•.:..............::::................:.::�.�.
�.w.:•:::.}•.;•:::•.::.......................... ................ . ..::.:
.....:.:•..::.:�}}.�.�::.�::::...
'::j{
' - �
:z:.
�d. .UtN ' •
r•
1 7A
-.�:
�
A..�
7 1'
�::�:.
a m�
,3.
-1
<1 .f
r.`:.�
�.
/y
:iY..
� /
:3.
•::1-� !
,;}
ii!>::;i{'�••(Y.�
t
�:.
..Y�
t"
:.�
1:
` f
}{ :i��
♦::
-1.
:( �
Q
�
•(•,
.�
�'
�ti2•'•
T
(:y'�i .
:2�:>
:;:�;:
�ti�,.
s� --
:��:^�:
'i�i,. -
..J':
.�.::•
- ''ii.''`::.::;3?ii?';:�`::'•i;..`:.:;•'•i<
':`:fj�: . 1.�::•::.�:::::::•:::
?'�
�:;:
���;��:���=�:F.. :
.1...
.:��;
�:
:::'=:�;::::�::'��:>;��:�:;�:�:::��:::�:...
..,�r.::: .
...
.:, .
�:. .�.- .
:, ;... ..
� :::::.�::.:::::::::
,t.c_'''.°
::qt.
iE�:�}r::::;�:�>::�?:'�it�i;;�::i�::'':�:�iv'�'2�:�?[�i�:�rt`"..:. f.t`.;,'•:
i:a> -
r
�
..,�:�:=_
:�
�':
::�':
..,.
:���:�
.,�._,
^r:'r��•.•:.:i£2�it:i�k:��iF?;'�[�?>'�i`.� - -
;i•{;:L;i:•i}:.:?ti�':�i�:`>`}}:5:::::}::}:
..r::• 'i,.. .iF...........
............................. ....•-
:::t::.. ::�•::::ti•:�:•}:•:•}i}•..............:.
^:::........................... ...
:'.:t::�::::: :
:S.jt. :
.................. ... ..... ..v.:::
....�::::::::::: .:::::::::•. ..................... .. .
................
............ .:::::•:::.�:.�::::::•::•.�:•�....... .. ` :a.::}iri}}i}}'•.�}::i4}}i:4}}ii:i:v'ri}:ti•SiY:i:
' •J
(;'.
• M il
N
.T
AI
�'
:��i:�:'::�:
j�'- -
.i�'�cE''.. . An�u
r N `
�
�
�;:�:::=::�:i:::i:�?::=3:i�r:;%:�:�::�::?;:
�...,,�
;'r.
::sY.--c�:i::.:<:•::•»:•:•;::;•;>:•:<:::•:;::.;;.
i��
�._t.,.. �
i[�: :i�>'v:?i�}}ii'.�i:i�'r[{�}Si'}}>'�':{i;;:"'�. -
"`�'1:.>:::::.�:::.�:::::::::::.�::::::.:��
. - F {;.7`.:
- ��;
��
'•���::J:.{:�::•:�J::•:'::;'..
r �.�:�•��!.�:•.ti.�:�•:�.
:.:C'�. /
/�
i�
:'��
��. _
•�•{:�:
�•'•
.�
l
�•'•�••�,•�.•.••••••'•�':�':•��'::.
f��
:;:�
4l� •�'.'•,�./,�,-,�.,�•�,�.-�,�,'
�
. �
�z
/'
x.
{
/
' �r
i�/
:�*.
!'
=�r
.;���.r'��.�:�:
'�%A
R
�:.
c:.:�.'.'•<.;.
?,:�i:. ...y;:�_:i:•:::?y;i:;:.}
�1
. }�:ki. '� a
�..'t.. _.c�:.P�.Fac.•:
•:is i ii,r'` -r -
_ S'. s,
:;�:•'.•'•`.'•."•'."."C"::--��:::•:..
• : t
...,�: � ::.�; .:
�:r�
'��, , ...., r.
�
r e
._E.
f,S:3tG:
- _.{;:
.}
`:+�:
�'-i:
t•
A`^
-IY���f:��. ::.:
..,�.iF
;.
. '_" i'.•K•fl••'�•••••';•••••••••'•:;�••••;:•''�•;•�::••�?�'•�••�•��:•�•�••�::?,1:•}:'}'•:••••••••
• •.�AM'''}:•:�:�.`•.`•:�:::ir:� . �� l ,f.�_ n •
._r.,�D.�•::•
��u:T�`t::"y�i�rk / .
?:.�''' / '
%'i�: J
�.�,:
!,
?i��i:j},:::;{i:i?".�••• ,� .�'-.
:�..•�'.?.::�t.:�..'.:;'.�••..•._.�';`��`.f.�'�{::.`$�•'�:•`•••�•'•.;•.
- :�• L'��. •iT,•;;:.•}:r:�:;:}.:};�::•:•:?:�S`{
,.Y_-'J" _� — ��f
;��'-.:
— c�'1.�:�i�i>��:;;%��•`•:c;:;�:;::;�;}y�i:%
::/,
- ItAHCH 'zii��t�'''' '
. �:: .r- -
�J�
a:i::
.r:
�':'`._
..:r.:�;:��;;.• .:v�
t f.a ,
- .S
- J-
ii�` �'\
:�:r�'�.� !:X..
�
�
;�(�:i•t:iRi: , .. •
?j�'t:�.: ......... ......
_=�'% ;_i� �:ii�:�, �= , ..............
,��
- /J • �j
! �
l
C/� lZ:.
:':�:'>'.y.,.,.'�
.♦ li'
d' .ai
.(� r
ol
/':i)�raurv.u�.r✓ co• • �
�:- G�-�,� ..o��..o�, .
. �. �
��
:�:::::::...�.:.�:::::....:.:..� ..
:::,.::..�..;:.:,� �
:�:�-.>..
�_. .
�ti�yi: ,
�.
_�..
.f 'nv�:
•.�l
1.
L�
.1
!1.
� � _
.w,•
:�'�`�:
...�{::,.••{:�}:
,.�• ;��a�+
L�
• uae'
. ..:� . .. .-�... .
: :::;�.:: ..; LA��D SUII�AGILITY t�1aP .
::;:::.�:>::.;:�.:>�:<::><;..
� o
ccn
�
Znc
L
and^
❑
P
Y
�
�''•:'�*:�- '
P •
ro .
du
c '
tiv
e
L
a
nd
•:::.�:: s
�.
N
on O
c
cu
�
a
n
c
L
Z
n
I ds
�
Y
, .,1; .� ` ...... .
. . ..,..... : ...
i
-..f.. . :i1.�a}i.r�.. .� ��LW��.t.�a_....] .....�.�����.5'A'��u. -��iS�:��:��.(�� ..�1"�...���..U.... cw::M.:.:.�.�..� ..�:::�':iYa10�.�..�ti�..
.i
�; 1 -
�l � �� L�F�t] j����'j�Garl ��V� d���.J��� I
�������, .
� � � Lo��r Roarin� �o�� V��l�y
�, . .
Scale 1�31680 •
t f/f 0 /MI4 . .
Contour Interval 40 Feet
-� The Visual �e�sourc�e
■ . Areas of High Visual Vulnerability _
Alpine Tundra • ' �
. Marshes ond Wet Meadows .
�� Watercourses ,
Unique Plant Communities . � .
� Slopes Orer TMirfy Percenf .
� Peaks ond Unique Landforms •
Maior Ridgelines � - .
' High Yalue foreground • �
. � Modera�e Slopes With Spprse Vegafalion - _
� . � Areas of Moderate Visual Vulnerability
� M�oin Areas of Public Experience �
� Scenic Views �
Subolpine Zone� . � .
Interfaces Between Vegelotio� Types and Landfarms
�.
❑ Areas-.of Low Visua{ Vufnerabiiity
Forested•Areos . . �
� Areas Outside the Main Public Eapericnce
�.
. .• � . . � /!�Y/
, y.,�i ,,
. • . , • . .;.�� .
- . •<��. .. ..�..
Colorado State University-Environmentol Resources Analysis-1974
--- -n^w^.��'?'-.��:^�r�r,,:s-... `�::.-:£.":.x�'���cx�,:---°:_.
. f . � `,
� , , . - ;a
� °� � � 1, � +�a� � i� �
r /'
� .�� r ,.: ,. ; :� , �,;, j;i ,II' .4 y. �� ' .-',.-.��;`,� .:� � .. ;
. 1, �;� `��±i' 1 �, !� .��_� �;'',Y'�:� ; �. _ �`� � �'`�l� •�=`;
�; ' �s, f�l-l., � �_� �; ,�-�.;� ��_2, � , .; r 7�"e,�:�r � �
. ;...__. � .t'. :l_, � '� ��,{�lt � �` f; � � , w _.:._ i
C t e`�� � �;�.,
; /' � � �' � �'.�, �� 1�� -. . � - . ,
� � r •_ ,�, , ✓ `i
�! ) � . ; `�- Z Z- Z'.� _ t� -
. .� � � . l,.,- ,� -.� .��,I: .�:,-. :
; � . �- , �-;����`� l � �/ .,- , ��_ ;,f�-:
; �;-z � .� _
,, .`_ ;, ...�., .. �, � �- ..� �i , . :( ( ����.., ,-;'
�� . , . ' - - -- ,.'..�. --- .�"-_ -��� -- }...���d.
'y.l .� ��i--�I ' / y { �� (.._. .. ._ ._
" 1` � � - '' I '•/�� `` '` �.�.
—.------.. , . \�� , .,o� � . 'Y 2�
� � /' , .. Il:� 8 `.�1�J��
.� �,.,,/� ,.'�r � ,
�. ; . , - �. -:�.'
. , �--�.-.��� - .. '� � - �`°-`�.
�_... _._.._ . _..--_�.._. �. ;ti-, `� _� `_.._'� . -- — --- , -«,�._\ _.�.;
_ _. - ` Y i _ i
. i' .. ._ ._ . � �.,�. ��t
�� �f '�J _�� �-��. ''�_ _ �{.
51 i . �� _ i--; � � � ''� "
;�< i ' . -- t z . �„� '
i � _�� �.. . 3 33 `
j ,•" : , ��-%' ��.�.t r ..� :>
�,. _�.. . � �, �— `� ) �„?.,`':
. � \� 8 /� �
.•j / •f \ -----...�-..<
. +-} � �`�-• l -\�` I ( �i
...._ b,,.�;� .
J - . f , '<. � �i� , -�`� '
. { -` � _ i � �
1 � , � . - � i -Y I �
( ` � 1 !, � � J �,^� �.
, �.b,,. �%� �
� i � 4
� �t, 'l �'=:.�\ r � v+-.,i � _ V= .
:i�. �""�-....,f �,,-...... �, ,: � •
. �� ,
r �^��L.�� r `� �i . �
<<
i ����' �-�� ' ` --- '-- ---- � _�K . .,��
: �_.� r,- � � �_
�.�,� ~�- �� i ; .. . _ '/ �
�
�_� ,-� . i � i _ `�!� �
���� -
s � ' �,�
� 121��J v '. � ��� / �� ����/ ��^
ii ! ' I ) '
� . . j/� " jr} .. .
,_�..�` f _
; , � %
� i -�
�,� ; _ .` , / - - - ; ,_ �
_ � j�� i � i . i ,
� , , ; � /'/' ���``� .. �
C o.. . ; .
� �.: - ;
� , � ' �-- �. � , . .
� .,�';..�-
) i ;�'
', �' . / , " ,_. .. ' �`; ,,, �
, �: . %, j �'� .�1, � � '` � �1 ��'
i ,-� . .l�/-��� � � ���...-�
�� J��{�'' !' , i�`�f � '; � � ����.'� . . .
j�'.- i �'.... ��.. -' t: .
� , '�,' ' // �`, - .,� '\
1 � � � � �
� ,
; , ,
;
�fllo�r��YiJI S�.r
� � --�
�::���:�:C�:�::;:;::����:::::::::::::�;:;::::;:.:::::::::`::::'::::'::;:::?:;::;:::;:�:>��:�::t�::::::�?�::�:��::�::��i:�;;�:;:�f:�::�:::�<:::::�::�::::s:::
:.::.�:::•::...:::.......
S,[3.....Afi lALYS:�S:•:::::::::::.�::::::::.�:::::::::::::::::::.::.:::::.:: . .
��:::::::::�ri:>:��::::::�:�:;;�::
i::::;�MOf�...:;.::::;�:•:;>:�:.0::1:•:�:.:•�:�:�::::::�::;::::;:::;r:�:��:`:;��i�:::;::�:��;�:;:%:;:�:�:�:;:i::�.:;:::�s::::: .
::::::::.::::::.:;•::;:•:::;.::::: f��.t J�ss c a e� �
..::•:::.:.�::�:::•::•::.>::•:::.�::::•::. :.:::•:�.�.�: r•:.
