HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.050.1981 {.;. �-J . � .
4
� i� �fp
��s�+.3"j
h`���'i'.Y+r'��. r.sac�Y"�ww.::a4..:J:if'7.�F�Yt...i'_A:'—_.� .�... -� ..�.. ...�S.Y�'......<.54.:.�%rrf 1�rlF�C�..-.r�..._:'c"L=.c_,::0.:�.:.a�ir�"�'�>^ �•- .
f'� � `.,a�w :
i �?,
f�l� � �"���,.
ti„ � �r5���.. ..
�l RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
� COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF LITTLE ANNIE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR SPECIAL I2EVIEW
'� APPROVAL FOR A NEW SRI AREA '
� Resolution No. S1- 50
:�
;:
WHEREAS, Little Annie Limited Partnership (hereinafter "Applicant")
_. k
� has submitted an application pursuant to the provisions of Title II '
s
of the Pitkin County Code (Land Use CoBe) (hereinafter "Code") for
special review approval for the development of the Little Annie Ski
l
Area (hereinafter "proposal", "proposed ski area" or "project") . �
WHEREAS, the Board has received the recommendation of the Planning i'
i
and Zoning Commission, and conducted a public hearing on said application,
' all as required by law, �,
�';.
� WHEREAS, the Board is prepared to make findings with respect to the
�`
�: application and its compliance with the policies and regulations of �
k
;� the Land Use Code, all as required by Section 3-6.1, �
wy%�� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
��`,.f of Pitkin County, Colorado, that, with respect to the application oE
� � � ;
►.' Little Annie Limited Partnership for special review approval for the �
;-
Little Annie Ski Area (as the project lies within the unincorporated �
i
� area of Pitkin County) the Board does find:
1. The application concerns the first phase (only) of a ski area
containing 3,500 acres of private and public lands, to be developed
�� with 706 acres of marked trails, 95,000 square feet of building space,
' � and a lift system (containing a monocable, six chairlifts, and one "3" �`
�� bar) . The proposed area would accommodate 4,500 skiers a day.
`±� Construction of the area is schedu2ed to begin in April of 1982 and be
`.� complete in November of 1983.
�
2. In reviewing the application for compliance with the provisions '
�� ; �
of the Code, the Board has distinguished between those policies (and ;
corresponding review criteria and submission requirements) which concern �
matters capable of technical solution; and those of a more general, �
�
conceptual and political nature requiring resolution by the Board acting
in its policy making capacity. These issues are termed "technical" and �
"political", respectively. . �
r
�
' - 1 -
� •,:�,n,,.�. ,
, >;;F=;.-yy�
:,,.:x,.�a�- •
�::��:;:�,�v
�.:
�, ;.� >
r.• �., �� � .
:..4�:i_,.� . . .
�i " i
� L1,�
=t.
k�. �_rts• ' . .
�I ''^yi"'�eso-.=�c.: _r_.....�:r+s+-.�:ar=.in,cr ..�-cc- . .. . .. -. .. , .... «_.,.�.�.,.,.q........-,�,-.�...............,.............�....«.r.....,. �
t ;'�r1�� '
�;h
t�: 4i;,;�.
��. ;;-�'ry;,.,
r^�,�',:,�
>�..>�_-
� 3. The Board has, £urther, distinguished between those policies
. �;
t:
(and corresponding review criteria and submission requirements) which
it feeZs the Applicant has satisfied and those which the Applicant has '
failed (to date) to satisfy.
t; 4. Based on the fozegoing, the Board has found that the following
policies contained in Article 2 of the Code are technical in nature and �
� the Applicant shall have the opportunity to satisfy the same either �
separately or together upon submission of additional information: �
i
(a) Section 2-3 Natural and Man-Made Hazard and Resource •
�
Areas (except subsection 2-3.6, see below) �
�� �
(b) Section 2-4 Soil, Surficial Geoloqic Characteristics 1,,
E
and Radiation �
(c) Section 2-5 Drainage �
,
� (d) Section 2-6 Adequate Provision for Water Needs j
(e} Section 2-7 Sewage Treatment and Collection �
(f) Section 2-9 Road Design and Construction °
(g) Section 2-11 Erosion �
i ?
� �
� (h) Section 2-17 Air Quality
� �
�`� (i) Section 2-18 Energy Conservation r
'' �
w'
(j) Section 2-22 Water Resource Impacts �
r
(k) Section 2-23 Noise �r
The Applicant has submitted a considerable amount of information to date; ;
. , j
however, certain deficiences in the applciation with respect to these �
� �
� policies remain. The Board requests all additional information and
, submissions required by the Code and makes this request pursuant to '
{ .
� Section 6-3.4(d) (3) (B) .
5. The Board has found that the following sections of the Code
(and corresponding criteria for review and sabmission requirements of
w Article 5) hava been satisfied by the Applicant.
�t 1
(a) Section 2-1 Conformance with the Aspen Area General
Plan. Reservinq for further consideration the effect �
� of the project on public facilities and services (see
i
paragraph 7 below) the project otherwise has been found
to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the I
Aspen Area General Plan, as amended. '
's i
(b) Section 2-2 Conformance with other Laws. The application, �
as submitted, demonstrates no deviation from other state, �
federal or local laws.
,�
- 2 -
'S��l,t.... .
't%Eqivy¢�.� . .
��±•, � • �A� . .
.
_ � _
- ___
, � �
� .
� '�rr,�,��!�
� 1��
-y���*, ..y .
�:..i+11if�1�. ..... . _ . __" . .., : . . . .:. , .
f� ---- . - - _ _ _ ___ _ .__ -_ ..^.:_--------___._�.__. _ _.,�
��r�
� .���f
{�'s
�j�,�H�R.
�l F::F`34':� ::t�.
� (c) Section 2-12 Compatibility with Historic and Archeolo ical
� Resources. There have been identified, within the
jurisdiction of the Board, no historic or archeological �
resources that might be affected by the proposed ski area. �
i
(d) Section 2-21 Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Nei hbor-
hoods. The Applicant has been required, simultaneously
- ' with this application, to seek additional development j
I
approvals from the City of Aspen. Opinions as to the
impacts of the project on residents of the City of Aspen !
i
may be voiced by their participation in the proceedings
before the City reviewing agencies. �
(e) Section 2-24 Compafibility with Existing Adjacent Public �
Lands. The United States Forest Service has identifed the
� area as an appropriate ski area site; and requires an EIS
, , t
. and special use permit before the project may be developed. �
The Board will de£er to federal procedures and agencies
. �-
'"-`�;� £or a determination as to the compatibility of the proposal �'
# with adjacent £ederal Iands. j
� (f) Section 2-25 Growth Rate: Phasing of Public Services j
and Facilities. The project will be located with a
developed area; does not contain any activity requiring
GMP development allotments; and falls within the GMP rate �
for ski area expansion. Consequently, the proposed ski �
area meets the policies of this section. 3
6. The Board has found that the following policies of the Code '
�: `
r'
(and corresponding review criteria and submission requirements) have been =
satisfied by the Applicant if he complies with the limitations and/or
conditons hereinafter imposed:
(a) Section 2-3.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat. The project
will have an impact on wildlife distribution, migration � �
i
and feeding habits, but would not place the resident � �
, populations in immediate or extreme danger provided that �
the Applicant comply with those mitigation measures itemized I �
in that May 28, 1981, Memorandum (described below) which 1
are hereb im osed. I �
Y P !
I
(b) Section 2-8 Impacts on Road System. The on2y County road �
affected by the project is the r`�.dnight Mine Road, presently
unimproved and not maintained. aareased use might
i
I
- 3 - �
,,..�;��.�'„�` . �
-;�:.iw:�r,av,,'��- . . . . . . .. . . . .. ..
yt•�'-'r'.. .N�
� . _ "___.�,. ..�..�... -w,.......__
� �y '`i
r' .��
� 7 f���T�
r ==
a:-Y�
��sw�''Qr'r�t_.�:�:�� �:_�:��:._��,�......-,.:...�:�r..:.-...,� ._ .��.......... �. ,._.. _.. .,..� ..._..-.-�..._.�.�_-..-..�..,..�...............................
,i _ _ �?t�
��
, �a„�,, . -
j 7:,:}�:����� .
L:i=;�..��r.'°.
M precipitate a demand for both, and possibly open new
� areas for development. Consequently, the Applicant shall
not use the road to develop or service the proposed ski
i
area.
f
(c) Section 2-10 Logical Extensions of Utilities. The only ;
utility extension falling within the terms of this policy !
i �
- " is power. The Applicant shall prevent connection to or �
i
tap on from its service line (whether publically) or �
,
privately owned) for uses other than ski area (or related) �
�
facilities or uses. �
(d) Section 2-13 Compatibility with Agricultuxal Lands and �
� Operations. The proposed area wi21 not impact agricultural ��
lands or operations except to the extent it may affect
water available for agricultural users. Consequently,
this policy will be deemed satisfied only upon compliance i�.
�
with the policy contained in Section 2-22 (described above) . �
' �.
---'.% (e) Section 2-15 Housing. The Applicant is required to provide , .�^
# housinq of suitable types, costs and location to accommodate "
�
� persons (and their employees) employed by operation of the '-
a ski area. It proposed to satisfy this policy by providing
52 units (718 of the need generated) in the early years
i
o£ development. The balance of the units (remaining 29$) t
r
are to be constructed correspondingly with the increasing S
�s.
utilization of the ski area PROVIDED that land be made i
available by the Housing Authority, Eor consideration, q ,
under terms and conditions agreeable to the Applicnat and i
Authority at that time. Rentals charged for housing ;
provided by the Applicant shall be commensurate with
�
1
Applicant's salaries. �
(f) Section 2-16 Scenic Quality The visual quality of the i� j
I
area will not be seriously diminished provided that the � . �
I j
' � Applicant install the first sections of the Gondola by ! I
� �
helicopter and insure that no road cuts are visible from � ;
' I
the Aspen area; both of which constraints are hereby imposed. j I
(
7. The Board has found that the following policies of the Code are
i
political in nature and have not yet been satisfied, but may be so upon ,
further review after submission of additional information by the Applicant.
i
i
- 4 -
X.,� . . . � . . . .
i. �'r��.'r; .
y^��?r�.. � .
:�;�,�,.Y.;�r,��+�.
������- . -�j
i �
i�... _. -':•� . � •
� +'�;,,��ti
;:�,�� , .
k y_ s .
fa "" :-..
�GN�.K11F`:r...�.:MC=:iic'X��.+s.r::'r-a .'�.,r�.: � .:,.._.,-.._. ,;... .,..,.:. �..:��._.___ ,._._...�___..�. : _ : : � . ��..
li M , y'
Y . ���ry,
J .�;�,#.:.:.°
L:��a—a.;,:—.:.
� I
(a) Section 2-14 Impacts on Taxes and Management of
Necessary Services and Facilities. This section requires
that no development be approved by the Board unless it �
is satisfied that resulting demand on public facilities
i
can be met. The Board. is not, as of yet, so satisfied.
The Applicant failed to submit any reports itemized in i
, --- !
Section 5-204.2 and the Board requests this additional �
�
i
information and submission pursuant to Section 6-3.4(d) �
(3) (s) . l
I
f
i (b) Section 2-].9 Transportation. Until the Applicant has �
submitted the reports itemized in Section 5-204.2 the �
Board is unable to determine that the demand on public �,
i
, transportation facilities (if any) can be met.
�
Consequently; the Board requests this additional information !.
�� �
::� �
and submissions pursuant to Section 6-3.4id) (3) (B) . %�
� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the findings made herein are premised �
�r�� and conditioned upon compliance by the Applicant with any and all �
#r; 9
[� representation (wzitten or oral) made by it at any time in support of a
� F .
� its application. �
a
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the comments contained in that Memorandum ¢�
1 3
to the Board of County Commissioners from Curt Stewart dated May 28, 1981, �
� to the extent consistent with this resolution are incorporated by the �
' � reference for the purpose of supporting, explaining and elaborating upon i
the action hereby taken by this Board.
x Approved by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners at its j
� a
regular meeting held this 22nd day of June, 1981. �
— c
1
�� ;;���, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1
="A'�'�ES�"� PITKIN COU47TY, COLORADO w �
:�y~�� °L ' sy: �/����1�ri� � �
�ri .Saanlan Robert W. Child �
�, �,De-�u�f ��erk and Recorder Chairman
�.. • '• p+•; i i
- _ '�{�ROVED AS TO FORM:
� �
`,�.�s����� t
�1-�/� ii �
Sandra M. S uiler � �
County Attorney ; '
t
�
� 1 �
.� � ;
. �
�
' S - ,
. i
:r '
' �. . . . . _. ... . . � . . ._ .
Y
�ti.� . Y , .. � �
* +�- '��� . . .
f .'
�,k i .
� '� �������
���''+7+�"'A�F.�S,��kiastatf'�s;+it�13a41�,:��7:�,4=�'sf.�';.a:z 9�u,sri'r'��.:�.�',i.i:�ai.a.:a:1.s':i..�i:::Tb`�}�:R`;�T�a`'�if:�`°�I:..;:!?�T`��r"��Si�.'•a�'w"r.tt'�i+fl✓�l��,y�..�t ..(_
, �drA'°'"'^'z�... s ��f
�' ',r � '� �! : {�'�'
` -.. �
'. -- c_— , `- Frt�:`,
k,� ' ,�- ,r���'.,�� - :�y>R�..:'=- �
�' � .`.///,/� � .
.._ •� � �.��.- .�(\1\�\ ��-.; �u�.9c�6� c�ae�a�.�,�•• �.
.: ' ``\ 11 � �• y.T:'OfdC�J[r.iR� Y�' MI�YSCTila�4q�11peswwsiY
. ���._�..�__. ._...._. _'LiA��_._�...�..�`_..___..... ..
�13 """""'__—'__"'_"_"__"
��._.--- ... JflLi l�c.t::iL il-ILIh'i ul.l"l�:F;C .
_ � '�� aspen, calor�cJo EJ1G11
, , . . bt13�t0IW4UUt9 .
' �
i '
" T0: &� Or ODUNTSt CCtrMISSI�IL`' ' � .
e 1�-- '. �
_ _ �: � S�� G�f�`
S[7B,7L•'CP: LITTLE ANNIE RL'JIL•W .
�
I]AT�: ; 28 MAY 81
. . i � �������������� � ���� ��� �����
� The attach�l material is recrx;nrs�dEd as tlie basis for discussion a` our June 1 Little
, Annie revieo� session. This analysis is cone using the policies of _f�e Cbunty Larx3 .
Use Cocle as its l�sis. Our feeliny��as that the Pitcin County L.U.C.. would selve as
the best basis for the drai•ting of a resolution. '
' We inter.d thi.s work to suppl�m�t the material already receivod. This is important
to ];eep in mind b:�cause this pap�.s deals with outstanding issues and ma}-.ea no atL�t
� � to recap many of the positive aeasures proposed by the app]icant.
The process we recam�nd is that you review each County policy and ti� matari�ll that
exisis i.n Little Annie and�:'RP. It is your responsibility to determir_e coam�liaice e�itn "�t_
County polici�s and tn determine the relative itr�portance of each policy and the tnaterial
• su}xititted. •
�k � •
We urge you to distinguish between policies and sutsnission materi.als which deal���rith tY?e
� C potential for mitigation at the imple�ntai-ion stage (e.g. detailed engire�sizg on Uie•
►; installation of a lift towrs) and those policies and materials that indicate grobl�ms
: beyond the applicant's control and that may sugyest that there is no reasonable exaec-
�' tation of resolution (e.g. SH 62).
It is our intent to crmplete this process on a first pass then again review the policies
in +;he con�:.� of a].1 u�m�te;-i�,1 a:lxti_i:tt� {1liGU9houi t:� �ic�cle i�.nnie process. iran
that point we wiZl have t1�e basis for the preparation of a resolution.
CS:pb -
. j
� �
� s
�
� � , !
. � .
-: .
.__'�. ..,- _ _ _ .._.�......_.._.._ .._... , �
.. � �
.. . . . �
. .
. " �
. . .. , �
• .. �
' . . � i
, . �
;
���=`�:;::?•�`'�
_ -- _ _. _ __.
i:� ^�St.�� .
C"�r �fkrz�l . . . . .
+�y S�-y�y,k� . � ��.t ..
W��+. ,q r . T 1'� f . t'in i �1M 1'� !SSl4. Y '� 6 �iq��w+;y �
�"�3�1:�F�t'Si�'i.�..`a''��i.�.��;�l�5l.'!?�x(.�dti_x���..�..n�=oti,e,r?nc�`,iS�iN�ct�.�.�i�.�a'�i�..�'y....r�w�i�'�'w�d+f�� �e���.
�SeJ
�� ��
q;:.;�;..,r
� . . � �°!r>..
�,� . � FF7�i"i1.:..�.•
.I ' rL'-:t�ri-y�.s:.:_
� • I. Drafi ot LiLCle Annie's Revicw - Preamrlc
I . '
' . A. Ttules.of l•he Camc
The LiL•t:le Annic Ski Corp. application, is submitted und�-r the '
� Special 12eview Pcrmit provisi.on Section 3-6 of Title II (Land
• Use Code) of the Pitkin County Code, which stai:ese
' . � � .
. 3-6 Spectal Rcelcv�Pcrtnils "
' 3-6.1 Goncral '
� . Uses de�i;nalr.d as special revicw uses in any zon�di.:trict or by any
i general regulation'are conti�nenl uses whic:� moy or may not bo �
appropriate in a pc�rticular loc�tion dependinn npon the naiure o:Ih^ j
use,its relationship lo surrounding land uses,a nd i:s irnpact i�ith raspect
to environmental,social and economic matters.Sur.r,ial Heview 1•Jae
' Permits m2y�e approvcd Gy the fioard onl aR2r rrv'�•vinq thr imp:i.l ol � �
^�---.._•_ ;�s
ih�art cul.er u �n iRrt ro osed locat�on on ad�acent•.and us�s,thc
environment d,soual ro�d ec�nomic characl�r��+��:n�+tin+m� a�� �
communi(yiiigener I andonly�onafindinylhattheuse�comnatib!a ��`
. wilh t}ie Policies rnd rfs,GUhlions o(this Code. .
• 3-G.2 Special fieview Procedure • ,
.. , Procedures tor apo�ication. review and approval, di�approval or
conJilional approval of special review use are described in Ariicle 6,
- Common Procedure,c(lhis Code. `
. ri
• . $
G-3 Generl Submis�ion • ' ��(�(-
-�•I 6-3.1 Generat jN:��
a � ThcGenc:alSubmi;sionicthe(irstgeneralstageofreviewlorplanned !��
i' unit developments aFld subc+ivisions,and tor rezoninc�and specia�review 1�
#. 'applications lo be considered in conjunction wiih a planned unil .
" development or subdivision.�n applicstian tor rezoning,lor a special ' ��
# review use,or Iqr building pennit review not mads in conjunc!ion with a ' i'
PUD or subdivision may be finally consi�ered by the Board a(ter �
complelion o(the y�neral submission procedures.The applicant shall
file an appiicalion wiQ� lhe Ylanning O(fice in accordance�vith lhe f`
� ' requiremenls set tor�h oelow.
, . ' 6-32 Submission Contenls shall I�clude the tollowing, where S
' epplicable,submitted in accordance�vith aeneral submission drawinc�s �
� . and repurt requirements(Section G-3.3): .
� � ' (ay Application form ' ��
(b) Disctosuro o(Ownership .' �i
(c) h viciniq�-topoc�raphy n�ap �
` � � •(d) A map�r maps(submit teio�2�copies ut each,plus addition�l II
copies nr,cessary(or refertal:,c�cncies)showiny,�vhcre applir,able: � -
(1)/1 conccptual dra�vin�ot t!ie lot and Elreet layoul indicatfng the
, approximale area ot individual lots aod access to the property.
(2) Signilicant natural features o( the site
� ' (3) Zone dislriol boundsries and boundaries o(any areas o1 state �..
j pnd local interost adopted in Article 5(Uivision 4)o!this Codo.
` I (A) Man-made ic:�turr.s such as exisling buildings, ircigation ��
I ditr,hr.�, utiliiy lines t�nd casements, briCges,culverts,drafnac�e �
and sediment2liur,systems,mines,or mine dumps. �
(5) Gencral land usc division into re�fdenii�l lypes,eommcrcial,
induslrial, com:nunity facilities, and op�n spacr, fncluding �
� proposed bounc�a�ies of public use or common nreas. ' '
`'� (�)Ty��c and I.yout ot wa:cr supply�nd sewa�o trcalmenl system
. Proposed. ' �
. . . � �
i
. - , �
f.:�I .. ' �. ' . � 1
;-���'.I � . , ..
� 3
' d
- 7-.l - .�
;
; ,. . .
�T ���, ,
�f ea r.., , � � .
_ ..�_���. . .
. _. ,...,..r ..� ...Y.r , . ..e.., �., � ��
;: �,r f:;�
_. K� ;
� , : �:�
�x ��'rt�� . _. ._ _._._ r...._._. .._,.._�.._
: -�•- -, . ''.., ..:. _.:...�,..- �.�tp
- -._-� _ --
. � . ' • `�$�Yi��`���.
. • �i`��.��
l ' r•�;»'
�� - �. s-�is�'i�}.:';'�, .
, • (t�)Sulliclr.nt Inlorm;dlon tr�,how th:d Ihdpinpo;nl conqdles v�i1h .
ihu pollcfr.::(Arfiele'll+����1�p�nnr:d rr.qul;dfon:(Arlicln 5)of thi:Codrr,
• • mid nny alhr.�:�pplic:ib�r.��Inln und lor,nl Inw.;.Thn:q�plic;urt:�h:dl
6huw cvidcnr.c ol h7vinr�con:.iJcrud Ihe applicribilily ul::I I pulir,ic:�ol
thla C�dc (for ralciancr, suo Arliclo 2 oi 3uimnnry cl findiaps
RnqtOred altaehed lo ihe app�icalian) nnd lhrouqh virilten �
Gocurnrniar;•or m�p aubmisclon shov:thc c^n!ormity c!Ih::pmposal • :
with cach priliey nr nonrq,plfctibilily al thc�,oficy to Ihe proposal. !
n��«rr�:�i��submission r,ontenta lor cach policy may,bc found in lho
, . �cluvnnl rer)ulatiuns of Arlicic 5. � � �
, Additiunal map, wriflan, or doeumen�ary submissions rnny ha
� fOqulrud II lhc[ivard or lhr.Plunninq Commi�;ion.in revicwing Ihe ��
pencral�ubmission.lindthit5ucharcnecr.ssaryinorderto�hGwthal . � i'
lho proposal conform:lo iho provi,ions ol this Code or to any olhcr • i
epplicablc slate or local laws.J�dditional�ubrni�sions may includc a !
_ perlormance guaraMCC(See Section G-3.5). i
.��(1y Assessmcnt Inlormation and Marketability Disclosure
On separale shcels, the following inlomntion regardin9 lho
propo.^.ed building,structurr.,or improvemenl site,il applicable,must ,
. be tumished in duplicate.�uch inlormalion to 6e tor the purpose ol
assisting lhe Piikin CuuMy Assessor to unilormly assess the
property,in coniormity with the Colorado fievised Statutes.
; (1) Mosl recent sale price ot the land forwhich the baildin;�permit �'
is soughl,and tha date ot such sale. � �;
(2) Description and cosls ol tho work done toward developmanl of
' such land, including surveying, engineering plal making,
• • ellorncy's lces,roads,drainage,and u;itiry consUUCtion and ex- '
pecied tuture er.penditures related to the building,slrucWre or .
improv¢ment tor which a psrmit is soughl.
' (3) Number of residen!ial dweliinc� units or buildings or olher '
siiQS,or squsre toot:iae o!yross non-resi�tenti�l Itoor space to be
� . evaiiabie irom lhe building,structure or improvements forwhich a
. I • permit is sought. �
(4)Anlicipated build-oul time tor the proposed buildinc�struclure
_ • or improvements for�•rhich a permit is sought. . . • I;
(5) Ii sucfi residential dv�elling unifs,building or other sites or �''
: non-residential floor space.irom such building, strucWre or , �
#' ' improvements!or which a permit is sought is expected to be s0id, . '
t{ leased'or rented �•nthin Iwo years of constroction, tnen the '
� f'� • anticipaled range of sate,iease or rental prices torsuch resitleniial
g� d�velling units, building or ether sites,ur non-residential floor
rei space shall be disclosed.Iisaies are anticipated,it should bc noied
� � whelher ihey will be ma�+e by contract er in iee.
_ • (6}A certi(icd appraisal of the property nol more than one year
. old. •
. �
_ 6-3.4?rocedure ;r
(a}APPlication —_. , ,
_ � (b)'Slalf Review
(c) Planning Commission Recommendation . �
(d) Board Action • ,
� (1j Public Hcaring . . : -
. (2y Eio�rd Consideration
Tlie 6oard sh.^.11 consider the submission;recommend�tions of
ihe Planning Oflice,Planning Commissien.nnd re(erral�gencies �
and Ihc lestimony offered at the public hea�ing.
�n thse�pl:in annlication lor a sn.cial rcvie�v�.thc B�rd
.. �� � . Sh�ll aivt+n°•r,� �'r^••,��tleraliown�ssa}.iagll:�linditlg5.la_Il]C j� � • .
natiirc'and�^--rnpa:ed.totalion n1�n���cq_�utl_to_ils_1NFacLnn €
• tid�acc�it lanci_uses�vitl�in th�tticc-aizd-oa.11�^mmn�u(y1q,
encrnl. ' ±
. �(3) f3o�rd/�pproval,_Disnpproval or Condilional Approval i �
. (A)7hn Clo�rd shall:pprove oniy Ihoso submissions it(inds to �
• bo in con(urmoncc wilh lhc provisions ol �his Codc, o�
. . dis�pprovc.or approvu lhe proposal with cnnditions which it � �
• linds �to loc necr.�sary lu ��nswc'r.ompaUl:iltly wilh ll�e
� prorisions ol this Crnic.If Iho np�lication i::(or a�peci�l ir.vir.w , � �
- permit.�pecilird coiu�iliaus m:q�inclua�a hmit�lion upon thc
. . ICOQIII PI UITIC IJI'\:�IICII:'�IIGII�)Cl lllll 9I7:III I)C rntid.l'I�c Iln:ud's !
nPF�ova1 sh�ill s�,rcity in IL•c pcnrn:J submi;:�ion.:iny:idilitionnl � ))
Info�m:ition In br.incwdud m any subscqucnt submissions, � �
(f!) 'fl�o l3o�rd m,iy u�m�nd Ihn::ub,nissi�n to the�p��licrml for
• ' modilicalinn nr furlh;:r study il il linds lhcro ic insullicicnl
uvld.inw�u n�:d�ie sueh u liniiin,y. ' ! j
,.� , � �
1
. . ' i.
,,
. .. . — a_z _ � ti
� , � � �
;�;,,,,,�,a�.. ' .
��'`.-;r;�:"'r;�
:�,.�
' f:»,r._` •�°i� .. ' . . �
��<<,,, .