� �';7::;:�c:c=:::i2::�i�:i�:i�>:c:c�i�c;'�'%:�c:�:�:>i:;>::i2�::%�i�c�>:?-�;�:i�::`•<>;i;ii;i�:�::;;:i:`�'.:trres::c:�E:a2iec . .
:::<:::?2:��I...:;.7.:::::::.::.�:::::::::• ... •:. •
-:,�=�::::::::.::::::
�:� .
:::::.::::::.:.�:::•::::.
.................
,:::::::::.�:::::.�::;::.:
�::.�:::::::::::.::.�:.:.. :::::.�::::::::::::.:::.::>;:::.:::.:
:::::.......................................,..:::�:.:.::::::�.:..:..:::.....::..>.:. .::�:.�:..:�:::::.::;.::::.::.:�::::-
:::::.:::.:::::::::::.:::.�:::::::......:.................... ................................... ... .
:;�...::.:... .
..:::�.
�::.:
�
.
:,..,. _ .
.,
. �,
�
- .
�:� n�.
. ;�.
,
�;�.
,. . _ ..
���
.._ .
.�
:,. .
�_�
,
'•:�-- .
..�.. �i
�
'°�
-;.,
_,
:; .
.;.. ,..
�.
f
-�• .
.'�^:.`` .
.,.....,�,
r .
..Y� .s....
., �:;
_ •;rs
��K' K 1
• V�.
.::�•. ;
�.i•
♦
.•�,'4'
L.
:FrY.':::
_.4;..•
'{�.'>['f;•{h7.�?7?:<'[`?'?j;•}:.;�:::
_ .�..
................................. •:.�
�'t•
:':r� •
�Y..�•
}•�;4,.�
�i.T`��•
.�
.�'
:����::' .
.C. .
/
- HAY
F1
�..r'i'r'-�.... F.I.D.
... .. .k..
:::•:.•:::..:::::::::::::::::::::•::::•::::•::
;:'�s7:c<';::i�'�::�i�:t�;i?i;��''i'��....t•. - .
........................................... .: ::::::::::::::�
:.::::::.:��:•::<�::�::;::.;•>:::.`•:�:•�::;�:��:2<�:�::
::.::�
./� _.�;.• .
;:::>:::�:�:s••r::t:;;;;:�::;•.::>••:`•::>�.::�:::� •• • ; .'
n� �O!!�JZ.'-`' -
�:f
�o
.:�'rL'...
tititi�:(;�% „r-}?::�•ri'•'!�.'-'�ii'��'i�ii'�'� .
........................::...:.:..
F,y • . .
�.i• �
................................. ^ -
w:::::::::::::::.::::::::w::.� ' . :.
.:::::::::::::::::::::::�
.................................. . ...........................
................................. ....:...:..:. • . ..........................
:::(t:�'� /:
.:�:�
:'f
� •
:.�.
i
��:��H�':
�'S
±����� ��•�::'�:.'��:��ti•�.�:�••.•''..:•'�:�.•:r.
':i:::��•��'Y��.• �
l•
JUR'
0
FI..LD
S
k
t..=r�=a�+....
T..'
.....::v.:::::�}:i�vY ....................... ...:::::::::::
`.';.
't"•
�
�'�:::::::::::• Y
.+
�.
:•:,'" :�1::'�:::�':::�:::::":::::�:�
' ::..........::::::.�::.:.�::::.:�:::::::::':::.: '
t'
..Muu•
h
T
h
:i�::�;;:
_ �' y„ "'
..r`
A.. If
T ]y
t•.
IU
':1°F" __
�.�."--�.
�
S' •d
s .
..3..
�`:': ,. :,-:t:�.
1
:::��::•
�,,.•.• �'�c
.,�.
;;;;:
F w
fi
.�
�
%:`�:'.
�
;:f•;i...r —
�:�.::
c' —
�••°��::fSieS:iiiitL:xi°:
...::::::::::::::::::::::::.�.�::::::.
. ..:.�::.::�::::.�::::::::::•:::::.:
ti!ti;:: ':.:�:�.:�:.v::::.:�:•.:�.:•:.�:. •
'::•.�.w:::::::.�:::w:::::::.�::::. :.;.., ::':::::
i:�:v:'.. :.:.:� .............................. ...• . _:: ........
......:... ............................... • .•_..,'.
...........�v:.:...............................: ...::: « •�.
;.�;;:.•: -��.� . -, 1; .�. =�.-
:�:�;:�::;�r::�:�::::�::;�:�::;:::�:�i>::::�:�:;�::�::��:::�:::::::::....... .� ��.'• -•_ . .. ::'::�:-F't::::::::::::::---t':t::::�:s::::€��:t::::
o:^q,��
�:E��'�'�'..�.�::;:E:::::::::::;i;:::i::::E
-'r.*
`::'`:`�'- "`;.
;'`��;:;;s:::::::.::::::::::€:::�:::;
•::::•:�•::. ...:............:::.:::::..:........
:•::•:::•:::•;.:•.�:. ::::::::::................... .
•� :::::::::::::�::
::.:�. •::._:::::::•::•:�r:::•:r::•::�::;<; • ..............:..
.�::::::: �......:•.�::::::::::.�::.�::::.�:::: . . . .................. .... ....... ....
:•:•::• ............................. � , . ..................� '
:�i�?:�:;:i.�::::::t ............................ .F_:.....r_ ..................
.........:..:::iEbEEEEEiEEEdE:::::::EiiiE
...................................... ., w°r .. ............_._.......................:................;..:.
...... .:::•.�::.::.;:•.::::•::::�::::::::::.�....
...�...a�— .
.;:.;.;•. .........:. .. .....................
.. e,r'+' .
{:;:}'YY'y'"'Y...f"
..L..11-
.:.:..::. ....... ................. ..•
�� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.::.:
::.�:::::.�:�iii:::::::::::::::::::: � ................................................................
................. ........ .................................................................
::.�:•:::::•:.�:.:.�:::::::::::::::..t. ......... �y. ................................................................
:::�::c:�:•::�: -- _ �
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
�.:::�::.:: .::::�::::.�.:�:......... :":. .
.., ....:. . .
...... ... Y ...............................................................
..._OP.GF.''�f,:i:TAI`Y�;''I ..( ,;•;/ .
S
::i::::}i. . .:..................................................................
::::.�:;.:i}•. .:.:•r:::::::::::::::^::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
....... ..:.. - . .•.......:...............................................................
r;�:��vi:';.,::•>:»_.:�%:•:�:.""'.`.::f• �,. F� TU
,,,, -H:.7!C^,,,i..�._!tt:�]t.^•» `ii;i:si iiiiiEi::6iiiiiiiSiiii:i2:iiiiiiiEi::�iii�i�iiii:.:::::::::::.:...
----' ::j; . �,1.
.�:.+{:
::'�
.... .
4:vii:'{[4. .
......:.....::{?'}i}i?:� �::i::.1`! u:r.
... . . . ..:•
........... � ' ..�:�:•:..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::
.1A!"'2:� ;:f:`7�
�
— -.:..:�..
�.�:::::::::::. :� � , .:. •
............ '�"" ........................................
........... ::.�:::•:•: � � ..;.;;;..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
�.:::::::::: . � .•:: .::•:: .. : .
- ::.• ,
� .Yl. �:1:•:;'.::
........... .:�:::i:::ti..... ..:' . ......................................... :::;:::::::::::::::::
lQ�l�':'::::::::':.:
:•'r����42f�:•i::;::4�>'� .�_ . �'�X�::.,__..........:.:..:':::':::::�::�'�:::::1::::::::::::::�
::::4:}}i}� ♦
��1J...�_����Y:� j
n.
t `
Y 6
P
G .�u: t•ta.n�
t
•:::::::.�:
................
::•:::•::::.::::
.......... .......
w:�:-.`• --_ - �...e=,. -
�
.,�'��
:'.��1�.��
�4•
N
Y���
:•n.
� —
:.t;:
- � :�.
,:',�''
::•::::::.;� : a
� -'
.
•:.�::::: •� . . ^:,
.:;.
:.
.�.:::::... .:.::.:.:�� ...r .:ru•.
..: �iiiiiiiii::EE"iEiiiiii:iiii�'siiEiii�iiii.iEiiiiiiEii^iEEiEc�EiEiiiii
•w:.�???.::::v: .:ar.r
� ..:..:............................:...........::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
�...�_ d ""
::�'�� '
:.............. • � ..,.......:....................................
.............. _ :. .........................................,;...........---....
�:::::::•:::::: ..:.::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::cSiEEiEiEEEiEii::ffE[?EE��E:;
-.�:::::::.�::: ..:. ........................................................................
-.�:::....... � � . .;:• .....................
..... ................... .............................
.......:.....•. � . , ..........::..:....:
......•..... . . '1(AKCH 11�sY'�c�::::::::::..::.::::.:^iiiiifdiE:iCiEiEEE�:
ii:"c"_1_ - • r -- 1
�
'•'}e'�iE _ .
:�:. • '
:•:. . . _
... .- . • ,..
.... ..... ' ' '
........................................
... . . � .......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
... ....... , ..:.......... .i�:iSEiEiEiiE'r.E�iiiiEE�iiii
....� . ... .
't::................ =:Y�• ' . .... . . .. .. ::
.................._... �, .i:iiiiEiiiEiiiiiEiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiif 2fEiii.iii::iii:i:iii.�.iiiifE
.� r • • �
.�
�..
- s .
- ti�
.�
•� .
......................
:�.:.:
.................... ..::::.:::::::::::::::::::s:::::::::::;:::
.........._....... _ ..................................:::::::::
........�:�::::: .........................................
< -
v
,�:
. . :'�':�
.�,
,:::::�::::::::::: •.: ................................_...... :::::::::��;::::::::::::::::::::
.............,.. :�: ......................................... .. .................
............ .. - , . ..........................................................................
"�
IU'
1 1£
F .L77
'�€��f:;:;::::€i's::��:'s€���€::€�€:�:?:'
.................. ..:. .......,.................
r.ss•runf; __.�._� �;2�:;;:::::;::�:��[::=:i��t;':�:s:i;:
.._ ___ ::�:.�:: ::c:::
.r c
i
� .A
a . ... .....
rrr �r .... ..............................
,� - . . .......... ...
. � :�. ... . ...
:.;�:::"'`[:`�s€;is`:i`:.�°i:::::.::,:;:E��`�i`?;iiii..��.ii`.;:`;`�i::E�E�i
.................. .
...................
................... .
..................
................ � ::
................... •
. ...... ...... t .. . :::
.................. ......:: .::::.::::.::
........
.................. �: ........ ................::::::.
...: .. .
ff�.Y�_�_t�_1D. 'I . ' .
. �r . rft���c���/'. .��t,rnrt �
:;c�J.�unu�J.r, C..,•,t.tiA, �
l O(C\\
G�� 1./��`�,\.
::,;•:•:�:;..;� �, .
::�:;�����.-s:::s:<:
,._��—_��a•
��K ,,,�-�u . �d
VISUAL RESOURCE
, . . • � ■Areas of Iiigli Visual .
. . ::.�.::; • . Vulncr�bility
. • r.:�:
� ' ' "•� ' � hrea:, af Moderate.
Visual Vulncrability �
. �� �Ii�:l:: Of Y.OW �7].SUa71
4ti!r��•rrtbi 1 i.I 5•
• �.,t. , �._`
i: :. •�� . .���
FiORRD OF C0. C0��1d'R'S
PITKIN C0.
Public Flenrin� Exhibits
MEMORANDUM
i�n�o EXHIBIT
TO: Karen 5mith Sub3 oct . � = r1
��t�. No. v
FROM: Jeff Davis ~
RE: Abacus Ranch Access Roads
DATE: April 6, 1978
A road net work analysis for the proposed Abacus Ranch
Subdivision shows that tlie traffic generated from the additional
22 building sites will adversely affect the road system by
exceeding recommended operating capacities.
The following roads will be utilizied to provide access to
the proposed Subdivision: County Road Nuinbers 11, 9, 9A and
Number 5. Roads 11 and 9 are paved with the recommended
ADT of 674. Roads 5 and 9A are gravel. The recommended
ADT for Number 5 is 234. Road 9A is substandard and no ADT
data has been projected for this road. The above roads are
maintained continuously. The Tobler study has incorrectly
stated that County Road 5 will not be plowed in the winter.
The Tobler report has based its findings in part on a
traffic study that was conducted tor one day and then for on].y
three hours. The survey was taken on a Friday evening from
4-7 P.M. This time period has been used to predict maximum
traffic loadings in urban areas. I would question its validity
in rural areas especially near Aspen, where on Friday many
people remain in town for dinner and other activities.
An additional 22 building sites will generate 110 auto
movements assuming 5 trips per new site. These movements
when applied to the main access roads 9 an8 11 will increase
the service volume to 784. This exceeds the tolerable
capacity by 46. County Road 9A is substandard and rough
calculations snow that the tolerable capacity will be
exceeded by approximateiy 40$.
The Tobler report indicates that County Road 5 should carry
the same traffic loading as County Road 11 which is paved.
The report indicates that an error probably has been made
in traffic reduction due to the lack of paving on County
Road 5. I must point out that traffic reductions are not
only made on the lack of pavement, but on several factors
such as lane width, shoulder width, grades, climatology
sight distances, drainage, etc.
Memo to Karen Smith
�pril 6, 1978
Page Two
The service volume of County Road S is 234. It is suggested
that 9 new dwellings and 3 ranches utilize this road for
access. In addition, traffic to and from Basalt will also
utilize this road. The proposed development could generate
as many as 60 additional auto movements on County Road 5.
This would increase the service volume to 294 which exceeds
the tolerable capacity by 38.
Most of the traffic data presented in the Tobler report
and in this report, were taken from the Pitkin County Road
Network Analysis which was prepared in 1973. One should be
cautious about using "old" reports as the primary tool in
making decisions, therefore, I have conducted my own traffic
count using the Fisher and Porter Traffic Counter. The
survey was conducted for one week to eliminate any abnormalities.
In addition to the traffic count I have conducted several
site inspections and recorded existing road conditions.
Contrary to the Tobler report you will find that the County
has not made rnajor improvements to County Roads 9 and 11.
In fact, Roads 9 and 11 are breaking up quite badly. Due
to these poor road conditions the service volume cannot be
increased to 738 as the Tobler report suggests as this
would result in increased deterioration. County Roads 9
and 11 will always be subject to maintenance problems as a
result of poor initial construction practice such as drainage
and lack of road base. Core samplings indicate that very
little road base exists and that the sub-base consists of
a highly plastic clay which is subject to extreme expansion
and contrac�ion. The asphalt surface usnally cracks during
the expansion and contraction of the sub-base and in this
case results in the road damage shown in the slides. Also
contributing to the maintenance problem is the fact that the
road surface is not a 2 inch overlay, but a chip and seal
coating which is subject to fracture under these conditions.
County Road 9A is very narrow and has very little road base.
The existing ground water table is quite high which results in
considerable expansion and contraction of the sub-base.
This indicates that considerable road base and drainage
control are needed in order to stabilize the road course
to a point where asphalting cvuld take place. These improve-
ments, such as widening, asphalting and vegetativn control,
must be accomplished before this road can safely carry the
proposed traffic loading. The road in its present condition
is not capable of carrying the traffic load.
Summary
Current information indicates that the above mentioned roads
are nearing service volume capacity. Further development
without combined road improvement will produce traffic levels
that will �xce�d tolerable capacities. In some instances
tolerable capacities are already being exceeded.
..,._......... ... .._.1..__.��-,--�.....
t
�emo to Karen Smith
' � April 6, 1978
Paqe Three
�:
The County's road maintenance and construction program
operates on a 5 year cycle. This year there were no improve- '�
ments scheduled for this area but due to the road condition i
a $20,000 expenditure w�ii be made for patching. Y must
add that surface patchinq will nat increase the road's
service volume.
A considerable dollar amount would be required for the
necessary improvements to substantially increase the tolerable
capacity. Improvements such as R-O-W acquisition, road base
and sub-base improvement, drainage, asphalt, bridge replacement,
sight distance are just some of the improvements that are
necessary.
At this time the County is not financially capable of making
these impravements.
s
,
+
�
1
�
PITKIN COUNTY TRAFFIC COUNT FOR COUNTY ROAD #11
SECOND DAY FOURTH DAY
TIME TRAFFIC/HR. TIME TRAFFIC/HR.
0300 3 1700 6517
--6 --156
0400 9 1800 6673
--0 --105
0500 9 1900 6778
--9 --65
0600 18 2000 6843
--19 --49
0700 37 2100 6892
--67 --49
0800 104 2200 6941
--56 --31
0900 160 2300 6972
--100 --19
1000 260 2400 6991
--137 --12
1100 397 0100 7003
--140 ' --10
1200 537 0200 7013 �
--122 --14
1300 659 0300 7027
--181 --0
1400 840 0400 7027
--122 --0
1500 962 0500 7027
--106 --10
1600 1068 0600 7037
--114 --27
1700 1182 0700 7064
--95 --75
1800 1277 Q800 7139
--86 --110
1900 1363 0900 7249
--67 --97
2000 1430 1000 7346
--39 --134
2100 1469 1100 7480
--37 --89
2200 1506 1200 7569
--32 --91
2300 1538 1300 7660
--10 --90
2400 1548 1400 7750
--22 --61
0100 1570 1500 7811
--10 --85 •
0200 1580 1600 � 7896
--6 --101
0300 1586 1700 7997
0400 1594 1800 8147
ADT=791 ADT=740
!
�
�
, •, ..
PITKIN COUNTY TRAFFIC COUNT �OR COt1NTY ROAD #il �
SEVENTH DAY
TIME TRAFFIC/HR. (Average Total Vehicies=779/day)
1700 4181
--131 /3.5 °/, ovrdt. �2�co�Hi�oet�
1800 4312
--174 '�oT d� G74
1900 4486
--93
2000 4579
--39
2100 4618 �
--69
2200 4687
--36
2300 4723
--28
2400 4751
--14 .
0100 4765
--8
0200 4773
--0
0300 4773
--0
0400 4773
--0 � -
0500 4773
--10
06Q0 4783 �
--23
0700 4806
--128
0800 4934
--104
0900 5Q38
--Q2
1000 5130
--85
1100 5215
--82
1200 5297
--76
1300 5373
--78 �
1400 5451
--87
I500 5530
--87
1600 5625
--169
1700 5794
�
' 1800 5894
i
AOT=807
, �
, ..
; _ � � �
. . /
' i�('�v`w `� .��/�cc�-r.G���/S/L � .�
�� .
' � EXHIBIT Cooperalive Cztension Service
Pitkin Counly Exlension UI(icc � •
303/925-5185 ,. County Courthouse
5GG E. P�lain Sticet
" �� Aspen, Colorado 81611 .
September 8, 1977 .
. 50ARD OF C0. COhSM'R'S .
PITKIN C0.
Public Heariag Fahibits
Herbert S. xlein bato� , .._. � -I b •7g •
1280 Ute Ave. Sub�ect r .��t�.(�(.�(� ���
Aspen, CO f31611 Exh. No.: _ , _ '
Dear Herb: -
Here are a few basic facts about agricultural economics that
I feel are importani. in deter.mining the impact of this sub- ,
division on its potential agricu�tural use. Since th� land
' ' is best suited for animal production, both in grazing and
� in the production of alfalfa hay for. �,�inter fecd, we need to
' look at what this land could potenti.ally produce. � .
. Using the convenient coca and her calf. unit, which equzls 1000 ,,
lbs. of beef, some estima�e of the amount of. land neecicd t�
support a specific number ai cattle can b� made. With qood
grazing land, well-managed and given adequate rain or snow
fall in the winter, it ta}:es about eiqht acres of land to
support one livestoc}: unit. In more rocky, less d�sirable
grazing areas, the ratio can go to over 30 acres per unit.
This, of course, is only a rul� of thumb and pertains only
to grazing months which will be from about May to Septeml�er
or October. On irrigated pasture, that is �ael1-manac�ed, one .
acre of pasture can maintain up to 12 animal units for a
. on�-month pera.od; then thE ratio �aill change for the following .
months.
' Es�imating that the proposed subdivision area i�icludes some- '
where around 70 acres of irrigated pasture land and approximately
130 acres of non-irrigat�d land, this section of the ranch
" could potentially suppori� 200-300 head of m�irket steers during
the five summer months. If alfalfa was farrned on some
sections, this number should bc reduced and the months lengthened.
This, as I sec it, is only a potential figure. If only the
common aasture was' us�d .for grazing, you could reduce this .
accordinctly. '
• I can sce no probl�m with combining the proposed subclivision
dwellings o�ith tlle on-going� ranch oF�eration if the individual
��:�:: �,,,����„� -
_�• . k^
: .. � f,
��:� �; v . .
' ''��-°'' Colorado Stata Uni�-e�::ity �nd U.S. nepartment oi Agriculturo Cooperating J�'"•.:,.,�°'• �y
• � /
� Mi.. .lierbcrt S. Y.1ein � ' "
� :����tember 8, 1977 '
I�a ge Two
owners agree to the co�nbined eifort. However, if tt2e land is divided
up in the proposed individual loi:s and farmed inc]ividually, there are
several, potential problems. .
;
1. The small threc acre. plots are not big enough to support oi2e
livestock uni{: and, therefore, must be restricted from keeping large
animals. Smaller animals such as sheep, hogs or goats t�nd to ,
defoliate a small pasture area unless greai: care is taken in the
managem�nt.
2. Even the larger plots ranging up to 25 acres are not considered �
economically feasible for a ranch operation.
3. Past experience atests to the fact tYizt "Hobby I'armers" tend to
over�•�ork� the grazing areas and thus cause ugly, barren erroded
plots that k�i11 never have a chance to rev�getate.
4. Household pets, especialI.y dogs, will create a problem for small
animal productiorr. Rabbits, chicY.ens and geese must be prot�ci:ed �
from straying doys. Fencing restr9.ctions for pests, at least 56-
� 58 inches hic}li, shoulcl be included in the covenants.
5: The individual plots will have problems controlling and maintain-
ing their individual water rit�hts. Some equatible control �ai11 need
to be .proposed on the water control. .
I'm sure there are other possible problems with th3.s type of division
but these seem to me to pose the greatest hazards.
Sincerel , , .
t �
� � .
r ���
Larry Dunn
County Extension Director
LD:kc � . '
� .
,
. . ' , . ,
.. , � . . .
EXHIBIT �^�
� . - �. � �•
; � . � � �' '� �
I � Cooperal(vc Extension Scrvicc '
PitY.in Counry Extension Office
� 3031925-5185 ' • County Courthouse
j � 506[. Main Slreel
I , Aspen, Colorad�81611 '
{
I • -
November 23, 1977 • L��� OF C0. COMM'R�S �
• ' PITKIN C0.
Public Hearing Ealiibi£ff.
�,�,.o �
Herb ICleir� 5ub�oct : _t7��� (�/1 S ��1�Ch
720 E. Hyman ir_T,. No.: ._.�.,,� _„_
Asp�n, Co 81611 • .
Dear Herb: � .
As �xtension Uirector, I have studied the proposed development
site i'or i-he Frank Subdivision filing �2 with regards to the
• • agricultural impact. �
' . S feel that the proposed sites..�zo���d--be--tt�e—mos-t--j-udicro��s .
use of. the land for several reasans. 'The hig}1 rocky ar��s
� w'1'i�Y�development is proposed is not clood qra�ing land and
would not reduce potential .agricultural production. The. ��
lower land is goad grazi�land and therE is�uch evicience
�h�,t=i��:��c.uig—us-cc'�i.-n—ttus�nanne.z. The nois� impact of
� moving the developmeni closer to the arena ar.ea could also be
considerable. Sincc horsES are const�rntly being worked in
the arena area, added confusion in th� immediate vicinity
�•rould be both distracting and confusing.
Sincerely, _
� • • ,
/ c. � <''�-..`_
' , Larry unn ,
County Exten ion Director
, LD:km
p ' .
/�`` `•,�•:1..�� •
/ ..i�� �.�'�i...,
` `. 'C.� � � : ti�.:/ .
��_...J/� . �. .
�,'-�'=' Colo+ado St�te Univc�rsily and U.S. Departrnent ot AgricuRure Cooperating .' •. ��•�
. �
h.y�,��-�,y,,,;�-- .� . � y . 1 il . ��� a�� __
,! � F� �/ �.�
, . �.00 � _ . �
- . C�
� �m-� --�-v`��r, 7
• � o-�S'� .�� �'°`d"P.�:
... .. _ --- ��., �oo o � �y�.u��``''
,�r f. .
Ba��al� £z �ui•a1 F�re I'ro�:�ct��,n Distr�ic��
Phone 927•3211 ' P.O.Bor,B01 Basak,Colorado F37G21
• �1 . - : . .
•...'J.�..f� ..i �r.� t J f�.'J I •
3hoteaber 8, ly)7
' . BOARD OF C0. COAU+I'R'5
I�{r. :erb S. i_loin PITRIN C0.
A�pon Athletic Club Buildine . Publia He "" �
q20 East :I;rnsn bvenuo, Snito 301 nato . EXHIBIT
�spen. Colorado sub�ect : � �
Ro� Frank Siibdivision :ilin� t7iir�ber T�,ro Ert,.'No.: ���
Lear :iorb, ; �
Aftor speaYir.� u�th you I find there aro still so�o t:�in�s I need
edditional in£or�aa�iori oa. �
Tne �ollowing is a snort list of questions that need to be answered
prior to our approval of the Subdivision plzns...
- the porcettt of grade of the road �
• � !
� .- �rill the road be County Qaintained or pr3vately maintained
� � - the diaactor of the cul-de-sac • •
N
- is the uater to bs supolied by individual �:ells or a central
water system , -
- na�ober of gallons of water in storage tank..