,: ,
. , ;
�;`�.�„� ,.
� ._ .
��. >�_ . . r ,. _.__� ,... _ _
.. .. �tN6scnic�'7r�iletljA4+n63C:��Lc., .ir�G��wc�..4i:s�.tr.-._w.....�..;�et�iv.�.a'.aai.wi�TeiY���Y+pii�4'L`t�+��l'fl��y�lr.
.� • . ' •q����..
. � . . , �^C�y 'j
. ����;' ' t � �r,���.•
( '
0-3.5 f'orlonn�nr.o GuaroMcn
. (u) I'rlor lo i::suing mry pr.nnils.tho Cloard m�y rr.quirc tho npplicnnl '
. l0 111u 7 (pr.unnicc in ordcr lu in�uro crnn��lf�nco wllh nny r,r nll
� ' � roquhemetda ol tho Uoard'��pproval ol U�r,pcnnit.�uch,ryu:�r.inlco � i
sh�dl br in Ihn lorm ol n cr�:h ur�umty boi�d.Ir.ttM�t 5uroly Irom a , ' .
.. Cornmcrci:dlnnk,snvin��nndlninfn�tihtli�n,ln,irancocortq�nnyor j ,
olhcr qurdilind Icndin� inr.tilution Iiccnsr.d �r �uthoriird to do
bwlncs::in lheSt:rtc nf Color��Jo,ora Icllr,r Irom thr.Fr.Jernl I fousing
Administradion or Vetcr.:ns Adminislr�tiun v�arranling a �um ol . '
' ' ' money suflir.iant to guannl�ee Ihe perlorma�icc of a�l rcryui�crneMSOr
eocnplction of all improvcments v+itliin�Iw approvcd limc pr.riod or
� roturn of Il�c silc lo its ojic�inal conUition in caso ol delaull by the
� npPlicanL ' � .
' � (b)Thc nmount o(lhc guaranlce sh�0 be lhc eslimate uf thc costs ol '
: , all requirementc and improvemen�o h�sed on currentcost availability
und pricing dal.L:mU as approve�by the Planning Commission plus
lho Dos+rd's estim.dc ol !he addilional cost to Pilkin Counly o(
bringin�in personncl and equipment sbould ihe permit bc revoked or
Iho site aGanduncd.The amount may indude funds ro reimburse Ihe
� Counly tor necessary inspections ol lhe site.
' (cj The guaranlee may ba relcased only vrhen: �
- (1)The perinit has been surrendered to thc Ooard betore a�y �
. improvemenls or activities have commcnced,or •
' (2)The development or�ctivily has 4een abandoned and the site
retumed to its original condition,or � .
.. . � (3)The project ha{been completed and all requirements have
_ been satistied,or � '
(4) Partial release may be npplied tor bythe appiicant upon partiai �
„ completion ol improvements in accordance r�ilh the s:iaulated
lime�chedule,and • ' .
- (5) Improvements or restoration have been inspecled and �
_ • ,approved by appropriate county oificials. ' � �
. �
� � ' ' . ' •
� � ' .
. �
. .-..:i:�.'� � . .
�;
� � . � • � . . . ' � 1
' • . ' �
, • �
tj�_ . • � • . . • I i
1 � . �
• ' �
.r 1
, ' — ]-1 — � . � • g
:i''.
• • ' t
r�.'_.
�=fi:-t•i�;;cu;.. . �
___ __
` , � :n:� '
l i�"'y
w,��►.�;�:,.�
�
�'��w�_,.._:���- t-.....::�.:�::._u.-..�_cr.�-„�._n- _. .... . .:�.:._..�.,.,,...�ur«,.��c.J��:s.__�,..zz�z�,�a.�::,..usc.vsr::�,rs.,,�x, �c
. ��.. �.,. .. ._ . ._. - .....s .. . � � �����'y.�.�.
I'. • � . ��� � .
My��
� t Ccr4ain aspccL•:� of this pzoceduro arc imporL•ani: to ��Aj
• summarizc:
1. "Special Review Use Permits may be approved by ihc
IIoard...only u�ion a findinq ihat: the use is compatable
• with the policies and regulations of this Code." (3=6.2)
i 2. "Submission contents shall include...sufficient information
� to show that the proposal complies with the policies
- • (Article 2) and general regulations. (Article 5) of
i
this Code.° (6-3.1e) i
3. "In the case of an application for. a special review use, i
the Board shall give pari:icular consideration in making �
, its iindings...to its impa�t...on the community in . ��
general.° (6-3.4d2) '
4. "The Board shall approve only those submissions it finds
�� to be in conformance with the provisions of this Code,...." f
' (6-3.4d3) � �
' � 5. The Board can "a rove the
_�',�� pp proposal with conditions which
# ;, ' • it finds to be necessary to ensure compatibili.ty with the
� �� . provisions of this Code." (6-3.4d3A) �
k� 6. "Prior to issuing any permits, the Board may require the
�,` • applicant to file a guarantee in order �o insure
' compliance tcith any or all requireraents of the•Board's
' approval of the permit."
In addition, Section 2-20, Development or �xpansion of Ski '•
. �
Area states: "The .pro�osal will conform to all arp].icable
C�� policies and regulations of this Code, especially those having � `
% R�OI(�� . i
�Q`7E L�to do with natural hazards and resources, scenic quality, employee
` Y �,��r�'
�� housing, taxes and management of necessary public facilii:ies and '
services, logical eatension o� uti.lities, impacts on roads and
transportation." (Lmphasis added) . I
}
• � �
. • • � �
i
• �
. 1
• • �
• �
- - ' , .. �.
, �
' • � ' � , �
_ . . ' . ... . . � ]-Q ' ' •
. �3 h. �;�; .
��•';.%j;'�.J
�5c'.3:�J':� ;� . -.
i ___ __ ,_
� :, .
.�i� :;�
,` �j fl�
! � . ��.. - .-_.....:iYS:::•rxr�it�w.F::.]<-:.:74i.....s s'��:!r�7� ..--.��-,:r�:a..w�r i+s.x.�.:wr45�tP/����.`f,.�Si�d1+f.�L::�iir�,�".�E�a� r,`�'�'�1����n�k .
x�"
N�. � �,,:,,::,�.
'i � . ���•�r,.
� ` ���,..;.
���•.:.`�.
4,.'y� + RI,VICW 01•' 'S'Nli L7.1"Pf,l•; ANNIL7 SUISMI;5ION W1.7'fl Itii:;P1:C'1 TO
�'.;r . • PT'!'KTN COUIJ'1'Y AtJll I,AND U5li COUIS I'OLICIL•'S AND 1tLCUf,1\1'SONS '
E'; Policy 2-1: Confor.mancc wi.th l•hc A,pen Arca General P].an
``� 2-1 Coniormnncc wflh thc Aaptn Aren Gencrnl Plun ' , '
i
II fs If�e policy of Iht�Counly to r.ncurc Ihat uic ur;e nnd developmr.nl ol
land and ar,�:�clinn•,eomrnillin�such Iand tn devclo;�ment or a eti7nr�o
, In we will not be,a;a general m:�ticr,inconsi�lent wilh thr.Gonl,and
Ob;ec;ivcs pi Iht•�spr,n�lica iicn�rnl Plnn,a,nmr.ndc;d.Metwithsiand-
ing suct�polir,�,;harr,nre circumst�nces where zoning may occar in Ihe
� 2GSence ot,rir contrary W,such ma,ter pinns,i his is true becausc.ol,lor ' .
. ' � •i;xarnpta t�rnin�exi,ryc:ncies in loninq and master planning and becawe . ' � -
the iunctiens ol zoninp and of masier planning aro commrtted b/stalute
- to d�fk•rent bcdi�s.Ttu�s Ihis oolicy is a aoa,not a re uiremenL
� . �
'It is a goal, not a requirement that the proposal not ;
� be inconsistent with the Aspen Area General Plan, as amended. �
�
� Little Annie was included in the 1966 Plan, but was dropped �
� it.
from the 1975 revised plan. � F�
The applicant included in the submission for this section {
reference to the GMP's sections on skiing analysis and policy, �
and relies upon the WRT report for sulistantiation of The Need (
�i , �
(� .. for Additional Ski Faci_lities in the Aspen/Snowmass Corridor. +
� 4
The entire analysis rests upon the following assumptiqns and �'�-
�'�'�'� is only as valid as the assumptions are appropriate and �
# � complete. �
� .
tf 1. GNSP Analysis Assumptions
�
a. "Skiing capacity and lodging capacity are roughly
in balance. This is an admittedly soft assumption
in tha�t nothing can stop the compaction and more t
'efficient' use of existing lodging. .." (p. 19) 3
i
b. Skiing capacity should proceed at an annual rate '
of°3.472. � •
2. ConsulCant Assumptions �
.. : , .. �
WRT states: "for near-and medium-term plan ning
pui-p�ses it is reasoriable to assum� a direct linear i-elationship
�
bet�aeen population (botli resident- and tourisi) and the magnitude of i I
the dcmu�d for, skiing...,based upon the potential population r.epre- i . 4
t " seni:ed by Uie projected number oi accan�a�ations for resid��ts �uul �
i
i:ourists." (p, 2-13)
The eti�tire anulysis assim�s, does not subsi:ant.i�itc, U�at tl�e '� �
. pi-ojecl-cd cldn;;uu9 will. c�:i.st. 7ldcli.tionri.ily, alU�ough usinc7 dal-a Uicn I �
. • i
� r
t+v.ii.l.d>>�•, tlr� c�te::�l1i pr�;ccL-icn c::ccccicxl U'�o::e cu��cyu�itly :lui�4 by �
V'
. st:.iff., l:hc�ir ]x�innirn.� figuir, c>:ccec3 tho_.c ;,uU.^,l:nntiuLal l�y {
�
. • . �
. ;
. • . . _. �_!; _
^����._
�'th;`y�: �..� .
..�.w.�.�� �a�wr�
F. �, ::� .
: � , �'�
't �}�T�:Sa{ . . .
� ��,' t 'ir'7 .. ... . . .�.. - � . -. � .
f��'�—x�—�:��7'r��nt7i_�i.".�xrtir�cr�—...�u.._�.. ... ._. ......��ss�... %a.:�iw.:tit��;.v��L�.��....-�s;.::n�G::::.tiy5.�"i�',2ir:w..� ��y4'^
� . • F��� �
¢ � ��`�,t .
i �'
p-, • T flub:;cryucnl• censu:3 and ::ur,v�y dala, and tlie skiing (��'�-;.:r' "
� � r:TSi��?�!::.�..:.
L 1 �
t: ' capacitie� used to dcrnon:;l:r1t•e demand ratios are •
,: significanL-ly bclow thosc used by past and prc�ent �
. staff and thc GMP. The resultant conclusion� I •
yreatly overstate the assumed need, ttiey iynore i
• • i
, wh�ther some other factor besides residential growth �
� I.
, rates (such as transportation capability) can restrict ,
_ projected demand, and provide no substantiation that
� such demand really exists in the real world.
In fact they state "over time there may b�
limitations to such an analytic approach, occasioned
, �
by external market forces which �influence the followinq
. � �''
' . variables:"
a, average population is getting older and may impact
• the actual rate of skier p�rticipation
'' , b. the price characteristics of the Aspen skiing �
s - . ea�perienoe. , . . I�
r •, c. the overall image of tne Aspen area as a place �.
��'1 , to realize a satsifying recreational experience.
� �� . These issues have not been considered and are
.
` '' ' apparently assumed irrelevant, although this was of
., major concern to the County P&2. �
3. GMP Policy.Assumptions �
• - e
. Ski expansion proposals are to be pursued on a i
,. sequential priority basis unless some compellinq � •
public.benefit can be sho�an. The proponent ,-
. '
assum�s that it is a third priority submission (
�
by ignoring certain substantial capital facility
impacts occasioned by its development. '
. Ski expansion is a peak use transportation activity �
! �. which requires additions to systems already at or
. . • ovcr capacity, such as the airport, FIighway 82, �
and downto�v�i ��ar.l:ing. At tliis point al.l ski • ;
expan�ion proposals should Ue consi.dercdfourth
i �
+ pri.ority utitil thosc capital facilitiee� are ' 1
. upc�r�d�A. Si.ncc �,c cannot rcali�L•ically i:xpccL i
' f �
"`` ski arca� t.o contr.i.buL•c to Y:he co,l• of publ.i.c �
. .i
. . • _ 7-G - , �
. f
� � ' �. . � � � . . . � i
' 3 .1'.��y",�U� . .. _.. . .. . - . . .
:�;.<., ;;;:�'�
;.:..:,:;r:�.,
' ..._.... .... . .. . . ....._'-- rrnrsri� -
�.� .��.�. �,,,:
i�' � .
. �(.'y���� � .. , � - �
. }��,.��5.:� .`� , , . � '. � .
C��r4. , t '�(�� I x,,f r� i/A " �.. ��_f��'.�,�� F.� 1!. - '.:' .. �rt� s f.
. �� �� I-� .. .�SS�bArl�NTMwre.��i{�,i�lA����Pl7��L� .
.s�i§
4a
�h`4 �
� . .2-1 Conti nucd �"�`"'`°,!
! , facilit•ic� nccdcd for. the total community, •
• ' ski cr.pansion becomes a low priority until thosc
_ improvements are in place or until any proE�osal �
can show conclusively only off-peak demand.
� . . i • . . ' ,. ` .
_ , ' i
• I
. . �
' �
. • �
. � �
_. '.
. . - . . . � � . �� i. .
�.� n . . .. � . .
� ..� . . " �. � . . . . � � . .
. �'.��;\� . � .. � . . .