• At �`te present tiiee our Firo Tiepartnont is inadeqaetly equipped for
proper covarage of this tyme os �u`�division since thoro is no water in
the i.�n�tediatv area for draftin�.
iJe have asked that other Subdivisions in our rire District grant
us s donation according to land value of total devolonment as ststed . ,
in Article 1� of the Roaring nor�c �chool L'istrict R;s-1 Subdivision � -
Policy. '� �
: j
� aespoctfully yours. i
� �. , � •
�
. . . . . ��;�<< ��, . �
� '' � � Gler► Curtis �
. . . Chief
_ ..... _ . . . . _ .
. . .. Fire �
. _ . . • . . • �
' . . .. .. _ ..� �� . * _ , : _ ;
S•� . . . . . . . � .
ac �1� • . � � �
. '� �
. • . � .' �
. • - . - -
.._ . _ ._. . . _. . . - - _ .....-.�.,...,�-.... .. . _ -.... . __. _._.. _._.�._ ;
• ' • ' • . .. • : '�� : . �
• ' . . � � ' .
• , . . ;
EXHIBIT
� ' � �
. �
t..�u.•��rr•n i:s
DV�'iGH'i' K. Si ifl.I.h1:�N. .Ilt. nwiriir ti. siaFi.i.�t.+N,Je.
AtiU ASC(X.fA7l:i '
• .,+,R,.,,..��..:,� �.�h1•�iM�r4.•. .I�1X nnvu�csn�i.e
.iSFFC: l+lltl.f'.IIC fll'h 131'II.i:IVG It{�14AR�. E. OR11T7.
{ICNULRT S. KLEIN J
i:0 EA57'Hl'\1.45 4Vt:\'1�1:.SI'ff'1' tUl ��
��!'f:�. Cl/I.11ll.11il) M1�.11 1}11i1'1�5.;'�(1
5epter,iber 30, 1977
LOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S
PITKIN C0.
lds. ti�r.en 5ini::^ Public Hearing Exhibits
�s1c.:;jPicl:::. '��1r�:,ni:ics c1�[ice
13u S. Ca14a�i StYer_t_ Dato . _�_:/� '��
��s��n, i:oloraci�� 21G11 sub�oct : �}".�c3.�(cL,�...��h
Re: Frank Sub3ivision riling tJo. 2 �=h. No.: _._. � ._.._�
Ccar _:.irc:.^.: �
Pursuant to our tele7::oiie con�ersation of earlier this week,
anci iay t�lc�ilor.e conversaLion vf tiiis date with [iill Lorah,
I an, writing to canfirm our :uiderstancliiiy tnat tne reports
subi�.it�c�l :•�_�i� .__ •�neral s�:,:nission for t_;e abo�.e referenced
su�di�:is_.��n �__;:�iic�t.ioi� conc^i:t:i:t�3 water availabilit_�, sugply,
and impacL-, cic:ted July ]3., 197i, is deemed by you to be suff-
icient (?V1UC'I7C�: �f adequatc coat�r sup�ly for pur�c�as os tne
r,ent:ral s:u�mission. I �u:u��rst�ul<i that furtiier studie� and
desicn e:�gine�riny a:ill iizve to Le done i�i tne detailed sui�-
mission s�age, ancl tnat tilis approval oi dlca sul�rnit��d so
far is �.�e�iiic.zll_• li:�?_ted to ttie adequacy of data for
purpos�s of g�naral submission approval. _
Thank �ou very much for your cooperation in ti-►is matter, if
�nis 1�tL-��r does not accurutely reflect our understanding
please notiFs me by mail as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
.l:'��... .
iierbert S. Klein
DWIGHT K. SHE:LL�4AN, JR.
AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
. I
HSK/pp
. :4i
y.
• � �
#
• • i
' �..
- - - - - - - - - �
- - - - - - - - - . ,
- - •' - - _ - • - = - - -� -• -_ ._....- _ . . . .:�.:
_ - ........ . "a.,r`
_ ._ _ ..._... �• _ - - - �- - -..._. _ .. � - ti
•r"'�- � — ...�......_...�.......o..=......_...._.. c — _ � .�......�. ..... ' .
. ...._.... .�.... -. .... —...:....� ..� ...� h�•
�:,'. _.._. ..._.._......=....r . � _ _ ... _ ..
.__.. , . � -
: . . y, � • k + ::tt * R - it,�,'-i r. . ., . �__ - -
„+�+, �_ ._. .�:, . . ,., ,. : , , . - -
Z- . ..•-+•. -r er- ,-._.. . _ ;;-. .._ _ , . .. . , . .
_ ,- .�� -. , L : ,. ,° '-., ".��n'� 1 _II � � '#' ,t -- --
- � � �• �:� � y ..� �. :«. �� ��+ :� � �. ; * • � -
�, ; 7fi� ,«t •,t�i, - .ry� ��-- T.�,�._ y.n � � i�ri �=11 ,i. .i_ i;�.1 1-: -
,- - .- .. . . . .
- - -
_ +'�c • ' 'c�i'- : -J: �•'_ '� � tdle_u. . :t:.—�..!a�ia� .:: Y.:. -!':� n'- _�i'*�+ = -- -
�
- . .
sdn:--, , • .��,_ co„t.t�R�s
��• ' . . r . �.�n co.
> � Publi.c Iirar�ng Exhibit9
� , �
� C1IN''I'1'sll 1�7VI; Dato .
EXHlBIT
� • SXSTLI•1 CAPACITY Sub,�oct : . �
�� A. G�NERAL ' � • .E�j• No.:
w�� -
� The capacity of a roadway is a measure of its ability to accomodate traE c.
� Obviously, this ability depends greatly on the physical features of the
roadway itself. Yet Chere are olher �'actors uot directly related Co roadway
i features that are of major importance in determining the capacity of auy
. roaaWay. Many of these facCors relaCe to variations in tr�ffic demand and
Che interaction of vehicles in the tr<lffic stream. Thus, roadway capacity is
. a function of the physical features of the road�aay and the operational char-
� acteristics of the traffic thereon.
~ In general terms, the aggregatc demand for the use of a roadway is
� expressed in traffic volume, whereas the level of traffic service to Che '
� user is a function of comfort and convenience, speed, travel time, maneuverabil-
ity, safety and cost. The broad field of roadway capacity involves letermination
. of whether or not a specific roadcaay is capable of handling the predicted or .
measured demand at an acceptable level of service. � �
� , B. ROADWAY PACTORS . • • .
�
} .
� � • `Restrictive physical features incorporated into the design of a section
of roadway have an adverse effecC on its capacity. Roadway factors that will
' be discussed are: Iane width, lateral clearance, shoulders, surface conditions,
alignment and grades. . . . •
1. Lane Width � ' � .
. ,
Narrower lanes have a lo�oer capacity under uninterrupted flow condi-
tions than 12-foot lanes which are defined as ideal. On a two-lane highway,
� a vehicle performing a passing maneuver occupies the lane normally used by
traffic Craveling in the opposite direction for a lonper period when lanes
� are narrow than when they are wide. Table 4 shows the capacity of lanes from
� ' 9 to 12.feet in width ehpressed as a percentage of the capacity of a 12-foot
lane.
' � TABL� 4 ��
� . EFFECT OF LANE WIDTH ON CAPACITY FOR UNINTERRUPTED FLOW CONDITIONS
� . Lane width . � Capacity
(feet) (% of 12-foot iane cap)
• � � 2-lane hi�;hti*ay •
� � ' 12 . ' � 100 � •
11 • • � � 88 �
� 10 . : . � . 81 . , � .
9 76
� • , , � •
� 54 �
�
��.,�� � . .
_ __ � .._�� �.�
� ___.�..�...
..,,�, .
,� .
� {
. �
. ' ' ' i
• . . . . . (
2. I.ateral Clearauce . . . j
. i
I.ateral. obstructions. such as retaining walls, abutments, signposCs, ;
ligtit poles and par.ked cars located c].oser than 6 feet from tl�e edge of traffic
lane reduce its effective width. For instance, a section of 24-fooC pavement
with a bridge truss at the edge has the same effective widtti as a 17-foot
pavemenC with no obstructions on eiCher side closer than 6 feet. Table 5
� shosas the effective roadway width due to restricted lateral clearances under
uninCerrupted flow conditions. ' j
1
• TABLE 5 . .� � 1
�
. • • t
� � EFFECTIVE FOAAtJAY WIDTEi DUG TO RESTR.ICTED LATEItAL CLEARANCI:S �
. . (Uninterrupted Flow) �
.. �
• • i
Clearance from Effective Capacity of Two� t
' , Pavement �dge Widrh of • 12-foot Lanes . !
to OUstr.uction 7tao 2.4-foot (% of Ideal) �
• Both Sides (feet) Lanes (Ieet) I
• ,6 ' . ' 24 - � 100 � �
0 4 . . . .ZL . . . . - 72 .
2 . , 20 . . - . . 83 . .
� 17 72 '
. �
• 3. Lane t•lidth and Lateral Clearance (combined) . � "
In• practice, there is seldom a need to know the individual effects of .
lane width and Iateral clearance, because they are largely interrelated.
' Therefore,. for convenience in actual proUlem solving in• this study their
combined effect will be consolidated into single adjustmPnt factor. .
4. Shoulders � • .
� Adequate s}ioulders are essential if the capacity provided by traffic lanes
. is to be maintained continuously. Without a place of refuge outside the
traffic lanes, one disabled vehicle can reduce the capacity of a highway
by more than the capacity of one lane, particularly if the lanes are less .
than 12 feet wide. • '
• For example, the capacity of a traffic lane on a certain multilane �
. highway may be attained at 30 PSPH, ho�vever, if it is adjacent to a blociced
lane and speed falls to 20 MYH, possibly only 85 per.cent of its capacity may
be rezlized, and at 10 riPll ttie lane may be able to carry anly al�ouC SO percent
of its 30 MPH capacity. Therefore, 'a minor accident which causes a reduction
in speed can cause complete congestion on a highway operating at or near its
capacity. This loss of trlific carrying capability due to speed reduction also
explains why accidents'cause congestion due to excessive slowing of curious
' dri.vers. � . '
' S5 ' '
;,,,,,� ' . .
.... _...__��.��..._...,...e. Y IWYIY���
`,. • • . .
{ � .
' .
. ' 1 {
' i
. 1 '
. . � .
5. Surface Condil•ioiis ' � •
;.
• A deteriorated, poorly maintained pavemenC adversely aiFects level
of service, particularly in terms of apeed, comforr, economy and safety. '
tio�*ever, on any hi�hway crhere capacity is a sif,nific�nL• consideration it would
be rare for maintenance to be so poor Chat 30 rTPIi, the approximate speed �
. at �ohich capaciCy is attained, could not be maintained. �
.' Insufficien.t data are as yet available to permit development �
of adjustment factors to reflect tl�e effects of surface conditions. It �
may be assumed that where surface condition is very poor, operating speeds ' �
are somewhat lowered for any given volume as compared to those aCtained i
where the sur£ace is good. �
. . �
, 6. Alignment : . , , � �
. ,
The alignment and profile of a highway are important factors affecting
its traffic carrying capabiliti.es. The factor of design speeds and two types of •
• sight distances are considered in evaluating an alignment. The effect of the
quality of alignment on capacity and the service volume which a roadkay can
carry, then, is expressed in terms of average tiighway speed atid the percentage
� of the highway having 1500 feet passing sight distances. �
� �. �
• • Table 6 shows the apparent effect of quality of alignment as , ►
represented by average higliway •speed on capacity. .
` TAELE 6 .
� • EFFEGT OF QUALITY OF ALIGiIAiLNT ON CAPACITY ' �
. , . �
l - Average Highway Speed Capacity (% of ideal alignment) .
� (MpH) � '(2—lane highways)
. . �� _ _ . 100 -
� ' 60 . . . 98 ' ' � .
� 50 � . ' 96 • '
� � .40 . . . ' . 95 � .
30 �, ' , 94
�; � . � . . . ' � .
i. 7. Crades . � . . . .. .. ..... . . .
�:. -
�� ' � � �. Grades afEect the capacity of a highway in the following ways.
�° . .
'� � a. The presence of a grade 3s generally althourh not always�.
� associated with re�Criction in the siglit dLstance, thereby affecting
the percecitage of the length of two—Iane highway sections on which
passing maneuvers can be performed safely. This effect is considered
' 1n alignment. . •' '
56 � ' '
r ' . • .
�,,:_�_ � . .
-� . .
•-.,.• .
� .
b. Ve1�icle bralc:l.ng distance is less on upgrades and greater on
. d�wngrades Lhan on ttte l.evel, thereby permit.l•ing shoreer spacings between
�vehicles thaL- are c13.mbing grades, and requirin� longer spacing between
vehicles descendi.ng grades, in order to mainL•ain a safe headwly.
Trucks wiCh thcir norm.11 loads tr�vel at slo�aer speeds up�;rade than on the
level, especially if the•upgrade is long and steep. This is also true to some
extent for passeuger car.s. Iloeoever, mosC �passenger cars can negotiate 6 and'7
percent grades at speeds abave ttiat at wt�icti capaciCy occurs. Therefore, the
effect of up�racles up Co 7 ��ercent on. pnssenger cars is generally neglib].e.
It is the effect of sustained speed up�rades on the speeds of .trucks that has a .
resulting effect on capacity. . •
C. � DESIGN CAPACITY
' In order to develop the capac�ty of specific highway segu►ents, it is
necessary to' assume a tolerable.desi�n capacity of the roadway based on its
type; i.e. , collector� semi-collector, etc. The data to obtain these •
capacities was taken from references 5 and S. The design capacities usually
are given with a high and low range figure based on A.D.T. (average daily
traffic) . Due to tlie environmenta� conditions of the roadcaay system within �
Pitkin County rain, ice,' snow the A.D.T. used was taken as 85% of the high range
for that type of roadway. '
Table 7 shows the designed capaeity for roadways without any basic design
deficiencies. � � . �
TABLE 7 .• •
DESIGN CAPACITY FOR SPECII'IC TYPES OF ROAD�JAYS ' . �
� Type of Roadway ADT (ideal) ADT (factored) DHV _ • _.
. (reduced 15�) .
, Arterial N/A . : N/A . N/A .
Collectors 4400 , 3750 . , 561 .� � :
Minor Cullectors � � • _ . ' . ,
Paved 1500 ' 1275 � 191 •
•Unpaved 500. � � � 425 b4 -.,,:;:;.-.
Local access �T/A � - . N/A N/A. . ' - :'_u;:••.:;',.::��. _
Semi-primitive 100 100 . 15 ' ';�S:`�:.:•� �:.
. •'.k;.
�yy
. u���"jj�rl{ 5 jo � ..
D. TOLL�'RABLE CAPACITY AI��D SERVICL VOLUPIES " • .,r.,
. .�� . .
1. Tolerable Capacity (Level service E) �'``�'�`��``' ` . • .� : •
�." .
. ' The next step in the procedures is to develop a tolerable operaEing �
capacity under the prevailin� condition existinp on each se mg ent; i.e. , �
reduced width� no shoulders, etc. � .
The following method �aas,used to determine tolerable operating �, �
capacity: 5� .
� .
c = vPH (wc)(Tc) � ; .
C = •Capacity •
• Wc = Ad3ustment for lane width and laterial clearance, shoulders,
at capacity
Tc � Truck factor at capaciCy or for specific grades. . •
� �xample: Given VPIi = 2000 • ' � • . �
Rural 2—lane limit access highway . . • . �
12 foot lanes . ,
. . . 10 foot shoulders ' . • • •
� lOQ% passing sight distance• " � .
r • A.H..S. 70 MPH (average highway speed) .
S% trucks • � ,. ' . .. - �
C = 2000 WcTc � � : - • . .� �
. - � E
. . Wc = 100 (factors f rom Reference 1) . � : i _ • �
. . Tc = .95 (factor from Reference 1) . �
.
� . --�C = 2000 (1..00) (.95) = 1900 VPH .
� � � � • � i
This number represents the tolerable design capacfty for the example roadway
under prevailing conditions. • ' ' � • .
' 2. Service Volume � ' , ' . ' . '
When the traffic volume equals the capacity of a higl�way, operating "
' conditions are poor,� even under ideal roadway and traffic conditions. 5peeds
,, :ix.e :f.o;a, wi.t:1► frequent ::tc,p.<: �nd hi.�h �ir•i.<��*, 7',� :,•r�'r�, , ;;- a highway provide an
accepta�le level of service to the road usery �.t. �_� rc��:�:s�u�:y that •the service
volume be lower than Che capacity of the roadway. The maximum vol.ume that can
� be carried at any selected level of service is referred to as the "serv3ce
volume" for that Ievel. . . . �
• The individual road user has little realization of the volume level •
• itsel£; but he is aware of the effect of high volume on his ability to travel
a street or highway with reasonable speed, comfort, convenience, economy and
• s�fety. Thus f acCors which might be considered in evaluating level of service
include the following: ' . • '. , ' .
. . � . Speed and travel time . • ' .
' Traffic interruptions or restrictions • •� '
- Freedom of maneuver � . „ , • . ' , .�
SafetY , , : . - . .. . '.
• Driver comfort and convenience • .. � . - � .
� . • �conomy . . . ' � . :
Therefore, for this study we have used a Level of Service C. .
�i ' . � ' ' . . . �
� . . � . . :.
, •
�' ' . 58 ' � .
. � . . � ..,... :,,` � .
�,. . . • ' . _ . � � ,• ' .
...+.T'{
�•�;.�- .
' "Level of Service C is the ::one of stable floca, bul• speeds and
maneuverability ar.e more cl.osely conerolled'by ttie tii�her vo7.umes, most
drivers are restriceed in their freeclom to select tlieir own speed, chan�;e
lanes or gass. A relativel.y satisfacCory operatin�; speed is still obtained
with service volume perhaps suitable for urbact desi�n pracCice."
The following meti�od was used to determine the scrvice volume.
SV = VPH (v/c) I�IL TL •
SV = Service volume (VPIi) .
' . v/c = Volume to capacity ratio (Refe�rence 1)
WI.. = Adjustment for lane caidrh and laterai clearance aC given .
' � ' level of service � .
. TL = Truck factor at given level of service. . . �
Example: (Using the same data as given in example for capacity.
calculation except for a Level of Service C)
� Sv = '2000 (v/c) t�TLTc `
� v/c = '4.70 (factor from Reference 1) . •
�:1 = 1.00 (factor from Reference 1) • , .
� T1 = .93 5% truck (level) (factor from Reference 1 • -
SV = 2000 (.70)t1.00) (.93) � � " ,
= 13G2 VPH � �
� Therefore, service volume capacity of the example roadway at Level
. C is only 1302 VPH. • .
Using this method the tolerable capacity,and service rolumes were cal-
culated for all applicable road segments and are listed in Table 8 also
. included in this table are the estimated 1972 and 1980 trafiic volumes as
taken from the Regional Transportation Plan for the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County prepared by Alan P1. Vorhees & Associates, Denver, Colorado. �
• E. CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
' It can be readily seen by a review of Table 8 that Pitkin County has no
immediate problems of capacity on its present system. (Exception Ridge Red
' Mountain Road). � .
Tlie system will begin experiencing an overload to the established service
volumes and tolerable capacity figures as we approach 1980 on. the following
road segments: _
County Road • '
8 Larkspur Mountain . .
! . ' 10 Brush Creek (lower) • • �
' � ' . • 10' Brush Creek (upper) . . � � , .
l0A Owl Creek • � �
lOB Country Club �
15 Castle Creek . ' ' � . .
19 Woody Creek
• . 20 Crossover - County 19 to Colorado 82 � •
. 21 Crossover - County 17 to Colorado 82 ,'
a . •
!, . "'.��...
( ���Y" . J�/ J p �� .
,F /� �f O !� �
u �yt�,��,'cv�+ S
� , � � � . tiF n�i`�o��� `'b '�a,"-C "� ,Q
�,,, �'v
• ' �� T/:IS1,lt 8 �" � G ��of� Gtl��� ��5���� ,
D�SIG�t nr�n 7'UI.L'I:AIiI,I's CAPACITIf:5 — IiRV1C1: VUI.UI•11's5 ��P
t
ESTIktA7'E I972 and J.)fi���TIZAI'IIC (�LUPis5 (."J)T) %
� /
_ ' ¢ ^���t�Jdtt f ./ ! • ,
�.51
(1) JL�p Q� (..) . �� 5d�'(3) ( �) (s)
Road Segments tiesiFn � 1'olerable t� Ser.vice Servicr. Service �
� . Capac,iLy' �CapaciCy Volume' Volume Volume
(ADT) (ADT) � (!�D'1') Lstimate.d F.stin►ated
� . 1972 Vol. 1980 Vol.
� (ADT) (AD'T)
1 425 ' 281 264 2G4/100 264/200
lA 425 281 . , 264 264/100 264/200
2 . 1.275 738 �674 67�i/20� 674/250
3 3 (Redstone) 1275 ' t327 737 737/100 737/200
3A-B (semi-primitive) 100 100 I•i/A �i/A N/A
� 4 (Frying Pan) . � 3750 2805 2618 2618/S00 2618/I500
4A-E 100 100 N/A N/A N/A
5 425 ' �2_56 �- 234/100 234/150
� 6 • � 4�5 247 226 2'l6/100 225/150
6A . ' � � 100' 100 t:/A �/A N/A
] � , 100 100 N/A N/A N/A
8 (Larkspur) 425 '247 ' 226 226/t00 226/300
gA B 100 100 N/A :1/A N/A
9 Ca ital Creek � 1275 738' �_67'�__ 67/+/I(10 67�i�200
gA • 100 `I00 ��1�"jA� N/A .rJ/�A
yg N/A N/A h%:1 N/A h/A
9C (closed) 100 100 h/A N/A N/A
1Q (Bnish Creek - lower) 3750 2820 2820 2620/1500 282Q/3000
. 10' (Brush Creek - upner) 3750 2524 241�g 2443/1000 e 24�i3/4000 �
l0A (Os,l Creek) 425 . •247 22C 225/l50 ,;� 22G/1200 •
' lOB (Country Club) '�►25 264 241 2��1/1.50 J,�i 241/1000 S��`
lOC 100 100 ti I� A 1:/.� ,i N/A �'
11 (Snqw-mass Creek) 1275 � � r738'' 674 �.�.,'_�a.LlOIS_��iZ4L150
11' Snowmass Creek) 425 247 �26 ?:f�/1JU 22G/150
11" (Snowmass Creek) 100 100 ?t/A ���1 N/A .
11A ' 425 247 2'_G :�G/15U 226/150
11C (closed) 100 . 100 t:/A :�/A N/A
13 (riaroon Creek) . 3750 2086 1944 1�)'�y/5t�0 1944/1200
15 (Castle Creek) 3750 . 776 S34 87�/340 $�4/1000 .
15A 100 ' 100 . �+IA '�/A N/A
15B . 100 � I00 tt/A `;tA N/A
100 t:/A ::1,1 N/A
1.5C � � 100 1.953 1H2�� j}t:•:/2Q+) 1f324/1000
11 (Woody Creelc.) 3750 • l,�� ;:�,ti „�A
17A 100 , 100 �11 '"' N/A
� 100 '�"
17B � 100 1779 1LG4 1��:�•:/ !c}U lfi6/i/2500
19 (tdoody Creek) 3750 ���,t t�;A N/A
19A � 1.OU 100 .
738 f►7�. 67:1:�U 674/1100
20 . 1275 � �,1�/.•�t� G74/1000
21 1275 738 G�•'
738 b;r. G1:/:t�
Ridge Red ttounlain* 1275 ti�� - .;/� �/A
�11 Oehers** � rI�A i"��
t Data on volume for 1971 was Caken by City of ��''P'=t�• �t •`::'''•'� s c., !�r Islrh dr�c to
the number of occunied homts in L•he ar�s and �"t`.�`'t'� '`' t ' '�" �''•''Tner�f �:rr d:•elling
unit. . �
. 4k Subdivisions A, B, C., D, G, G, H� I, Road�;a}� 1l1-F. ?` .?� ,• : • :� ` . ,•.'•:It:• not a
' factor. •�
,��' � '� .. .
_ . _ «.-
----.__�-_.._.. __.
F. coR�z�.c'PI1�13 AC�riorr . � � � .
In order to correcl- tliese def-l.cienci.es 3.n c���aci4y �t Che le�el of service
. assumed for Che segmenl-s abuve, the tollowing specitic or camU.Lnati.on of actions
; •
will be necessary. Each segntent will be discusscd individually.
' 1. Segment B - (Larkspur rinuntain)
k�iden road Lo tvro 11-foot lanes witli a 2-foot sliouider �nd the capac-
ity increases wi.11 be: Tol.erable capacity - 320 •
• Service volttmc -• 305 � .
. 2.* Segment 10 (Lower) .
� Wid�en shoulder to 4 feet and the capacity increases will Ue:
• Tolerable capaci.ty - 3164 .
Service volume' - 3113 •
3.* Segment 10' (upper)
� ' Widen slioulder to 6 feeC and lanes to 12 feet and ehe capacity
increases wi.11 be: Tolerable capacity - 3750 • .
. ' . Service volume - 3750 .
r . 4.* Segment l0A (Owl Creek) ,
Pavc road�aayincrease lanes to 12 feet with 6-foot shoulders and �
capacity increases will be: . '
Tolerable capacity - 1275 •
� • • Service volume - 1275 • •
. 5.* SegmenC lOIi (Country Club) • •
Pave roadtvay inerease lan�es to ].2 feet wieh 2-Loot slioulders and capacity
increases wi.11 be: Tolerable capacity - 1082 •
- 5ervice volume - •1037 .