I
.�.�.,:1:.-�:.. � ' . .
._ I
� �
� . . i.
� ��. � . . � . • . • . . �}
&h�. . � • � • . � �. 1
/ • 1 �
. � �
.-���}. �. � • � �
'':VJ�� . ' . • .
",!_..: . �s .
� . � . ' . .. •�. ^ I / ^ � ' �
_ ���x:;1•��.
�'.
f.'�.;'-..�.e__'Ir"•�'-1� � � �
1 1„*' � .. . .
� 7 ���J��1
,j��F.�!ti:4lF�!:.+�:l;t�;«�#i{C�i'r:VS:tiS::=:�:!....�"v,�.-.� - -. . .. .,s.� ,.-•r-.�:r.;xa�r.c4Yr.�'---r,:»r�nss:�-�.s�nnr—sr_,
f�
� . . ��;�w,:,
��.�,;:,,:;.:;
�;�,�;....
. ,�,:;,,.-,
� ` �;TqfS�L::;j,... .
� + YUlicy 2-3: Nat-ur.al �nd M}n-Madc Il�:izard and Itesourcr_ Areas • '^y�"�'='
C �.
� 2-3 NaQirnl und tdnn-IAnd�I inzmd nnd hesource Arr,ny
• li Iv Iho poiiey ul tl�u Caunty to prcvenl Iho construclfon•o)nny
Improv�:rnnnt ur the operalion ot uny uso which rniy: .
2-3.1 Subjectanyperson,tnctudin9lheoceup�ntso�usersofenysuch ' I
improvement or u:c ol thcir property to n,:lural or man-madc hazards; !
� , 2-3.2 Crcalc or increasc th�dan�cr of naWra�or nian-mado hazard; , '
i
'which will aflecl other irnprovemems,•activilies and lands; i
� 2-3.3 Subjecl other persons or the Counly to dangers or expenses
�equired to mitigate such hazardous conUifions,respond lo emergen- '
cies crca�cd by su�h cond�lions,or to rehabilitale;he improvemenls, .
. aelivitios and tands:
� � i
Gondola Emergency Procedures • I
;
No 2ift evacuation plan has been proposed. Reliance is placed �
� on USFS review. This was also a major concern'of the County P&Z. j
�
Muct� of the gondola path is extremely .steep and�rugged country and �
not epparently evacuable by conventional means.
Wildfire � ?
�
. �
�,-�� Seventy percent of the permit area is classified as having high �
' �p� :. fire hazard. _.. 270 of the 370 acres of high hazard:area will be �
:��`= � cleared for trails, lifts and buildings, while the gondola path �
---��#.:�` _ E-
C will remain in a high hazard area. Submission contents did not include- �
: . �
� : • a fire protection plan,. fire suppression facilities, �or a wildfire
�� ' hazard report prepared by a professional forester as required by '
�'S i
^ regulation 5-403.3. Since that time t;he proponent has agreed to . �
>,` {
�: enforce a ban on open burning in the area except as permitted and
.� �..1f ' � 1
supervised by the Forest Service. � ;
• _ Avalanche
-• High avalanche hazard areas have been identified at six points.
��:;�� • alon the ondola �
g g path: Historic and smal7. avalanche areas also {`
'�:i
,� cross the gondola path. The submission relied upon the LaRT report
,_� which recommended more detailed.analysis of avalanchc potential;
��
� towers should be sited and designed to wii:hstand avalanche forces or �
relocated. Where detailed engineering indicates more signiiicant
hazards exist, protective structures incorporated into the facility �
` '•design or some type of deflcccing or retarding strucL-ure in t1��e
avalanchc starting zonc may be necessa�:y. • �
�
� r
Regu].1i:ion (5-401.2d1) si:at-es thai the appi.i.cant shall SI1pW that
ihe affecL•ed �ites are ndequatcly protccted 1>y �vallncl�e detenses or ! �
;
si.xucLurn] pr�vi�inn. No Sur.h m�i:r,r.i.11 �,�i:: submi.Yicd, rcliance u��nn !
�
USk'S revicw i, .�:;,�nu��d, '•
�" . . . �
� ��3'��� , . .
}`!f:;.,'i>i,- ':;� . .
{
� .._._ ..._.___..��,...._...,._,.._
i_-r -'_;5:'._' � . . .
_ � :b
(. ;�;..�*_Y�� .
k . i.
P �i�r"�J��ii� ' - -
�� .'�:�•��1 .Af�i:j{ 1 �.'. '. . � � .
. .W.C1��K.i.u:i�w..:+ie�±l+Xie�:Vi'r.l.trrc.�-f ....uro.».::a«.,�.0.:a�Ser%wo�'45i.+�rliPfa'L',�:.+��::21sS'.::ef::�Y::�.£o:tu�xr_rtna:.•vna> > � ...
� 'kk�..
'l-3 Cvnl•iriucd ' ��:;��.., ,
� , , �'i��`�;�:;,�;,'.
� I2eculaL•ian (5-4p1.2d'l A) :.L•utes that i :r'�r```�::';,.• •
! , pr.o�o::als :iliall not �=-�}>��:.�.
re�ult in a hiyh concenlr.ation of po�ulation in avalanche poL-ential
arcas. A Novcinhcr 19, 19fl0, memo by Jay IIammond of i:he City
�ngi.neering DePt. cont-ends L•hat avalanches have occured into the �
. proposed parkiiig area.
. .v
i RegulaL-ion (5-401.2d3j states .that proposals shall not result
- , in timber clear cutting in avalanche areas. Comparing the trails, � "
' avalanche potential, vegetation and wildEire maps, it appears that �
some of the 270 acres to� be cleared Iie at the top or szdes of the
high avalanche hazard areas. The submission did not address this i
` i
� potentia]: problem. �
� . . {,
, 2-3.5 Constitute a nuisance,pateMially dangerous to persons. � . ' ;
Out—of—Bounds SY.iing � '
. - . , �
Termination of the area at mid-slope may constitute an
. � attractive auisance, potentially dangerous to persons, yet no control `
:�4 � �
a or rescue procedures were specified in the original submission. Sin�e �
fi
��:�%� � that time the proponent has committed to fencing a portion of their �
��::; .
e:;��
s � downhill boundary (see below, item No. 5 under wildlife i.mpacts).
� ��c.�
�;:� Beyond that, reliance is placed on the U.S. Farest Service review and�
„_
�,:;" existing services (County Sheriff, Dlountain Rescue) , y
+;;r,
�`: � ?.-3.4 Be un�uly'destructive to idenlified natural resources ot ihe
,�: ' County; .
� -.." ' � � � ' �i
�,�' 2-3.6 Cause immediate or toreseeabie malerial danger to signiticant �
. wildliSc habitTt or which�vould endanger a wildlite spccies. �
a
� . �e etation Wildlife an i 1'
q , d W ld s.fe Habitat
��: �
:.�,,,� �
'f�:
The Division of Tdildlife Impact Analysis stated tY.at the
r��: development's impacts on both elk and other,wildlife populations
^:�
"` could be held within acce tabl.e limits if certain miti ation measures
s� �' 9
-;n toere taken. That is,the development taould have an impact on wi.ldlife '
i. .,�
distribution, mit.zgation and feeding hahits, but would no� place �
the resident_po�u.lations in immedi.ate or extreme danger. This
� � : r�� '� • COflC].1151011 ��as prcdicated on'mitigal•ion meu�ur.es which are li:>L-ed , �
�. . below, follotaed by an ana2ysis of !he propo»ent's conunitment to tllosc '
nleasures and thcir r.elationshi.p to County Codc. , � �
i
� 1. C:�rr dnrin�� a]1 phises oi r.on;:ti'uctio�� to prev�nt• cro.^.,ion ':, �
. ;
into wit-.er. ci7iu-:,a::. Secti.ona 5-AOA.2.(L') (]) t;h�'oug)t SecL•io».^. �
5-A0�.7.(f) (].0) nl' Clie Con�ily L:i�iQ ll::u Codc rrquiLe, i.n qan��ru7.
:�nd ::�u•r�iCic i:��rmr, th�• ��ro.��rv;�t.i��n <�f axi:.l:3.nc� nc�n;iLir.
,r;�.�:,: . •
, .
����;:�,�:y- �
�::`�:-`;, - ,',�
, _ ,;
s ';�T�Y.y� . n.. . .
� r
������ . , . . ': . � . . �
e1d.a..w�FJS':a:.+w:ww'�'r.lr`t::crx�....i:.za �_..�..... ...._ ........., . , . ..._....
.. .��... . . ....-�._,.�r._._..�__.__.. - . g S
'l.-3 Cvnl;.i.nu�d E�i�p„ - .
- ��;,,:.':,;..
� habiL•uL•, watcr. yuality, repar.ian vegel•ation, cind �tre.am ���4;:;.''��`�
rkc^:;�te
� , mt'.v'iii`? .
flow levcls. Sr�cci.fically� SccLior� 5-90A.2(y) (2) r.equires
. that "Nediment: produccd by soil. disL-urbance:; shall be
retaincd at thc site and noL• allowed to run of:f into laY.es
and streams." While thc proponent has committed to mecl•ing
County Code requirements, this committment has not been (
i � i
substantiated by detai.lcd plans. '
' � 2. Prevent complete drying up of springs and tributaries in the ':
area. Land Us�� Code Sections 5-404.2(f) (1) through 5-404.2(f) �
(10), 5ection 5-909.2(g) {1), and Seetions 5-404.2(g) (6) 1
i
through 5-404.2(g) (10) and, by reference Section 5-107.2(d) �
. . ,
r.equire, in general and specific terms, the preservation of �
�'c
existing aquatic �habitats and water levels. Investigation ��
� of impacts associat-ed with dewatering of springs and
tributaries as required by Section 5-404.2{g) (II) has not
�
. 4
� been adequately carried out, althouqh L-he WRT study states `,�.�.
, . . (Sec. 4.1-25) that "ground water withdrawals for the Little �,
�,��, ' Annie development will affect the flow of existing springs on
� � �� . . �
� � Richmond' Hill. Potential depletxons in the Mc�'arlane Creek :
6t �
�; stream £low are also identified (WRT Study Section 4.1-30) .
�! �
<j The proponent represents that. legal safeguards and procedures
3 . . .
� are provided to protect the County's �vater interests, hut it
, . should be noted that legal procedures do not necessarily �
address environmental concerns as specified in the Land Use F
7
, Code. � The development's effects on existing water suppli.es
and riparian habitat remains an unresolved issue. � :
3. Suspend operation of the aondola from mid-May till mi.d-Ju�1e. i
• ;
- The proponent has agreed in writing to suspend construcL-ion �
and operation of ihe gondola during cr_itical elk calvinq �
dates as specified by the Division oi �9ildlife. While the i
consiruction oi the gondol�z �aould probab].y Uc a violatio�i oi '
. . i �
• Sectioit 5-404.2(d) (1) of the Land Use Code ("CaZving areas ;' �
. i
� , ' shall Ue lcft in their. present natural state �aS.thout turther. i
F
devclopment") i:here remains m�ccr.tainty as to the exact j
locati.on of calvinc� arcas. This mitS.c��Cion mcasure is in � �
' flcco��d:.t:c� aitL So::�ion �-40•4.2iu) (2) af tLc I.ai�u Usu Codc:. I
� 1
. I �
I`
� i
�
. I
t
�
.. ���i���._..... . . . . .. ' . . . . i . . . . . . . . .
qy a�.
�4�i
;_,"a;' .�
, ��, ;:n -
�.
� �� �� -
k :�. `"r,
t��4�'+t".��y�,,�,.,..�_.r' � . . . � .., . ._.r�. .
/ � (IllllllLT��..c...:r:[e•x�c--s_�.<, ...•_..�.� ...__'.___.. ........ ._.'—" _-' . .. t^1 .
1 „
�}{(( '��1
`.`���/.14.�..�
� � :
. • 4. Ido crni:l•.rucLic�n ,ir.lcivi.ti.c:s ncor crilving ar.ca:: <lur,3nc L� •l�i:� �:�p�p,''
, ----- t��"�r,.
.�:�.. .. ..
L•i.me. Sce above. .
5. Entorce r,ut-of-}x�undr ski.i.ng r.c9u].ations. Secti.ons 5-A04.2(a)
� • —
(1), (9) and (G) forbid recreational development on or use
oE critical wint•er ranye, with speeial emphasis on seasonal !
resL•rictions. Pursuant to these provisions, tlie proponenL-
� has agreed to make special efforts to prevent out--of-bounds; �
- �" skiing, particularly on the highly vulnerable North Star Winter
range. These measures will include some form of fencing more �
restrictive than the sign-and-rope boundary markers standard �
at other areas. The proponent has also committed to strict �
enforcement of the Colorado SY.i Area Safety Act of 1979 which �
i�:
expressly prohibits out-of-bounds skiing. ���
" � 6. Enforce off-road vehicle regulations. Since off-road vehicle
F ' a wide-ran e oi im acis all of Section �
tra_fic can have such g p .
i
5-404.2 of the Land Use Code could be lnvoked as justification f,q,
d
for this requirement. Little Annie has agreed to prohibit " .
fy
�,'••' oif-road vehicular traffic within its permit'area.except ;
#.k", � -. � �^
`iiat required Eor £acilities construction and ma'intenance. ;
� 4 7. :•iscourage public access during the summer on elk ranqe. The
{
proponent has agreed not to provide incentives to public access �
on suinmer eIk range, although that range genera2ly lies outside ;
� .. tl�eir per.mit area. The Land Us,e Code does not specifically
_ requlate development impacts on summer wildlife ranges. The �
presence o£ the ski area may act as an incentive to increased 1
,� �
.,� vehi.cul.ar traffic on the Richmond Hill-Taylor Pass jeep � ,
road which is adjacent to elk summer range. �
'!