6. Segment 15 (CasCle Creek) • ' �
k�iden roadway to two I2-foot lanes with �i-LooC'stu�ulders and capacity .
increases will be• . Tolerable capacity - 1090
• , Service volume - �.252
�:
Truck traffic (20!) is the signiEicant i.tcri [t�1t rc.luces capaciCy on
this segment, without trucks (we�kends) under e::istlst� cociditions the capacities
� aould be• Tolerable capacity - ���� •
' . • Service volume - 231.8
� ' . � '
� ' ' , .. • .
� . 61
_ _ _,.. . ..
.�� .
�'- ' • •
s . . • . •
� . ' ' . i
�
. . r
c
• . . . �
7. SegmenC 19 (Woody Creek) _ . • �
l
�• Widen roacicaa�� to •t�.�o 11-foot lanes c,•i.l-ti 2-foot shoulders and reduce `
�
truck traffic 7..°C Co 19: aud capacity increases will Ue: � (
Tolerable capaci.ly - 2525 . ' � �
Service volume - 2GG0 • �
. , • . '
8.** Segment 20 - 21 (Crossovers CounCy 7.7 �nd I9 to Col�rado 82) ' 3
. .. ;
• ,
47i.c�en road�:ay Co 12-foot with 2--foot shouldeXS and capacfty increases ;
will be: � Tolerahle capaciry - 1082 - • � . i
� Service volume - 1U37
� �. �
* It is anticipated thar the 19S0 volu:ne estimales for these segments. �vill be
reduced if do��n zoning occurs in this area. Ttiis reduction in volume could i
eliminate the capacity deficiences now contemplated £or 1980. • j
' . ' i
** In o�-der to increase width of roado�ay lt wi].1 require the eonstruction of
new structur.es acruss Roari.ng Fork River. � '
G. SUIlhiARY . ' • � • . '
� �able S indicates •the �various capaci.ties and estimated volames anticipaCed
on each se�ment; at►d ir is, therefore, a simple exercise to determine the
' impact of development on each segmer.t. It should be noted that the [igures in
. Table 8 are "Uall park" and as such should be used with discrerion. That is,
if a new* developnsent i.s c�etermined to create a prob].em ttie procedure indicated
i.n Chanter Three, Paragr.aph C should be followed< � .
The Pollowing figures show the estimated capacities and vulumes on a map
presentation: � '
•Figure 40 Tolerable Capacity/Service Volume • . � �
Figure 41 �stimated 1972 Traffic Volumes � � .'
Figure 42 Estimated 1980 TraL-fic Volumes • .
CosC reqairements to correcC the capacity deficiencies needed on each
segment are discussed in Chapter Seven. � �
. . . 62 ' .
� . . ' ' .
..-s: -
�
� E1�H181T
r
.
,.,.,�� ,,,:,:�,,.
D�Y'iGfIT K. Sl l�t.l.\f,1;�, .1l:. oa��cirr x.s,ie�.i.��nn�.�a.
A::U r,�S(tt.ldil.� -- �
• �..R,.i�.� •:v..,Hr„v• � . Jt1!. C1:1\'tl)c1iItL1.L'
'c^": Air11!tir t11'l. lit,ili't\�t: NAR11AAl E. ONhIT7. �
IIFKIft,Rl'S. KLEI\ �
' -:^rA•T ti1\f.'.\ �t'F.NI'f.SI'Ifl' ti�i �`l
a.��{�._. .•`in4.iln1 r�.!1 .t�i:.��),5.;'Ip - , .
5a?_tetw��r ;!1, 1.977
L'Jt,P,D OF C0. COMM'R'S
PITRIN C0.
`'1"' ` '°'''-' "''�`�� Ptzblic Hearing Bahibits
��,_ ...:r.; �'.._.. . .......:�i�.� , C)�[ici: L' ,� �]{�
_�U t,:_. li_]�. ... .....`.�,'... _ .. ,i.0 . ...LL.[.l.L....1.1L._..
..5:�'.�i� l.']101:.1::�� i:i�•lt ..512�)�GCt S �.G$li"`-�' .111jA'�/ '
�:�s: Fran!s Su�division riling ido. 2 L=��. No.: _..,...__,.,.,��___... �
Cca: -.--_�--• .
Persuant to aur tele_�::oiie conversation of earlier this week,
ar.0 i^. tuli!iJ�1Q:t3 conv�rsatios� vi- ti�is date with i3i11 Lorah,
I ��: writin� t�� cc;tifirnt ou: :�i,�'.erstan.,iiiiy tilat tiZe reports
su_�;..i�i�:�1 •.._�.. ,,.,•� , .�;�i��ral sc:;�is,ion for t::e abo��e reference3
s���1��:i=` i:i - .Lic;_._ioe �=r.i:i:�:� water av�ilabilit-_r, supply,
and i;�3ua::c, cit:t�U July .I,�.,,197i, is de2me� by you to be suff-
�cient �ci.i^::�_� of ai?ecia��::e �aat:�r s��o�ly for pur�e��s as the
� CEP.t.�'i.l S:LIiA?SSipil. I :1n,,,;�,�Sti1L1U tilclt fU2:t.11EL' St.11'G�1L3 dIl[�
- d�=ir!; e^yine��ri.ng �•;ill iiZVe to be done in tne �e�ailed st�-
r.iis5i�:i s�a�:rc, ancl tnat titis approval oi data sul�rnitt�d so
Fur is =�_ciTic,.I1•�: li:i?.teri to tiie adequacy of data for
�ur�os`s o� qatiaral suL�mission a��roval.
Thaz?� :�ou very much for your cooperation in ti�is matter, if
_:��� i•_��.:�:r ����s not accurately reflect our understanding
please notiPl me by mail as soon as possible.
Verv truly yours,
. l� l�
iierbert S. Klein
DWIGHT K. SHELL•�7AtJ, JR.
AND aSSOCIATES, P.C.
HSK/p� ' i
• . . I
i
�
�
i
i
.,...._ _.:.:. _. _,._,F,._ _...._._ ._._._._.
, ____ _..._ _ ._._ _ -------------------------
` .
J
�.nw oFFir.FS � ?
D��'IGHT K. SNL'LLMAN,JR. oa'IfIIT K.SHELLAtAN,JR.
• � A:�D A$SqC1ATFS _ .
e rx�n��:n�•..a u�kIY�NATh:V )bN DAVID SFIGLE
AS?I:\ M'IILFiTIC:c:LUtl Ht'i1.DIXC: I1ARlfARA F.. qpNil7.
� 72�1 IiA51'tlt.•.t?.�i ACE\t''.$L'1'77i inl HF.RBERT 5. KI.EIN
TSPEY.CQLORAPO PI!•il (iO31 925.:i10
SOARD OF C0. COMht'R'S
PISKIN C0.
Aug�=t ;0, 197i Publie Hearing Exhibits
nato �(HIBIT
Sub�oct : �
. E;��. No..
>fr. 3i.11 Lnr:+h
[tiril;lit i2ater l:nginccrs
� Bo:: 128b . •
I GZenwnod Sprinos, Colorad� 81601 �
i
Fe: :lbacus Ranch �
� Dear Bill,
�' .
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of-today, enclosed please find a sketch
plan of the Frank Subdivision 42 consisting of 24 lots marked on the map. We
" are contemplating, at this point in time, a domestic well water suppYy system
and would appreciate your comments on the best place to site the storage tank
i and transmission facilities in addition to the other information requested
below. Enclosed you will also find a small scale map of the irrigated pasture
� areas on the Abacus Ranch together with a map of general vegetation types.
,
The information that we are seeking is for purposes of complying with the Pitkin
; County Land Use Requirements for General Submission, specifically at 35.0902,
concerning impact of the proposed development on water quality, irrigated
areas, �rouad water resources, and stream flu�as. Ide would also like your
additional comments referring to your letter of July 15, 1977, to Dean
I•foffatt, which will specify that your conclusion that existins physical and
le;al water supplies are sufficient for the proposed development was arrived
at after consideration of 55.2501e criteria.
Very truly yours,
Herbert S. Klein, for
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR.,
AND ASSOCIATES, P. C. .
' HSK ch ,
Enclosures
J
/� .:.t
LAW OFFICES
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR.
AND ASSOCIATES DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN,JR.
A PROFESSIONAL C011POflAT10N
ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB SU[LDING JON DAVID SEIGLE
BARBARA E. ORNI7'Z
720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SUITE 301 HERB£RT S. KLEIN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303)925•2710 DfiBORAH QU7NN
March 27, 1978
EOARD OR C0. COMM'R'S
PITKIN C0.
The Board of County Commissioners Pubzia Hearing Eahibits
of Pitkin County
pato EXHtBIT
Re: Request for Findings Sub3oct :
Frank Subdivision tdo. 2 � �
E:_h. No.:
Gentlemen: " �
What follows is more for the benefit of those who may believe
that you have the discretion to deny subdivisions which other-
wise meet the detailed and stringent written requirements of
the Pitkin County Land Use Code. However, we hope that you
will find the following material useful in the formulations of
necessary findings on the following:
I. HistAZy P. 2 VI. Wa.t.ex' P.10
II. Inapplicability of Q�P � VII. Housing p,10
and Simi.lar Delays P. 3
A. C�P doesn't apply P. 3 VIII. Wildlife P.11
B. Application is
Consistent P. 4 IX. Agricultural
C. Upzoning Controls P. 4 Conservation P.11
IIS. Zoned Density P. 5 X. Soil & Geology P.12
IV. Impact on Public XI. Utilities P.12
Facilities P. 7
A. Schools P. 8 XII. Visual 7npact P.12
B. Fire Protection P. $
C. Roads P. $ XZII. Proposed Convenants P.12
V. Sewage Disposal P.10 XIV. Conclusion P.12
The Baard of Cauntv Commissioners
of Pitkin Countv
March 27. 1978
Paae 2
To the extent tha� your opinions vary �rom those expressed
herein, we request detailed written findings thereon referring
to reasons and to the record evidence thereof.
T. History. The Frank Subdivision is located in Abacus Ranch,
a functioning thoroughbred horse breeding and conditioning operation
in the Capitol Creek area of Pitkin County. This area was
originally zoned RS (Resource) 160 (the County's most restrictive
zone classification) , which allowed development of one unit for
each 160 acres of ownership. Since the ranch consists of 827
acres, this permitted approximately five dwelling units. Frank
Subdivision No. 1 was approved in late 1976 approving four lots,
on the condition that a 160 acre parcel be subjected to a
"nondevelopment easement," which was noted on the plat, and
which prevented the construction upon irrigated meadows (which
are not proposed for development here either) . The six ranch
employee dwellings already located on the ranch were apparently
not considered as deductions from density, or Filing No. 1 would
have been disallowed. This interpretation was (and still is)
consistent with the fact that housing for ranch employees is
accessory to the principal use of operating a ranch, and "accessory
uses" are allowed as of right (see Land Use Code, §3.04,
paragraph 29) .
Extensive rezoning discussions with local residents commenced in
the Fall of 1976. The Board of County Commissioners, after noting
significant development constraints, nevertheless increased
densities 500� in the area by Resolution 77-33 of June 9, 1977
to Resource Zone RS-30. This zone allowed subdivision of lots
at the rate of one subdivided dwelling unit for each 30 acres of
ownership, or 27.56 units rather than the £ive previously
permitted.
In the Fall of 1977, Mary Frank applied for approval to subdivide
24 more lots (27.56 rounded to 28, less four previously sub-
divided units) as permitted by the RS-30 zone.
After extensive Planning Office evaluation and recommendation,
and three hearings before the Planninq and Zoning Commission,
the latter recommended denial on the basis that the application
violated the Growth Management Policy Plan (GMPP) . The
Commission did not respond to the applicant's request to
make findings about applicant's compliance with the many techni-
cal standards of the Code. ,
The Board of Countv Commissioners
of Pitkin Countv
March 27, 1978
Paae 3
The present hearing seeks approval of the General Submiss�on
with the necessary findings and conditions which will specify
the standards to proceed to the Detailed Submission and
engineering stage; further hearings and determinations
as to compliance of detailed submission with General Subdivision
standards; and thence to final plat approval, development
and sale of lots, a process which may consume the better
part of another y�ar.
TI. Inapplicability of Growth Management Policy Plan. It is
asserted that since the Board and the Planning & Zoning Commission
"adopted" the GMPP, it has become a part of the County Master Plan,
which applies to this application under a policy statement
contained in the Code, §2.01, which states:
"Development. . .will not be. . .inconsistent
with the Aspen. . .area Master PZan, as
amended. "
A. The GMPP Doesn't �. However, the GMPP recommendations
for the Downvalley area (where this subdivision is located}
identify that area as a "non-Master Planned" growth manage-
ment area (see GMPP, Third Draft, pp. 47-48) .
The Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution "adopting" the GMPP
on August 17, 1977 does not say that it adds these areas to
the Aspen area General Plan by amendment. ;
Further, the adopted GMPP expressly states that it cannot be �
applied without amendment to the �,and Use Code setting up an
allotment commission and a development allotment reguiation:
"Detailed consideration will have to be
given to. . .code amendments to explore
these policies." GMPP, p. 55.
"Both (City and County) codes would have
; to be amended to restrict consideration
of major subdivisions which envision new
construction once a year, proba�ily June
or Ju].y." GMPP, p. 55.
"An ongoing Citizens Advisory Board should
be constituted to provide ongoing analysis
of the Plan * * * This Commission shouZd
also assume the responsibility for annual
allotment recommendations." GMPP, p. 55.
The Board of Countv Commissioners
of Pitkin Countv
March 27. 1978
Paqe 4
"Once (the GMPP is) adopted, the County
Land Use Code. . .will have to be amended
accordingly. We recommend strict
observation of the difference between
planning and lawmaking." GMPP, p. 1.
Likewise, Resolution 77-83 of June 11, 1977 of the Board of
County Commissioners, although adopting the GMPP, stated that
such action was expressly
"conditioned upon. . .an allotment regulation
(to) be developed to implement the plan at
some future time after adequate experience
has been gained in reviewing development
proposals under the (City of Aspen's)
allotment program." Resolution 77-83,
GMPP p. 73.
B. Application is Consistent. Finally, even if the GMPP
applied here, the development is consistent with it. The GMPP
allocates 44 units per year to the so-called Downvalley Growth
Management Area. This application (24 units) and the Ulyrich
Woody Creek application (11 units) total the only 35 units applied
f�r in 1977, so it can hardly be claimed that the projected growth
rates will be exceeded in that year even if both are approved. ;
(We are advised that a consensus now exists about the impracti- j
' cability of deducting building permits issued to previously �
subdivided lots from new subdivision applications in favor of �
treating previousI.y approved lots as a part of the existing
' housing base. } The "Subregional fair share" of four units
' per year is not necessary because the gross 44 units contemplated
for 1977 are not exceeded, and the subregional concept has
no support in the GMPP itself.
C. Upzoning Controls. The only other phasing policy is
that stated in the Code, Section 2.25, entitled "Growth Rate;
Phasing of Public Services and Facilities."
First, that policy itself recognizes the necessity for "phasing
or allotment procedures" which do not yet exist.
Second, the Board has already recognized that poor roads in this
area as a justification for the present low RS-30 zone densities;
found those densities to be consistent with present (rather than
future) facilities and services; and neither contemplates nor
commits to future public facilities therein.
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 5
See Resolution 77-33, June 11, 1977, which clearly increased the
zoning of this 2and to the present facility and service
capacities:
"The Board finds with respect to the. . .
Snowmass Capitol Creek areas that (a)
significant natural hazard areas,
migration corridors, and critical winter
range. . .limit the development potential
(b) these areas have poor access roads,
no public transit, no public school
facilities, no commercial services, and
are located 12 miles from the Aspen
Metropolitan Service area (further
reducing the desirablity of residential
development) (c) the land areas continue
to be held in large tracts making �
agricultural use possible and (d) these
areas are adjacent to the Maroon Bells/
Snowmass Wilderness area, all of which
mandate densities lower than those
provided for in the Woody Creek area."
But after considering all of the present constraints, this Board
found: �
i
"In sum, the development constraints �
earlier documented. . .require limitations
on densities and uses similar to those !
provided for in the RS-160 zone district,
but this Commission has determined that,
and the evidence adduced during the
proceedings to date justifies, an increase
in densities'commensurate with the
ability of those areas to accommodate
the same at this time. Resolution 77-33,
June 9, 1977 (emphasis added) .
III. Zoned Density. Depending upon rounding techniques, the
27.56 subdivided lots permitted by dividing 827 gross acres
by 30 less the four already subdivided should result in either
the 24 applied for or 23 lots.
The ranch housing which was ignored or treated as "accessory"
in Frank Subdivision No. 1 includes:
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 6
l. Owner's residence
2. Foreman's residence
3. Horse arena apartment
4. Apartment across from arena
5. Cabin
6. Mobile home
The Planning Office proposes to reduce the lots by some or all
of the above.
The RS-3Q zone regulation adopts the use matrix of the RS-160
zone, Section 3.04, which allows "accessory buildings and uses"
as a matter of right, and requires speCial review only for ranch
"bunkhouses." (§3.04, pagragraph 29, 43)
Section 12 of the Code (Definitions) states that "accessory
buildings and uses" include:
�
". . .a subordinate building or use �
i customarily incidental to the principal �
j use and which is located on the same
i lot with the principal building or use i
I and not including those buildings or
� uses as defined herein under Farm and
; Garden Buildings or uses."
(In spite of the reference, Farm and Garden Buildings are not
defined in Section 12, but are also permitted by right.)
In addition, since the ranch housinq pre-existed both RS-160 and
RS-30 zone regulations, it is prabable that they are pre-existing
accessory or nonconforming buildings.
Since the RS-30 regutation purports to control only future
developinent or subdivision, and the ranch housing is not proposed
for subdivision, there appears no legal justification for the
proposed deduction of any of this housing from the lots
permissible here.
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 7
The second attempted reduction is based upon the 160 acre
meadow that was subjected to a nondevelopment easement by plat
reference in connection with Frank Subdivision No. 1. The
argument is that this meadow (which is not proposed to be built
upon) must be treated as though the acreage does not exist within
the ranch (e.g. , as a 667 acre ranch instead of an 827 acre
ranch) for purposes of calculating maximum number of lots.
This innovative argument is contrary to the acknowledged representa-
tions of Hal Clark to Mrs. Frank's planner as the first subdivision
and the rezoning were both nearing final approval. See letter
from Hal Clark dated December 15, 1977:
"I am not aware of any clause on the
Abacus Ranch subdivision plat or contained
in the subdivision improvement agreement
which restricts the consideration of the
fathering parcel for future density calcu-
lations. Previously as a member of the
Planning Office I recall discussing the
� situation with Dean Moff att representing the
; Abacus Ranch. I recall representing to
Dean that he could complete the RS-160
subdivision and that the non-development
portions could be considered for density
purposes if the balance was subdivided
under RS-30."
! In addition, restrictions in derogation of the use of land will
not be construed by implication to include anything not clearly
expressed in the conveyances or convenants. Nelson v. Farr,
354 P2d 163 (S. Ct. of Colo. 1960 at Page 166) .
� IV. Impact on Public Facilities. The Rezoning Resolution
(77-33, July 9, 1977 constitutes a finding by this Board that
the zoned density applied for is acceptable under Land Use Code,
�5.24.01, as a matter of recent official policy. Referral
comments from the School District and the Fire District support
this finding, while noting achievable design standards to be
met at detailed submission.
� _ _ __ ____ _ ___.. ___ ._. . _
--- �..w......�
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 8
A. Schools. See Superintendent Massaro's lettex of
January 11, 1978 for the Roaring Fork School District RE-1:
"The school district would like to
emphasize that they are not in opposition
to the subdivision as such, but are very
concerned that adequate entrance, turn-
around space, etc. be planned for a 35-
foot bus."
B. Fire Protection. See Zetter of Basalt and Rural
Fire District Fire Chief Glen Curtis, January 10, 1978:
"if. . .there is to be an adequate supply
of water storage we would be able to
provide you with fire protection to the
best or our firemen's and equipment's
ability."
kAs to adequacy of water supply, see Lorah report referred to
' under "VT. Water" below.
' Planning Office "questions" implying the contrary are not
supported by evidence. These questions were officially re-
considered and resolved in the referenced rezoning resolution
establishing the current densities.
i
C. Roads. The development proposes split access (and
split loading) of the East Sopris Creek Road (Co. Rd. 5) ; the
Capitol Creek Road (Co. Rd. 11) which feed the Ol.d Snowmass
Road (Co. Rd. 9) .
(1) East Sopris Creek Road (5) . See Traffic Analysis
Report of LeRoy Tobler, Registered Traffic Engineer, filed
� February 1, 1978 (The Ana].ysis was based upon actual peak
i hour traFfic counts taken on January 27, 1978) :
"The Abacus Ranch Subdivision will not
� adversely affect the traffic on County
kRoad 5 under existing conditions. Under
� fully developed conditions. . .there will
' be a vehicle every 2.5 minutes in both
directions. The distance between the
j vehicles will be 5,500 feet at the 25
� mile per hour posted speed."
* * *
I
!
�
L
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 9
"The proposed Abacus Ranch Subdivision
does not exceed the projected service
capacity of County Road 5." Tobler
Report filed February 1, 1978.
(2) Capitol Creek Road (11) . "The proposed. . .subdivision
does not significantly increase the volume of County Road 11."
Tobler Report filed February 1, 1978 and
� "The addition of the. . .subdivision does
not exceed the existing service road
volume of County Road 11. . ." Tobler
Report filed February 1, 1978.
j; , (3) Old Snowmass Road (9) . See Tobler Report filed
�
February 1, 1978:
�
� "The addition of the proposed. . .subdivision
does not exceed the existing service road
volume of County Road 9. . ." Tob.ler Report
filed February 1, 1978.
(4) June 1977 Board Rezoning Findings About These
Roads. Questions as to road adequacy were more properly directed
' to the rezoning Resolution 77-33 of June 1977 which found that
t� although
�,
the area in question had "poor access
roads" which "mandated densities lower
than the Woody Creek area," but "justifies
an increase in densities (to RS-30 densities)
commensurate with the ability of these areas
(Snowmass/Capitol Creek) to accommodate the
same" and concluded that "the same is
appropriate at this time." (Resolution
77-33, June 9, 1977.
Attempts to further restrict development of this rezoned land for
the same reasons considered in rezoning it is at best questionable,
and at worst illegal.
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
i March 27, 1978
; Page 10
' V. Sewage Disposal. Sanitarian Nelson's report of September 14,
� 1977 note� that vegetation types on the lower portions of Lots
� 18-24 may suggest high seasonal water table. The applicant's
materials indicate a willingness to utilize upper portions of
� these lots for septic systems "that will be engineered to comply
' with Pitkin County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations." The
j Lincoln DeVore soils study of June 13, 1977 recommends
� percolation tests "to provide design criteria for sewage
� facilities," and concludes:
� "It is the opinion of the laboratory
� that this site is completely developable."
ILincoln DeVore Report, June 13, 1977.
; Sanitarian Nelson stated:
i "We would agree with the preliminary
conclusions of this (Lincoln DeVore)
j Report." Nelson Report, September 14,
� 1977.
VI. Water. The preliminary report of William Lorah of Wright
Water Engineers, July 15, 1977, examines the substantial existing
irrigation and well systems, and concludes:
"It is our opinion that an adequate physi-
i cal and 'legal' water supply can be developed
for the proposed 25 dwelling units on the
� Abacus Ranch."
i
' VII. Housing. Land Use Code, Section 5.30, authorizes approval
of new developments which are "not exclusionary or which will
help to alleviate the shortage of low and moderately priced
ownership and rental housing in the County." 5.30.01(c) .
� The "non-exclusionary criteria" for residential developments are
stated as "50$ of total residential dwelling unit count."
The February 1, 1978 report of Brian Goodheim, former County
Housing Director, states:
"The subject proposal. . .is non-
exclusionary because 50 percent of
the residential units are restricted
The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 11
to employee units. The 50 percent
percentage is in excess of the percentage
of employee housing (approved) in the
Snowmass Plan. . .sales prices are aford-
able by persons of moderate income."
The proposed restrictions concerning the initial price farmula
are the same as those approved by this Board for restricted
single family lots in the Snowmass General Submission by Resolution
76-15 of November 22, 1976.
VIII. Wildlife. Initial concerns of the Department of Wildlife
recommended relocation of several large lots which were in the
vicinity of portions of the migration corridor. This is not
permitted by Section 5.44 of the Code. These lots were
' relocated at the January 4, 1978 Planning & Zoning Commission
� Meeting. Representatives of the Department of Wildlife
i stated that the subdivision as reconfigured removed the
I objection; stated the East Sopris Creek Road access point
� was outside of the corridor and stated in essence that their
prior concerns had been satisfied.
i IX. Agricultural Conservation. The consumption of agricultural
land is inconsequential under all alternative lot layouts. Under
"Revision H" the areas within the proposed lot lines constitute
less than 12� of the gross acreage of the ranch. Of the total
; 827 gross acres, only about 94 acres are lotted. Lots 7-12
� include 21 of the 94 acres, and were sited off of ineadows on
; unirrigated brush slopes. Lots 3, 4 and 5 include 19.5 acres
of an outparcel that is not readily accessible for hay or grazing
on account of topography.
�
Lots 13-24 include the remaining 34 (of the 97) lotted acres and
were allotted to satisfy County housing criteria, and consist of
meadows. However, this constitutes about 4.�� of the gross
acreage and a small proportion of the meadows in use.
The comment of the Pitkin County Extension Agent of November 23,
1977 that the predecessor plan was a "most judicious use of the
land" applies almost equally to the subsequent revisions -- even
though visibility objections of the Planning Office have relocated
some lots to consume small amounts of better agricultural land.