' B. Do not improve any roads not essential to construction and
t`
�l
maintenance of project. As noted under No. 6, above, virtually i
� all oL Section 5-404.2 can be interpreted as restrictive of �
�� �
road-building and vehicular activity. Lit{:le Annie has �
. !
agreed to liinit roar�-buildinq anQ impr.ov.ement strictly to � �
. ,
' that neccssary for safe movement of workers and materi.als ,
to ancl f:rom ihe work site. ! �
a �J. Chlnqc Ri.chmond llill shcc�� ai�d c�orit a11o1�mcnL- to r.ecr.ce�tional. �
Thc Land U�.>. C;odc makes no provi.�ions f:�r c�rnzi.nq a]-lot•mcnLs. �
. �
Dioz-ac,vm-, c�raxi.ncJ r�a.].uLmeni::; ar.c �t�-ir.t].,y the re:;�>onsi.bi..l..LC.y ± '
c�f: t:he U.S. 1�'c���c;:L- ,^,crvir,c. 7'I�c I�oirc::C ;;ci'v.ic4 i.:� :naara nf. �
� .
. fK'
� r� ,
�'+��:'m
� i ._::+:-:':� .
'.•..,`;:•;:�"
' ' .
i:.;;�*.�;�
��..��61Cwc�Y:".l��wwr..�.+�.`^J:SI'�SiCYa�..���y......�.. � ............ . . .. . � . . _... . . . � . . � .
y��,.�
��^(�ifi'1�c�v;?•
:� • � C't;�„�5;,:r.;.=i.
2-3 Cc�nL•inU�sd (I�f�;�y�re;':.:�
Th`. '�:'..
( ' �F�'r'�.
� L�:i?sc 8,, ..
our concern with L•hi� issue a.nd has �„a�.o�t�a th.�t they
. anticipat;e no conflict;� betwecn domestic st•ock nncl wildlite
on this allotment.
10. Kecp arcas under the contr.ol of. the Li.ttle Annie Ski
. ' i
CorporaL-ion open to hunting. The Land Use Cod� makes no �
� speciEic provisions concerning hunting access. The proponent �
" � has agreed to follo�v Division of Wildlife suggesL-ions in this �
. '
area. . �
The £ollowing are other mitigation measures which the proponent f
i
has agreed ±o perform pursuant to the requirements of the Land Use �
Code. � �
�4
' 1. Resirict nublic acces; to sensitive areas, such as areas ;
• ;
. � being revegetated, riparian areas and �critical �vildlife �
�
. habitats. As noted under No. 5, 6 and 8 above, Section 5-404.2 �
-; of fhe Iand Use Code genera]1-restricts access�to ar,3 use of sensitice �aild-
: 't 'lii•e habitats. _ The proponent has agreed to restrict public acoess�
�f�� to these areas to the greatest ,degree possible. �
��'', , � . . , i
� . 2. Dogs will be banned irom Little Annie facilities, including �
� :
�;` the gondola, base, and summit facilities, and the Countv 4
0:•; , �
• Lea�h Law �vill be strictly enforced witliin the Permit Area.
§
F .
Sections 5-409.2(a) (b) , (b) (5) , and (c) (4) of the Land Use -
; :
� • . Code make specific mention of dogs as "Harmful or disturbing x
= impacts." This restric£ion is made in compliance wiL-h those
sections. �������
3. . Sammit facilities coill be occupied during�o£f-seasons only -
}
' to the minimtim degree necessary for security needs. The
:::y
� proponent has a9reed to this provision pursuant to Sections
..,
''a 5-404.2(a) (6) , (b) (5) , and (c) (9) of the Land Use Code.
4. Little Annie Ski Corporation will cooperate with and offer.
availab].e assistance L•o t•he l�orest Service Divisi.on of. �
Wi7.dlifc;, <Znd Pitki.n CounL-�� in any efforL-s to furiher study �
' � � intpacLs on tai.ld].ii:e. This requiremetiL- is agr.eed to pursua�it �
i
� �o Sectial 5-AOh.2(Ii) oi il�e Land U�e Code. �
5. Reverycl:a{�ia� of di.:al-tu:bed arc�, wi.].]. bc p.r.ompi: nnd thorouqh � �
i
.�ncl in confcirmanc�. �oii.h nativr. veqct.nt:i.�n ;tnd U_S. 1_or.c�k t
.. � ---------�------_._ ._...-------......_-�-�-----__.... � i
. , ;
Srn-v3c.•c ciu.idr].i:nc:;. 7'hi.s roqu.ir.cmcni: �i.^ ric7recd to pursu.uiC
� i:o'Fi,cLion 5-A04.'l.(L) (4) oL L-hc� l��ind U::a Cc�dc. �
�.
-; . �;
.1� .
��„�.._ . . ... i
.�`;�,�;'_n�,,�� ,
�,-~-, `.`.i
.�
i _._.__. .._._.............., ._...__.__.. _ .
.� �_° ' .
t � '_�`�� � .. . ' .
�"�� {� � , � _ _
��,r�5-,. ' .
�'���al�'�r�til�i:edibkA'51�«.:.:a'�'i�w::,cr��":.:.�re�"•-;:��.iyie�fi'v.�::r:f�.cclTt:3`�,i5�""".a�ti�'.Y'�.�'. u�a3r.
. ���-tft .
p • . . . . �'�ICwI}.�.
�j �1` 2-3 t:onl'inued ra!r�-t:'
y , ,
Recognizinq the i.naclecauacie� of the suVmission as noLed above
• undcr items No. 1 and 2, thc commitl•menL-s to �aiL•iyation mcasures
listed above represcnt substantial., if incom��letc, compli.ance with
�
. �
Land Use Policy No. 2-3.6. The mitigation measures listed above j:
further rcpresent conditions which might be imposed in the context �'
� , �'•
. �
of a Special Use Permit on the understanding that monitoring and � '
� � enforcement of such conditions would become a County responsibility: �
• ' I
i
�
_. . . , ' . . . 4
. � . � ' . .' . � . . � �
� ��������.� � . . �. . . . . . . .
� "� .. , . . - .
f
:..{... - . . .
. r
. ' . . . . ' �) .
� �
. I
" I
. - . • � . ' � I (
, ' , �
�.�`.�.::i;:;�,.�''�. ' , . . , . 1
f
_:'._i'� - , '
, � I
;;;�+z�_ , '. . . . � .
. . �
� ' .
�... ��� . . ' . .
��,�;�r:a=� , . .
� :� �
;I � tt� .
S;...!aE'1tL'� . .
� ���Cwn.r+ci�.w+...f:t?+.:=:/al'�A e:F�i �K:�,.N�_..�+ew�-. �n ., .. ....SY..�-_...+r i.4�S -5� � :t::G'Y.S1.w« �5;w5::Ssiis"Gil:LLi.,+:ta�i:_�`
i� 1�'-i3�"��s a;��r+nr,rr"or- �wric,s,�� „�� .
� . ��.:.';° -
�� � 4 j:.
, rt•Y.,v..
�A-:�:.�:��..
��''� • Policy 2-4: 5oi.]. 5uicfici.nl Gcoloryi.c Ch�ir.acl•er.i.sL-ics �nd Itndi.:aC9on
f��� .
�F c; • • 2-A �011.,`,urllcinl Gr.nlonlc Chnraclr.ilaflcs nnd findlallon
'+�`.l: It Is Iho poticy ul thc County lu nunimvn Ihucosl:,ullcrnat��ly borne by.
,��
�.� thq n�aidr.nls, viciturs nnd Prupr.rly Ownars ol Ihu Ca:mly, o
conslruClinr�nnd mamt��ininq atrur,tures and imprrnancnls which aro
�.�,::- desit�ned in sur.h:i m:mner ur lucnlr.d on e.uch si�es�,wili m:iko Ihem
�µ`�':; bUStepliblr, to rndiation�Imznrds or to struclural d��nnnc vr tallurc .
,�r, , , - rCSUllin,ry Irom suif nnd�suilici;il ,ryr.oloryical cbaractcristics sucli a;
Ghtink-avicll, inadequalc bcaring c�p�eily, inadcquatc c�roundwalcr
R'��?� d�ainaga,lrosl heaving,or ct:emic�l rear.tion�.To Ihis end,it is ihr,poliey
� �� Of the COUnty So r.nsu�^Ih��land uces or drnclonmcnt viil�,void such
�� nrcasorbcadequ�tclydesignr:dandenninccredinsuch�rcasandtoen- , � _
•:a curo thal ihe 9eneral public will not bc requircd to bcar Ihe added
- constructian and operaling costs of exlendin�necessary utililies and
� services into or ltirough such areas to serve new development.
Soils
� ;
WRT identified moderate to severe.soil constraints for most ,
,
�
development uses, noting that development on soils having slope,
' textural and drainage constraints requires more carefui. examination.
� ' They assumed that proper engineering design can mitigate most soil �
x� related hazards. BoL-h idark I'uller and the USFS have expressed ':
�� ;
��� ;
�•--; ccncern abou� inadequate submission concerning soil stability. i
��� .
,C+ !
, .�.,,.
WRT also states that "to prevent hazards as soil movement
i
---';j;:,.�,� occurs, periodic adjustment and replacement of towers may be required." �
r ��'�,: . ;
# ` � Geoloqic Characteristics � � !
� �>�;j: • . .
r�^.�:. FIRT'identified several hazards and stated that additional site-
C>r£:
�.��>` • specific engineering studies are needed to confirm their preliminary
,;".,:va •
;��:�•n� ' conclusion. Five gondola to�cers saill be located along 800 feet of
r:* .!
-`�� . talus slope. Unstable slopes underlie 1300 feet of the Lift I
development. Structures located- on unstable slopes include the
�'�.� . .
suppori to�,rers for 3300 feet of ihe gondola alignment, the gondola
';'" turning station (10,000 sq. ft.) and the base loading stations for
'?4;: � .
k�': lifts G-1 and P.
.,�u;
?�,. �4RT warns that "changes in slope stability may threaten the
integrity of facilities, resulting in hazards to life and properi:y."
� , - mu ]i as one
�:
I'ault movements have been recorded in the area oi as c
foot per year. Gnqincering design and slopc moni.toring are recommended. I
1
Construction at the gondola turning building wil]. require better ' �
' a�ses:ment of site speci.fic s].ide poL•e�itial. � '
Therc are 95 abandoned minc taorkings wi.thin the site constitu4•.i.ng �
' I
potential �ub�idrncc 1nd gencra.l safeL-y hazard. The submis:;i.on ;
�
contai�is a qencral sCeiteiaent i:h:.�t: strucl•.ure:: will noL• ba lacated i.n ` �
. �
• i i
::��ch:rro.i::or th;it foundaLion, wi.l.l bi� desi.gned i:o mi.Ci.qate t:hc hr.�znrd. i
�.A Nu .i�l��nC.i fi cal..ic�n of i lic 95 :;.i l:c�:; wi L-h rc�:�prct: to Lhc I,roi�o:;c�d
..�
..�•� 1�;ici 1 i l i��r. �a;i:� ��ri�:,i•nl.c•<l.
��.
'"�'''�=;r,:I Y'- ,
!`���'�`s`. "�
, !
._..., �_ _
._._.�.� -_
,^-� �°�',a, . �
������� '
r , ; '" .
:> . :..,.c..ses.z....�a::.c� � .�.....��:»:`.. -'r-� .:.:z�:�::.:�eis•m'�$iiSb�%�a�%t�F`�i.�w�,'r���i:,'Y.�`iLL�`�'�i�!"a�6de� �q�..
i;�c'
� _- ...� r..�-�:n: . .._._ � i.
� v�e
q� b
"J.-4 Ct�nLi.uuc.d • . e ��.,:,,;,;
r��<;��.
r �i��3 A��'�• �
• RegulaL•ion (�-100.7.c) requisc; LhaL• docmnentation ot any ,
• 1
• devclopment platt shoul.d :,how that all impr.ovcmenl:s are p].anncd and i
' con:tr.ucL•cd recocpti.zing ihe consL•raint•. impo,ed by gcologic j
i ,
chazacteristics. The subroission only identifies hazard potcntials j
and does not shov� speciiic mi:tigation measures or construction
� '.��e'� �.�:s .
constraints. -
; , "';" ,
-�v;• ,
Lincoln DeVOre lists injresponse to general conditions iound' '
- - at mountaintop specific recommendations for strengthening typical
structures, but noted that because no location or building specifics
- were provided that each site would have to be individually enginecred.
A great deal of sxte specific analysis and engineering needs to be �
done prior to issuance of building permits. I��
' ' `,
Radiation • !_.'
Although radiation levels have been associated with local �
mining activity no analysis of radiation potential was conducted, as �
" required by regulation (5-100.2b) . . �
, . , . Y
—_Y_..:�. ; , . . : ' �1
i
' �
�I .
(
� �
� _ • � �`
a
� . .. . ��
• �
_ . . �
• . ��
. �
� � �
I . � ,
� �
• ' • ' . . . ' �
`-�.,'
. . . �
_ . , �
. �
� . . , .: . • • ' '+
i� . . . . . ;;
} i. . . . _ . _ _
... _ : _.. . . ._ _ _
��� _�t'�f'J ri� .
_--- ___.______ , ,,,,.,,,�,,, u
{ :.s�"�" � _ •
�, �
�`�'��' ,.
� -..v. 1� . � , .. � �. .
'f
, :::..: � ..
. fd � �7�ii�r+��.K.�`�Fi'.:►r�:.s.�..s.a1,u.,s ic :�.:..:i..,��F�v:�;•�:�:��fi'.ie�d' .r . ,,.
,� , `vSY:`3.'�i'aL.t�'.���e�w•�.' w:.�cE5�.."'S',7�ffi:wf'..19'i,��WG9i'.�
�,ij� �; �7� �.
'"�� . . Tf V11'•�..
�' Policy 2-5: llr.t�inair c µ�e��•;,.u::,;
y....,..
,L:'r't;�..
�� . . _'_ . . . . . � �y . i...
. . r"a�$>a.
' 2-5 Urninn{�a � • •
- - � � 11!9 Ih0 puticy W lhn Counly lo prr,scrvn Ibo Intaqrily ol exL•:Iinq nnd - �� �
. n�lu��I dr:iirnr�r:p:iUr.rns in nrdnr lhal lho�qryrr:r�alnol luluro public and
� . • �)vplu dcwr.lnpmr.nt nclivitir•s wlil r�ol c:wsu e:lorm dr.�in�gu nnd
floodwatcr p;itir.rns lo excr.ed thu cnpacity ol n�Wral or constructr.d
_ drain���c viays or to Nubjecl olhcr arcas lo inr,rr.asiod putenliil for j
damo{�e by Ilvod r:rooiOn of SeAitnenl:dion or 10 pollule nofumi strr.:�ms. i
TO lbis cnd it is IUC p.licy ol ihn,Counly lo requirc Itdure devcloprne�Zl'to
provide br structive;and�or dr.t�ention tacilities necessary to ensure
• ihat Ihe runolt eharaclenslir.:ql a silr,Tltrt developmrn�are no more
disruptive to.natural strcams qr land uses or drainage systom;lhan aro � � f�� .
. i the runoll charactcri,tics cal.ul�ted lor its natural statc.
, � � i`:
WRT states that 3.8 acres of new impervious surfaces at the • �
base area and 2.5 acres of impervious surfaces at mountain top �
�
facilities will require drainage plans. Final design oE trails will
attempt �o minimize disruptions to channels and adjacent areas.
, Regulation 5-101.2 requires a drainaye plan to be submitted
with the application. The submission .states that such a plan will
be submitted prior to const�uction rather than during the special
review process. �
. �
,
• . �
� • . •
� . ', :
` .
�:^� . '
� � � �
*T
. .. . . . .. . �
_ '• ' . • � . � �
3
' I,a
!
. i
� � �
�
�
I
. ( 1
. � , � �
�•:;,��. . • .
�
S�. . .... . 1 �
(
=.,�t � !
., I f
�
I
. I
' �
. . �
i �
,
. .
� , _. ... ...__�...._ . ..,..__... . .. . _ . , . . . . . .. ..,. _ .. .
��f' ...P"� . . . . .. . ... ._.. . .... .. . ....... � .
�.rat:k.,,w;,v,�' '
!t'�a`a•��'r,•t`:'� . .
.. _ ' ...__.,
� r �r -'� . " • .
� i
� �v' Sa� .
r`����R- ..-_.....�._.s�_ ..o-.�..,r.n . .... ... ._. .... ,...... ...... _.._.....
�..._. ,_�...._..._...__.----'----'—'^y .
.j . • �� ry
w
.cy��f ,.
.'6��'Y;:r:'�':�!�•
�::
• Policy 2-G AQc�c1u;��a Yrovi:;ion f.or. WuL-cr. Wecd;i • �'�::�F?��*-:•` '
— ��;:.:�.y.•,-.
• , ;.
� i
. . 2-0 l�dequnlo Pro:•I:lon fn=tVnfcr t•lecds - i
IUslhupulicyollhnL'uuntyl���rn:.urrrlh:�ti:mdisnotcommillr.dtpany � I
usa ond Ilc:t no u::r ir,inili:Hrd v�ithuul:idr.c;u�ur.evidr.ncc Ihat�walcr i
cupply o1 adequ�Ir.qu:dily, qunntity, prc,sura and dr:pr,nd�bilify is
rvaita�,ro ro Su����i u����,a iNended;inJ lo providc lorprotection!rom • j �
firo. . • . . �
i
. t
� Base facil.ities will be supplied by the City of Aspen Municipal
._ water system and related impacts will be considered under Section 2-14. �
• Mountaintop facilities do not have a water supply system plan
supported by adequate evidence of quanity, quality, or dependability. �
pressure will presumably be provided by the proper location of the �
proposed 500,000 gallon storaye tanY.r �11ti. ••�gh no de{:ailed location ('�
• ' hes been shown. ��
, • �
• . WRT states that: Two of four test cvells have•found wai:er, but
no pumping tests have been conducted to determine availahle quantity
• �
or dependability, which is potentially limited ,due to the small size
of the aguifer (200 acres) . Supplemental water would then have to �
- _ be bbtained from springs on USFS land or from McFarlane Creek. No
-.,.'; �.
#� - absol.ute water rights have been shown to be obtained. No• water `
� � auqmentation plan has been presented that assures the legal supply ;
,. , �
? � of adequate water nor have the potential impacts of that plan on
• other users been identified.
I,ong ter.m water quality derived Lrom mountaintop sources can �
. t
° ' be affected by floca into a depleted aquafer along fau1L- zones froin �
� E
other geologic. formations. The site is highly faulted and the ;
. _ i.
proposed wells are located in a formation which has small supplies f
': :
� of potable ��ater but is surrounded by formations containing water �
��ith mineral cont-amination sufficient to.make it unsuitable as a
• `
flomestic or agricultural wat�r source. The proposal does not address
'� this potential or that of quality in general.
i
� Thc suUmission staCes that a L-hree-hour 2000 gpm flow is proposed � �
for fire con�rol at mounL-aintop, i�ntil de}�endability of inflow to �
. the 500,0(10 qallon stoxage tanl: is demonstrated foi a dry year anniial i �
• i
,
cycic, thc availal�ility of: ihe sequired 3G0,000 c7allot� need for fire ' �
. i
i
�rotecLion cannoi: be zssun�ed, nor is it slsown liaw norinal daily usc ; �
�aill ;itPecL• this r.crcrvc. Such �mount� may not bc av�iilal.�l.e excc��L- �
- � 1
in c:orly mori�incT :�fter a full eve�iing �-ech;irc�e„period. ( �
. j
i
t
< .
�' •
,��Ypw�`� ,
` .,.<�.;;,3=-,-„_"�
(' ..
n�N.,��...�.. __�
� ' .
t ���`�� . - -. .� , - .. .
� �' - Y � �-.. .-. ..,,..�...� ,_
��7��aw...�.�.r.s�.e:.vew:.ls.::i:EL."A'.-:.5.1.'=...,�...,....,e. , � .... r+:?itie.. .. :..i.'�Tn".t��uS�Ft}:f`iS'{�4tii::i�.:�':is1e�:�.wicti.C.."v:C�it..+.w:7ts+�.a�"l>...w.q�k�.fY
h_ .. • � �
i � .
' ���
1'olicY 7.-7: :,nwru�c 7'r.etiUnenl:. znc] Cc�ll.ecl•l.on �r�,>,> , .
• , 2-y f,ce/:n�c Trr.nlmrnl r.nd ColtrHlon �', .
' II 1.U i�prilir.y��I 11ir(.:nur.ty in en:ina ihnt i:md 15 nni conxnfltcA to any
� U.n fu�rl Iir•�I rn ii�r i•:in,P:i�,,•�'•,,thr��t:.a..����!r.^eidrn:::.fh:�l l�icil�lii:s
io cullucl.liu,d�nd dir.pq:.r,ot tinticip:dr.d typc•::�nd qu;�nlilir.a n!w:c.ts�
walcr.rtc:rvnil:�blu tn cnn nnd v�ill bo procida,l wilh suilnLln capaciry,
yualdy uf di:.ch�rq!:.:,ui�ai�lr.�:oint of di:chm��e antl dr.pc:nd�sbility.:tnd
that .my sucli prv,o�cd syslcm is lintinci:illy Ica::ibl�cun�idcring a
rcasonable Wx basc an�oti�cr Ic�ul ciiluna. .
, . `
�
Mountaintop Pacilities. Although the schematic concept and •
- proposed design criteria submitted appear workable, few tests have 4
been conducted on 1:he production of artifical snow from secondary
efiluent. The �nvironmental Health Dept. has concerns that the
effluent quality can be consistently ma.intained and that the land �;
r .
treatment areas are suitable. They also submitted reccmmendations �;"
' about ilow equalization, aeration basin design, complete cover and
heating of the facility and provisions for winter sludye'removal.
� Probable discharge into MacFarlane Creek or other tributaries '
. , would occur during perio3s of inechanical failure, prolonged weather �'�
unsuitable for snowmaking, or clogging of the distribution system, �_
.' indicating questionable storage.capacity and provision of alternatives. ��.
� rThe submittal does not include a soil conditions� analysis
� deterraining site suitability. Preliminary analysis indicates that
� all paiameters except ammonia can be treated to acceptable levels.
The USFS ETS recommends that final design should be moniL•ored cl�sely. '
�
, Ti�e system will require review and permitting by the Colorado �r.
Water Pollution Control Commission in accordance with natural standzrds. �S
{
The Colorado Dept. of Health also has a permit process and requires �
ongoing monitoring. The submittal does not provide adequate �
information to evaluate monitoring requirements, sampling locations I
or possible resulis. �
Regulation (5-200.1c) requires ihat such a system is adequate to
accomodate the expected vo.lum� and composition generai�ed and that " �
such a �ysL-em �aill be properly maintained L-o �revent� over.loading or othe�:
iailurc causi.ng ihe dischar.�c of inadenuai�ely processed efflucni: . � �
• j
upon or into any c�LOUnd or siirfacu ��ai:e�:. Tlie submissi.on statos ' � :
intent to comply Uut oficrs no substantiai:ion or. adequatc evidei�cc �
of acL-ual desi n or o eratinnul mciliod,:, norcan:aid�.ration of soils � �
. . `' . `' � i
auQ gualuy.ic coiu:Ccuiui::. on p�.ant and mlins l.o��l:ion3. � i
i
• (
�
• i
• ����, • .
`�`'�y���.
I,� �- 1
_a..�
� ; ru, .
�{
Y
� ♦y�A �:� .
�I�'�
: la�;.
��i� ' � .
'a'��nK....::.ar•�...,..-.�•�:.s,_.,.s-.�-_.Y•.,_.....-., ._....:.:.. . _ . _.__ , _
.. ' � . ; 'i�,j�µ;.
,�.. , . �h�V�a�.�,
���";{j:
, ..��;:�
Poliey 2-Fi Im�,acC.^, on ltc,ad�/;;lcm . � ;�,�.rxs=:'�;'`.:'.
� . ' �:'�.,'�� �.
. � �
2-0 In�pnct:�on fload Syalcm � �
II i,llia putii.y nt ih�Cnunly Il�:d fuhur.devrilopn�en(nnl cr�sdc li�ffic
Vnlumr.e.or pnprrn•:which v�ill �•runln ir:�flic hrv:uds, or sipnilir.:�nt
sarv(cn Icvel�educliotis, or incra;�sr.rn�int�:nanr,r. nrndv Gey�>nd Ilm . �
Capacily o1 thn Cuui�ry to;dir.vi:de without::i�nilitant eosl tn lh�:q!•nr.i al .
.. publiC,tx c(c,n�plioil iti nll:cr poti�i��s o(Ihc Cuunfy�ncluctipry;ic:;th�:lic:;, .
sedimt•nlulion and pl�nneJ patl^ms ot accc�ribility nnd al;emative , �
1rnn:q�orWlion moda:. ' ' . ' ' ;
. , i
_ . ' State Ilighway 82. WRT concluded that LittTe nnnie in any '
__ combination with other ski expansion a].ternatives improves traffic � '
' flow at the maxi.mum congestion point, the Castle Creek Bridge, with '
�
or without regional improvements consisting of widening SFi62, ,- j
construction of a busway, area wide bus fleet expansi_on or construction �
of a bus maintenance facility. This conclusion.relies.upon the �
� assumntion, that sufficient parking and� tra£fic controls exist in the (4
�
downto��n area and that there wou2d not be significant skier cross flow (
'between Aspen and Snowmass areas. ; . t
1
� .. Downtown. The traffic analysis presented did not clearly 4
demonstrate how traffic floivs would work in the Durant and Ute Avenue \
areas, given the probability that there will be no parking structure
�,-'; _ . �
��' . and that nine additional buses on a p g �
quick loo in schedule and 35 �
� ': ;
� . taxis per hour will operate in the area. The Rubey Park Transit �
€
�� Dept. is already at capacity with existing usage; the study assumes �
�; that the majority of its activities will' be shifted to the Rio Grand.e �
v
property. . �
.:� �
" County Roads. Although improvements are planned for both �
Midnight Mine and LiL-tle Annie roads, no traffic engineering analysis
and evaluation of likely zmpacts were conduct-ed despite being a
i •, . . €,
�� requirement of regulation 5-201.2. The County P&Z expressed concerns
�;.: about ihese unknown impacts: The submission states that these roads E
� wi11 be used by scrvice vehicles but does not indicate the extent or •
�: potential loading of such usage. Castl� Creek was similarly iynored
- � in the analysis. � ' �
GgJD�•tu;l.YD k�f' 3
¢e��ep ,--� A7idnight Mine Road is ati unmaintained County road 1nd any ;
• �
improvements would incrca:,e the attraci:i.veness of development of the t
�
- : unknown ntunber mini.ng clai.ms in L-he area as r.esi.denti,il sites, Tliis ' :
i
�
would poL-ent:ially result• in i_lie dem�-�t�d L•or thG Couniy to nrov5.dc� �
mainic�na�ico �ind plb�ainc� scrvices. ! �
� 1 t
� L� �u d�u�w wl,a,l Int�is�lcw+�cu�r v�.�C[�+:�. „ I ,'
u �
• � �
� �
. .. . ' i
� . .