. The Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County
March 27, 1978
Page 12
XI. Soil & Geology. We agree with the Planning Office memo
of December 2, 1977 that:
"There appears to be no significant
problems with regard to soils or geological
conditions within the proposed develop-
ment areas. Test borings and percolation
tests are recommended at detailed submission. "
XI. Utilities. The Planning Office memo of December 2, 1977
indicates compliance with Section 5.24 of the Code regarding
utilities, which is supported by referral comments from Holy
Cross Electric Association and Mountain Bell Telephone Company.
XII. Visual Impact. Except for resistance to locating lots
in the active paddock area, the applicant understands she has
relocated lots in the interest of visual aesthetics as requested
iby the Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus and the Planning Office.
� XIII. Proposed Covenants. These are listed in Exhibit 23 to the
General Subdivision and compZy with §6.03.02h with respect to
prohibition of domestic dogs, maintenance of improvements,
preservation of agricultural and open space commitments.
XIV. Conclusion. When Mary Frank came to us, we told her
she must comply with your written standards because they were
the product of much work and rework. We assured her that if
she did that she co.uld expect careful, but sympathetic and construc-
tive, assistance from you in the realization of the limited
� benefits bestowed upon her by the law, contrasted with the widely
' rumored belief that the rezoning and other standards were only
a costly impediment which would be met with other "reasons" to
further limit, delay, or practically deny her realization of
these limited development benefits.
While I can guess at some of the reasons for the hostility to
her application (jealously, conflicting personal tastes, anxiety
over pending legal changes) , most owners of land in this area
do not share my special point of view. Their view is that the
Commissioners went through an expensive public relations charade
to upzone these areas, but -- through constant change in the
law -- will continue to frustrate its realization to keep them
' in thrall to their "open space. "
Until required to do otherwise, I will continue to assert the
integrity of the Board and of the approval processes of the Land
Use Code and the present zoning.
� The Board of County Commissioners i
of Pitkin County {
March 27, 1978 �
Page 13 i
�
�
�
;
:
You should, therefore, advise Mrs. Frank with findings, i
evidence and reasons for all matters to be dealt with at
the next step of the process, and any substantial basis for ;
denial or delay of all or any part of the density applied ;
for.
You should also advise those who would have you confirm the !
rumors that the process is another subterfuge that you, the
government, is equally compelled to follow its Code and its
zoning, regardless of personal preference or necessary delays
in adopting new legislation.
Your constructive insights for improvement of the product of
these regulations are solicited for consideration by the applicant
and the Planning Office at the detailed submission stage.
Respectfully submitted,
/ �� -��- - Q•L,_
Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. for
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR.
AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys for Mary Frank
DKS:mw
�'
./
� • � � • /' •
I.AW OfFICES ' • '
DWIGHT K. SH�:LLIv�N;��R. l--��
ANn ASSOCIATES . D\�/lGHT K. SfiL•i.LMAN,JR.
A PPUF1.59nNAL C(�RPt7RA'17UV '
ASPEN A7'NLF.TIC CLUIi IIUILUING )UN DAVin SI:IGI.F.
HARBARA E. OJtN1TZ
720 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, SIIITG 301 HERJ3L•RT S. Kt.L'tN
ASPF.N. COLORADO SIGiI (303) 925-2710 DFUORAH QUINN
April 10, 1978 ..
SOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S �
. Ms..,Sandra Stuller, County Attorney PITKIN C0.
Pitkin County Courthouse Publio Hearing Exhibits
506 3,'ast Main Street EXNIBfT
Aspen, Colorado 81611 . Date .
Subjeat : � �
R�: Abacus Ranch � Ex2�. Na.: .
llear. Sandy,
This letter is in response to your letter of April 5, 1978
. with regard to the completion of the record on the Abacus Ranch .
Subdivision Application. The Subdivision General Submission
� Application that was referred to as being part of the record is
the working document you referred to in your letter. This
document necessarily is the most complete compendium of i:he
application and probably the best indication of its history of
processing and current status. . '
It makes the most sense for us to agree that it is part of the
record without attempting -to recreat� it in its pr:esent form.
This seems reasonable because the key document has been
submitted to the Planning Office, is part of their onguing
review and processing and unless the original application has
been modified by County staff, represents the best evidence o�
the record in this matter. •
If at some future date it is necessary to provide this document
for judicial revi�ca or otherwise, you should anticipate obi:aining
the document directly from the Plannirig Office.
Very truly yours, �
. . :�t� /. . / �
Flerbert S. Klein
D[VTGIIT K. SI�I�LI�A111N, JR.
AND ASSOCIATES, P. C.
HSK tu �
•.�`*�i • •
:V f � •
:A�..
506 E.MAIN STAEET ASPEN,COLORADO 81611
P April 5, ].978 � ' � �
I
T � � �
K .
I
N Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. , Esq.
Dwight K. Shellman, Jr. and Associates BOARD OF C0. Cohtt�t�x�s
720 East Hyman Street, Suite 301 PITKiN C0.
C Aspen, CO 81611 ' �'ubli
Date EXHIBIT
U Re: Abacus Ranch Application sub3ec � � {7
Exh. N � D�'
N Dear Dwight: �
T You, at the last meeting, offered into the record
Y your client's application €or development approval. �
I assume that by "application" you meant the compendium
' including the application, referrals, maps, etc. , that
� you supplied to the Planning Office. Is it possible . �
that you cari supply another for the record; the appli-
cation in the Planni.ng Office is a working document
and I am sure Karen and Joe would like to continue
to rely on its being available for their use. Please
• . advise. .
Very truly yours,
. Sandra M. Stuller
Pitkin Connty Attorney .
SMS:cb �
CC: Liz Stewart •
'�'11� Il����� �111]��
BOX E BOARD OF C0. COMM'R'S
PITKIN C0.
� Aspen, Colorado �blia Hoaring Fahibits
Date . � •�� • 7�
sub�eat . Q�L• K7�. Code
Exh. No.: .�,
PROOF OF PUBLICA'TION
STATE OF COLOR.ADO ; �• COp�/ Of NOtIC@
Connty of P(tkin )
I, W i 11 i am_..R....,Dunaway..__. ao eolemnly awear rnat
Publisher .............. of � As�rr TTn�s;
I am khe ..._•••-.._••••.....••--•................_.
that the same is e.weekly newapaper printed, in whale or in part.
and published in the County of Pitkin, 8ta.te of Cotorado, and has
a general clrculation theretn; that said newspaper has been Qub-
lished continuously and uinterruptedly in satd County of Pitkin,
for a pertod of more 4han fifty-two cansecutive weeks next prior 3�,
to the Sirst publlcation of the annexed legal notice or advertise- �` ��.''T'r�':" "� .t�
ment; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United $tates ub��C �fi� ' ,
mails as sceond-class matter under the �prov►sions of the Act oi �:: , �<-:- . �- ; .�
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that satd aewe- 1� : PUBI�C NO�fICB- ,
. �;..,
� :
paper fe a weekly newspaper duly quallffed for publishing legal ����yaN��'�� ,
notfces and advertisements with the meanfng of the lawa of the `�i11 L�d1i,sLtoe�tb�Hwa ot:Cvnef� -
� 3ta.te of Colorado. �t�C!�'.�'�D��i
�iPi�6lie6�ii�N�iir.l4a�ltimuf,.,
tlrli78:�lM4'�(�MU�iiis�6l�ie�l �
That the annexed legalt notice or advertlsement was publiahed 'Cadr(�db=1h�NiNaQlI�FR ,
in the regular and entire lssue of every number of said weekly i:�10���'�������°� '
�th�Amki�era.IilRi�r1 8tdni��1mtl '
;'Wb)��b� �wNhio all ioimarlio' �
newspapers for the period of .....�.r.............. con.secutive lnsertiona; and ' ����b'��b�1O� .
t,hat the flrst publlca.tSon of sald notice was in the fssue ot said "'� --�i°!�����Boam' .`
; Pl Caa�jr Cbaef6wr.'60l�6..H�in `, .
� �:Mpo.at�i.so p.a.:as��[ued�i. -�
newspaper dated ..Ma.T'C�1...2......-••••••••-... A. D.� 19 ..�8 and that l0:lY7A.wek1�eoms�abeq b� .'
4]���L�ari��o�0efop,:
the last�pubHcatlon of sald notice was in the lssue of said news- u(tlwpkkiaCamk/,CMetied�drr�t ;
th��tliew.p�fotl� .�
� �7 ,HOARD�OOUNIY�AB :;
paper dated ....IK�„T'Ch.:..��..........••- A. D.. 19••.f..8 . ,':OF'Pl18II�i3OOUi!R'Y:O�ORADO.�
. , •:�"(tJ Ro6�iet W(�iW ;
������%%� �� '� : .:
�w�.a m�. ���...l�y�.� :
. _..... .. =:18,49�c 90.1978.' �:
.. ... _......••• ..................... ... � ,..... . �._ . . .� .,.:�:
Subscrlbed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and Soa�
the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, this �/.............. dsy o!
I��s%ctic%1V/�.l.-..... A.D.. 19��
_ � /
. .. ... .._... . .. . .. .. .....
Notary PubllC
n�y coramission exptres .....�y.Commissi Expires Nov. 3, 1980
..._._._. .rr.�..�.�..r.�.�..w1 -�_ _._.
. � 1
-rl�� 1����1� -�11!]��
BOX E SOARD OF C0. CODth['R'S
PITKIN C0.
Aspen, Colorado :ublic Hearing Exhibits
Dato . ._!�.:.�Q!lr.._
sub3oQt : �G1,�I......�QP�
Fx�i. No.: .....__.._-------•..........
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
� �. Copy of Notice
County of Pitkin )
I, ._.W i Z 1 i am R.Dunaway ao eolemnly swear u�at
I am khe ..._�41�7�.a.,��.4'.x'........._............... of THE ASPEN TII4LES;
that the same is a weekly newapaper printed, in whale or in part,
and publtshed in the County o[ Pitkin, Sta.te of Colorado, and has
a general clrculat[on thereln; that sald newspaper has been gui�-
lished continuously and uinterruptediy 1n said County of Pltkin,
for a perfod of more bhan ftfty-two corisecutive weeks next prlor r , �.,.� .• _...,
to the S[rst publica.tion of the annexed legal notice or advertise- ,public noti��;�;
ment; that said newspaper has �been admitted to the Untt,ed 3tates ,.�,,Sk� � ;
mails as sceond-class matter under the provtsiona of the Act of PUBLIC NOTIC69� ;
March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and thaL sa.fd newa- RE:Ow1 Crer�'Genaal w�; ±
Y P P Y 4�ifled for ubllshin le `d<R'b1ieH°�rI°s' � x .i
paper is a weekl news a er dul P B 8'� •..,�; ` , , . t ;:' �`.:k.
notices and advert[sements with 1he meaning of the lawe of the N U�IB HE1tE8Y (3IYEDl tLat a i
8ta.te of Colorada 'p"b�" p6;w�'�:� betore'Ihe �.
Boeei�'( t�r Gamm�siSnen od'Apnl ,
• 10,19���P.![intheCammia4�m� are ;
That the annexed lega0: notice or advertisement was publlshed M�����mCountyCwt!]fmue, ,
in .the regular and entire iasue oi every number of said weekly ��r tlia Generd 9u6mie;ai appli_
'-eatiai otM�tehell F�er�r�►d Derslapment . t
•Canpm�jur the;Owl Creek:Velle�i.The ; �
newspapers for the perJod of ....1............. consecutive insertions; and '�1i�0A ����4:iodplen- ' :
ned uaiE'de�eqt appmtrd'foi.1960.;,;
t,hat the Yirst publication of said notice was in the issue oP said „ uniEe,mdkinclndriee�+iewAtieirornlinst. ,
t�aotdste�edloealmteraL�Aa�yo[fhe ` ;
March 9 78 ���m.��i�r..��.m.c��s,..:: �
newspaper dated ...•-_•...............................••... A. D., 29 •_•.... and that 6e e:araraed jn�tis Pl�nnina 00'xe,City.:
the last�publtca.tioa of sald notice was in the Isaue of said news- " �ell�190 Q iCaleo4�8t:�(9262020)during
` notmal bu�IMii hairs:"�',: ::, :�•,. .. . .
.. . .._ . ' (e) �
paper dated _.........._.__..._••-•••-•............... A. D.. 19........ � " ' :Ro6eitChlld Ch:irmm;; �
' Boerd of Caunty Cunm�esionero, :
. � :Publiehed in the Ay�en'limm Mardi 9. .
/ , , . . , ;
! ,G �Gt�ilc�GUll' ,ts�a .•. . ' '- ;
._...r..��.....r.._..�....._�'..-•..................._��-�... . �
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota.ry p�Yblic in and doa� '
�
the County of Pltkin, State of Colorado, this _..../...�......... day of �
�j) �f ';
_...�����i.:�J-/••.••••.._._.. A. D.. 19.l� '
�
. �
. �,�,.?.�'�...._.........��.7�:7.��'�'�.....
Nota.ry Public �
nsy comm�as�o� exp�res .1.Il�Commission.�cpires Nov. 3, 1980 ;