-:� . • _ .
�..�:,-� � .
'�� •
;�:,� ,
�'�ii_
:J�'�
'i�t.
__ _ �
�� �
l. t' f�•ft` . ' .
�. �� ` _ •_ . .
�.'"� � .�' ��
� � , R
l•
. 't �����.�.�.k`r,s�:�it4�6EV►it�`.�dM:��',,,r.w�,t�ti.a+t��Yd&'3?�G•e'�ti�E ..»�`��'L.
'L-0 Coiiliniwd , . �s,..:;,'
. � - � {�f h;.U�;H�:
' � t+��,<.`i.'��: .
�Y13tYF:-f+-
• LitLlc Annie ltoad is not in thc CouriL-y sycl-em. 'Pl�e suU�nission
docs not demonstrat•e that access eascments have been acc3uired which ;
would maY,e both construction and service access assured. Impr.ovement
and year.-round access vi.a this road to an area �•�ith an unknown •number
. j.
of rivaL•ely held minin claims would create a develo ment � "
P g p potcntial ,; ..
• currently unplanned for and potentially. undesirable given geologic i,.
. hazard and public service imapcts. , � .
� . . . . . . . � . . �.. . . . 'i,
r
� . . �•
� - . • .
� '
'�
�
� , ' �
=r'iy,.c: � , , � • . . � , . �
R q�� . ' � • � � � � �
. . . 1
i
%'�k' •
°r:: •-
..,,I.:r.�.'. � . ,. . .. . . � . . , ' .
� . .
t :. . .. .�. . . . .. . � . .. .. .. �
.. i'��T.;t�::, .. � � �
_V_._. a..�
_ _ r
... „
` f���,�:z _ '
����.��
[�'.�;��� , �.c� �' y(����/fJ.��a� ���w�sa p� l y�,Q{}� .
� y�� y� �.� t .. �:��-<��,� .��.. � w ;.�R �.
(1 � . .�.Ia�W��lMS�ii��i�llaiiEMA411f.�ilr..t'�'Y(��.�YI`ue���ivi;�� ��` � 4 _„ r{ �F.Irlf.l�
f� �y�lE...
I . � � '.
�; '
� � ` � � �PJt',�._ih�.t.,
4 �
i
. . � . . . . � , I
2-9 TttY�ll llLSICN 11t7� COJJ571'd1C1'IO:J �
2•9 hontl Dr.slryn tmd Cnnstrucllon � 1
II I: lltic pnlir.y n! Ihr. Cc�un1Y tn encure Ihat ncw �nd lip�nded �
roadw;rys�rc dcoiqr�d.cnginr.mr,d ind cbnsl�uctr.d sb�s lo minimirnzc
fulurc r:iriinlcn:incc cosis,:uid lu rugul:dc Ihc duvr.lopme�t uf nuw road^, .
nnJ roaclway sys�ems in a:n.innor consisicnl with othcr Coun ty policics: .
. f .
.
Imprwc�nents are pl�+nned for both Midnight and Liti:le Annie Roads. A prelim-
inary report by Claycanb ES�gineering indicates that relocai:ions, ciu.ve radii ex-
pansions, fills, slope reductions and cutbacks, turnouts ancl drainaqe syst�ns will �
be narlal. Sa�le gern�tric standards are re�cmr_nded. � (`
Regulation (5-202.2) requires a detai'led road•access plan, a descr?.ption of
matesials arui amstsuction techniques•to be used and costs inwlved. The prelim-
- inary report did not adcyuately address these r��ir�n�nts. �
:, 3ce Wells has reoarc�nded that t�e acceptability of improv�mnts cannot he
-. _ � ' �
�,'�: deci.ded until adequate mapping and analysis of alternatives has been done.
� . � • �
'� . . •
� -
_,;
`:rr: . . � � �
�k
' . 1
• - ' i
. �
i
• . i
. .{
, �
,i . �
;
� �_ . '
C_�r��
_____�_°�__-__�___._
___ "`__�. �
� '. ,� •
_.�' -."�
.s
j , Nil�t��,
�',-�
�'.�+�5;'''� _.
' . ___ r�'1.�F fi��'..
� �
�� � -�,
j • • • j�7�yt�S
�a.:�r�:�•,�..
� 2-lo r�r'r�w t�:�.��r:.•iort or•� Ul'ILTTIL•a
2-1U I.uqlcr�l L'r.len^.Ion ol Ullllllan
Il Is Uic poficy of Iha Cnw�ry lu Uisr.nur.iqn.utilify er.lcnsicros lo arc.��s . •
nulsuitabl�lcfrlhr.l��rcorarnuunloldevr.luumr.nlnec���nrylosupporb • . '
Ihc sr,rvicr,or r�hir.h is hkcl�10 rc�ult fic�m::uch r.r.i<:nr,inn.
II fs:ilso thr.�pnlir,y ot Ihr:Cpunty tu r:{�ul�de cr.lr:iisi�nr.in n mainncr
.� Which v�i�l m��urr.th�rt ulilfly rt;sourc�".acdf i,u cqn;Ir,iined la arcas of,or . .
� , � edjacent t0. cxislin,ry d�:vclopmrml :ind arc:�s �Uilnd lo dcvclopmr.nt .
� COnsiSlc�l v�ilh oihr,�pGlfr,ic5 of lh�Coun�y anc(flint;uch arca._hnidd � �
. . . bc prb'�idrd thc full eompin_mcnl of neer.s:iry public utililiCS ralhci lhnn � .
- • to croale ma�y:�re.is v�hir,h 7rC not(utty serviced a�d arc premalure(or
� the di:vclupmen.eontcmptated.
' !t is alsu lhc polir.y of fhc Caunly lo discounr�e extensions which�re
not (inandally viable wilhout public cxpendiWres which wuuld �
olhenvise no!be madc to extend ur u�>c�rade compo�ents o(the system i
of tur incrcased rr.�intenance or operatmy nerd,; lo discuu�aye �
duplicalion o( majur lines or treatrnent facilitics; tu discourage (
exlensians and develupnicnt which would be subiected Io abnormal I
eonstructinn,maintenance or op�•rztin�costs due lo topographicai,soii �
or peological condilions;and to di�courage er.tensions ol�vhich lhe �#
cosl—incfuding environmental—excaeds the general benefit to be
, , gainsd thereby. . ��;`
F. -Th s 'ssion states a no new land wo . �`
. e ulini. th t s . uld b� placed in a developn�nt context
� by extension of the powerline into the Little Annie area. Policy states that utility �
�e resources will be constrained to or adjacent to areas of er.isting developmeSlt and not ��
"'"��:�� to areas premature for develogrent. Also, extensions shauld include the full cbcnple- ��
�. � • � : �i
ment of necessary utilities rath�s than create partially served areas. The submission
# t does not substantiate its claim of no new land develoramxit p�tential despite the loca-
ei
.�
' �.tion of privately owned min.ing claims throughout the Little Annie area.
;
The pmp�sed e�.i:ension of a p�.�erline into the area would encourage attc�[q�ts to
� build upon the mining claims in the area. However, parallel ea:tensions of water and �_
� " ,
� seH�er services is not presently h.ing considered by tlwse utilities. The suhni.ssion
S
`" gave no indication of whether any utility easements �.nuld be nceded or are held or �
b tahat �tlmd the i` �
=� y �c+r�sline wvuld be e�ctendecl givcn [�RT's assessnrnt of loeally un-
� i
stable soils. The sulmission states tliat a l�ack up pcnaer source hnuld be pmvidc:d by j
t
o.�nsion of t1�e existing Aspen �buntain line to ihe Little lvu�ie facilities. Use of �
this route as the primisy source would not place additional lands ui a pot�iti�]. devclop- i
�
i; ment mntc�t. �
• ' f
• 12eyulation (5-203.2) recniires descri.pL-ion of U�c volwc� of ui•il.ity servi.ces required, k
oonstruction�'�uxl nu.i.ntc���u�cr L-eclu�i2ues, a n��p slxx,�ing utilit-y cascymnts a�xl ].octiti.on I
�
i
of'major faciliLics wx1 iheir rcl.eiLionshi.��� to gec�la7ic coix3i�i.pns, etc. 74�e suhni�:�i.on
cc�nt�rL•s nener,�l.l,y vic.ao e.uc]i dei:ails .�, prpi�.�tw:c u�xl �u-c ycnr..r,�7.1y not includal. i �
�. �lo nu...:�lyu h�.. l�rw �m� L�W.��tY'1'r�L4tif. ('Rl��ol�r - �'eqvw J fi,v lcu� �� Eu L.�',:s j
I �,
�•. �(r�U h� L�• UVdNL4�-• �:l�r.� ,.. � i,
b No '��{�h rw u.l:i.t.t���� 1iMi� a[I��A.,lluti� ,}��. a:�r_�i G��;t�.ili;s �
J
. �..�..,� . . . . . . _ �. . . . . . . . .
si.i`:'ti_�. �
�^.,���FL.: � . .
�•.'�!��y
rw....:'.'•;.::'"/
'(.�•.v1J' .
j _ ........,.....r.+� ,�w.�e
-3y`_:
! ' •
�.••1 � i''i - - . .
.,��' ` . .
,
r?�y rC.^ . . ..'. .
����� -...,.:r.;. . . - . . .:.. ..
' ;IYL�.iT^°.t.<t� ::�•...�..�.. .a. ..,.._..�y.n. ....,�...���..:-,��.fw:.���-w.s�..iw+.v+.aa.�Kaafswu�i.w'�•+.....vwrs+w..rr..wa�v..1�.�•.teay
�t 4/
.. F�; ,`....: . _ . ���(Ti_.
I$
4_.,�
�'N� � � � . . �
[,?'-.1.- i �,
�r a�.�•x u. .
2-11 Elt(Y.�7fRd • .
2-11 @roalon .
It Is Ihc pulicy ol tho Coimty to pmvenl lhe accclentlon o(thr,orosion
ol soii:md rock ns cro:ion cnnU ibutes lu strc�m::cdimenlation,dust,
flullyin�,allcratiun of druin�ge pallern,,r.xnr,c�balion ol 11aod haizards, .
loss ol n:tiural vc,rycl�tion,vi::u:d scars,Icachi�q a1 ininr.rals into I:ikvs
endslrn:ttns,Ucalructiun oI�inirn:d Mbi�als,and incrca,c:d maintenanco
� costs ot roads nnd similar(acilitics' . `
' , ;
The USI'S �IS states that construction will result in accelerated erosion and sedi-
mentation o�hi.ch may ultimately result in increased suspended sedvmnt in the Itoaring
,Fork. Also tl�at "generally, a rigorous program of slope stabilization and revegetai-ion
can be designc:d to control erosion and mitigate potential adverse ing>acts." WRT �
. . � I
, substantiates this situation particularly �3uring tt� construction stage. �
I
Regulation (5-102.?1�2) requires plans for the control of'erosion in all identified
area and (5-102.2b3) a guarantee of any t�q�orary or p�..L-manent measures necessary to
_ ;�' prevent or control anticipated erosion problans. These requiremenis are not intended
_..r .
� � to be met until a later stage of the develop�mnt. �
y; � .
� y .
;9�. �
1{
`L'�.a
-2' . • . ' �
t . �
�
'._ � £
�
i
. €.
. . �.
�
� . • �
�
� � • . j
. �
1
. � �
� . . � . • . � � I �
. • �
';�i_�., : i
, � �
, . . ' . �. . . � �
I 1
„ i
� • • i
. ' . �
I
. ,
_ . . • . , . . �
�'t�`�.=;mi��r. . . � -
. .�_ _ 4--
f,`?"� �x�� - "
° ��i�r:. i� . . .
.{�. - '
4�t��� /,
�a�'_ �
y'�j' ,�.....,..,._�-_a.::rr.E rstvi:�c�cr�: �:..c:--a,...r��.:..:� .�,. .-�._a,,.isma;'::�k'i-6�G:. .'��:.+sa.cssii�^yy4F+ �'�: .
i� y�d
��
:n y'+.
'9 `T�t,ryY���i' .
� . 5� •
�f`�.9'y..t S.�`
�� '
Y1Y/'?t�c��t+ �
2-12 CCIQL�Al'IISILI'PY 47ii7I ll'f.S1l�It7C;l�L NJU 111tG11llJDIlJC)I(7�T, 12L•';OUItC1S ' .
• , . •
;
2.12 Compalil�lllly edlh Ftistorlc�l mid Archaeolo�lcnl Itcsouree� i
' tl is th� pulic�ul ii�n Couidy Iu j:ro!eci any ci:r,a�d strur.lur��s . '
delonn6ied to Livr, historic�l or �rchaeolopicai signilicanr.e tu fhe i
communily,ihe reqion,or lhc Statc of Culorado Irnm�nydc:dnicliunor �
nilbrnlion ol Iho silc,stnicturc or nurroun:ling arca ihit would datract
� ' fromitsmenningasrepicsen�aliveolapariod,style,occasion,oruniyuo �
� nCtivily. , .
. , . �
- The r�s� aif-eci:ecl historical site will be the Ute Cc3netex}. l�s can be seen fram �
the base area plans, it will be bowxled on one side by the gondola base terminal and f
on ,another by c�nployee housing and parking. The sutmission contains preliminary I
suggestions including lntter security through appropriately designed fes�cing and
�
landscaping, limiting access to a feea controlled entrance points, an� increase.d �
security i�asures instigated to protect the cr�tery from vandalism.
� Re�ulation (5-103.1) T'��ires that any anplication shall shv�a that the proposal
i
is consistent with and would not have an adverse impact upo� the historical site. �
,.
:, �. . Regulation (5-103.2) requires plans showing haa the proposal ��uld enhance,th�
_�r�': �reaning of such historical site. • . ,
# .� " ' . .
� t. � The stilani.ssion oontents do not specifically address these t-��o regulations.
�� �
k
. 7
� �
' ' t
' �
• �
• • �
. 1
. , ,
� � .. .. . - ' � � ' •�
. . 1
. . � �� . . • • � . � � . � � � � . ' � . � . ', � ,
�.��..� . . . ..
Y" r .
'�wi�w.".�:i.`�,r+f . . .
�1:'%!T77!'fr'o'.:� � . .
j,i,` <ti's-�;;� .
�, y�qs .� . . . . .
,'���� '
:,..,.� rx •,
�.���_�-..__r«.,.� �..:...:i:w. ' � _�.r.b.,�._�.,..+-c_:.... .....:..s+:,�..''e.•r.ze�_:a7,�c�x.as�w+:.�x_�.,..—.�...._.aw.c+am�rnsv-nn�r.<m: 'S � ,
_�.azr 4v cr�C-.�.�.u
� • N
. ' � ����t�i��.
�A..,r' ' . . � �i
�s���.. .
�; ,. . ' flAtf'4'i'.�'.1,.•`•
� 2-13 CQ4L�1\i'II1T7I1'Y 47l771 /Y�ftTCUL'1VIt11L Li1M�; 11ND O['Ia2111I0NS '
d
' 2-l9 Com�nOblllty wllh/1,rydcidlurn!Lnnds nnd Opetallons . i
f I� k Ihc pnlir.,af Ihc County tu prr:;r:rvr.Ihc ecnnomic vi�bility of
nc�rlcullur:�l l,v�d:::ind oprrnlions willun!'itkin Counly tv cnsuri�U�at . .
r 15r�c:tracls oi land n�nv comr.iiU�.:rl lo or c�p:�blu ul a��ricultur.d u::cs
� Sh7�!!he proscrvr,rl.whcrc pnr,lic.ible,ns n loc�d resuurce aroa. �
To Il�is end.il i::llic policy of lhc Counly lo:
2-13.1' E-nsurethnldevclopmentsurrrnmdinc7ac7ricultunllandsorncar
, • such land^,sIt:AI nnl ncike Conlinur.d a�rir.ullural r�p�ration::imprnctiCal '
or economically inlcasible by rr.a;:ons ol divisions oI agriculWral iand
- iMo parccls of unwork�b�c sizes,shapcs,or composition. i -
' � 2-13.? [ncourage the exclusion of primarily agricuitural areas trom
� taxinq distric!s which may be formed lor purposes not of ineasurabie
benclit to agriculWrol operalions.
2-13.3 Avoid dcvciopment or development pallerns that will require
watcr lo be taken out ol agricuHural us�s. •
2-i3.4 Encourac�e ihe preservation o( agriculturai lands and uses
within the undevetopcd portions ot proposed or.approved devefopment
wherevcr possible. �
2-53.5 Protect agrfcultural operations lrom disNplions associated �;
, Wifh neighboring non-zgrfcultural development,including depredation f
_ of dumcslic pets.
Regulation (5-104.1C) requises the applicant to show that the proposed develop-
" f
- �mnt will not require signi£icant changes in agricultural rrater uses. John Musick
; g _ reporEed during the public hearing that 100 acres of agricultural lands w4uld.have
�,-�' • ' to be rpJroved ircm production in order for the pmponent to acquise sufficient watex ' �
� •� .
� + rights to Eormulate a watex augmentation plan. Without either the water aucgt�enta- �
� tion plan nor further develogmait of the vrater supply alternatives for the irountain-
top facilities. the proponent cannot ans�aer the requirements of this section. �
'� " � . � .
` � � LL �
. � �,��A
�oM . � . � t
• ' . �
. �
� • i
�
� �
. � �
3
, . � �
• �
' 4 i
�
• � ' , � �
�
'':'� i
, .� 3
' • a
, . , , ' 3
. . . :
.. � � . .. .. . . • . .l
. . . � ' .. . ' � ' . ij
.,. .. .... ...... . . ...... .... . �. . . ... . . . .. .. ... .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .
,
!� �r ,
d r:a�
-a�wrrJ .,_.._ r..�arr�rv.�. -�-�-. . ..._--_ . . ._._ ... ..... ._.. ...,.
� .M� ,
{��� � i�Z1� , . .
1` '
yP •r��{Sz�'�'dtAHi"st�3.f..3:^�F..u.u:r��n:x...�,..i"c' r.....� .,.L',:.'.---.w.1:.:ae�•.!S':xr'L^:Sa>:;ir_avxa�.st;a[n.�:.«sm;a.u-ua.. �
. r� . • �����I ;
�y+aL..��.�t..
j a,;t�y s.,.
�I3 . .. ` t-��,,:y,.;:•,..
a1 , tn"HYt'�':'-�
!
2-14 1lQC'AC'TS ON iAXl:S 11ND I+W�71GLMf;79T 01' IJIX:[S511L2Y SI:iNICTS 11M) I7uCILITIP'a^
' ' i
• 2-14 Intpacle on T;�xes nnd Manngcmenl ut Necesst�ry Servicea �
nnd F�cIlllic. .
, It Is thc pulicy ol thc County 10 ensur�lhat fulurcdr_vr_lopment will no� I•
resull in flny reduction in the quality of servlces or public facilities or ` �
programs provided lo lhc�oncra�community or portiur�s 1hr.reot. i '
_ - Il is also ihc policy of lhc CouMy to en�urc Ihat tlic financial integrity .
ot existing County or special dislrict program,is not jcopvdized by •
• over-cr.fension, inadequatcly or poorly phased use levcls,or lack ol �
►evenue basc. 1
�
�
. �
� Using 47RT's calculati.on and correcting errors in mill levy assumptions, Little �
, Annie's will provide to Pitr.in County an estimated $72,435 in property taxes and �
$17,7a4 in sal�s taxes, at 1980 rates ar.d dollars. These are unrestricted and can !
. � '�
be used for any pLUpose. The County.�uld also collect increased U.S.I'.S. sY�ared �
i
�� i
revenues from lease iees for use of federal lands, which would be restricted by '
"�; statute for Road and IIridge p�u-poses. �
�;,'i
.,�� �
a ' Because of lack of detail in the sulmission, the costs of pmviding additional •
�'��`y . . �
#�'"�'a 1
� direct services such as health and envisorutnntal inspections of the restaurants,
� �, � • �
:'>:� inci.neration and sewer facilities, water supply and drainage systems; shzrifi and '
a;;;� �
,;:j rescue sesvices; and the othzr indirect services resulting fran an inerease in peak �
�� � population; cannot Yx: estimated. No m�n{-ion was made of im�cts on the hospital
e . `
•j.:: . .
despite obvious increases in skiing related acci.dents.
. S
i:;.� i
_ Regulai-ion (5-204.2) rec��i�-es reports dociumaiting anticipated v�act of the pro- �
� � posal on necessary sexvices and facilities inclu3ing e.aisting er,cess capacity, addi- f
L;
f;` '
tional d�and resulting from the proposal, cost of i�eL-uig such dem-u�ds, etc. Th� 4�
,
`„� sulxnission relied upon thz ��RT repnrt; the report did not supply these specifics 1
:,;� .
� and was 9enerally inadequate. s
Regulatiwi (5-204.1C) requires the applicant to show ihat any operating costs assign- �
able to the proposal c�� be met by thc utilities �vithou{: canni.tting their curre»t � �
i
users to fec incseases �ahich nught othenvise be wviecessm.y. The addition oi- a suU- ; �
� stc�u�i:i.al elecL-ric �rot�er us�s at times of• �al; drnvu�d resu],is in increasing the dc��tiuxl i
. �
�
ch��"me l�.�id Uy cill uscrs w�l.ess liittic Tumi.e's is 5����E � a���.u�a >>�i�.l�l�. r�o �
�� I
Stai:GlYnL \�aS m:xle to i:1�aL- eff.�v:l:. ( �
Rr�pilaCic�n (;-;nn.i��) rc;inirc: ihc +i.,nl..ic+uii: i:o �:lK�:: 1-h.iL•' Yiie 9rolic;�tctl .^.�.,�,;iii�� n� ! �
. i i
. �
deve]o�tii�nt: �ai]1 imL• c�c�ni�r.iCc� ceivi.ci� or f.uci7.iCy cic•ncirxl�� S.n uclvemc.�e of: 1:3�e f..i.^.c.�l. ;
'ij i
sr . . .
,.'�Y�`�� ,
�'�':.�:"',°"`
. i��`���:!
�, ,
! `s�,;� - '
y
� '��,�� ,
Ff l y� ' .
��7�� _.:�'_:.;�:�-��.—_....k..z-..JSSr.cx;is.�.�='.::,i._..:7.aa..i ic .�.�..N.�-....:.a.:.�..t�t'.1..:..FC.fi.'(Th�'.�'`�'�`itk.`_�l"�'I�i�Cw �.r' ^,`{'w`L�7':f-. ."7'"'";j,.-�sjT
( . ,�ti':.
'� . �,�,�,
�t: ,. • �"�'-=��'
� ,
�►xl pliYcic�1 ubi.lity ot the Counl-y or oLhcr disisicL•s W prov3.dc wiU�i.n ihcir budgcl•s.
T� �1�PS.zc..nt assunr_d t}�ut there v,ould be no suci� i.rrq�.•,cls, when i.n fUCt U�e=a ure !
_ i
scverul.. . • . • i
� . �
1) The clownL•v+m L-ransport-ation analysis asswned all the reoortmcrulations of•
. � �.
� ihe TDP aixl specif-ically t�e existunce�of a major parki.ng L-acility on the : '
_ -- � Rio Graiule property, f•leet P�sion, construction of a mai.ntenance facility, '
and ass�l the�rove of ihe Ruby ParY, transit interEace to 1:he Rio Grande in �
i
detesmininq a manageable traffic solution, but does not include provision �
for the City and County to finance or i�lc�nent the proposed improve�nts, ,�
2) Both access routes for aclditional sY.iers are at capacity. Siate Hiqlnaay 82
has b�.n statr.d in ]bth Yhe USFS LIS and�Colorado Dept. of Fiigliways Carbandale .
• - T'ast ETS to be over saEe capacity. The County Airport ternunal is at pea); f
t
� p�..rio3s passenger handli.ng capacit-y naa ancl requires majar capital eapansion_ '�
IThe airport rurnaay needs width, length and st-rengthening impmvett�ents to
- _ .accoimadate planned aircraft improv�nts o£ ais carriers or exi.sting general ��.
'� , aviation dmiand needed to�supply skiers rec��ired by the total supgly of i
i!
� s]ci�ng. � i.
-i .
• 3) The sukmission did not adequatel elaborate on the � �
y im�ct of a 2Z� increase
' j . in p�ak skiing capacity on other facilities. I�
i .
� ., i i
! � j
4
� � � ��
� ' �
!
. � �� � � �
. . � . � ;
. �
�
. ;
,, . ...
-; , �d
. . �
� � .._ . ._ , . ____ _.
y��0. K�
RS ,s.�)1� , �
a #, z;! _ •
�t;....''
"}�'�',�,�� '� � . ... � r.�..__,.. � a�.� 5 .F}ma�;x� i�� 1t�^.:"Z'! �
.. �� ; •°'°..".'cc�,e`-..:.:.t.i�C:�cr-l.�wlc.��:c—.:.7?�._.-rx-.r� ...<y.e. =irt�n'uF`lPi:'zS:4a.�'.sHC:i.L»��+..c.m�fa:^i4r`i:3�'�`It�.s:w��.,.��w
iR (
�L IT,
�• kL�� 2
p, : ' -�j,�Y;�.,,
�.1 �'alicy 2-15: 11ou:.iiJ, �ki,4':��`-.
i:g, '
,:�>
�� ,
' . `�
2-15 1•{btr.:inh . . ! .
Uy r�.ulutiun d'!A•97 (197Ay �i',c1 th.: r.;lnbtishrticnt ot a Cuur.ly �
Hbusin�Aufho�ity;md hourantl nt(Ir.r,r:il ryublir,ezpr.n::r,.I'ilkin Counry �
� IIi15�fY.�UWICd[)Cr11N�1 critir,ai stwiY:�nc ot p:imury rac:ideNial�lu•.�;mtl
�. made�alr.incwnr,liou�inq to bc at pnbiic r.�ncr�n.Wioreovcr,�a;idenl
And tUVri:t:.peeul.divc invustment.�nt1 ihe uliliz:diun ol an inr,rr.;�ainr� �
(refG;nl��r�� ui tia:iiou,in�) s1ucY, tis shr�rt•inn❑ acconuncd�f:on� or
' vacation liomcs can Uc�d��niili!•A as Ivio Inclors eonlribuling lo::hieh
Inilafion ratc and pricc ir,vr.l aind a confrac�ion ul Ihc I!ou5inc,stock
- avaitai>Ie fur pr,rm�nenl residan? primary housinq. In addilion lo
-- • . CxCludin�tov�and mot)r.r.rte incomc ncrscn,irornl�owinn opporWnity
„ {n the cxi�ting mirf:cl,1hcsC m�rl;ct lorces�oslcr Ihc devclopment of
' . qeW NUU;inc��hicb is at teast eyi:aily exclusionary. ' :.
' 7hersfore, in order to aileviitc Ihc ovr.rcrrn�iding, unsnnitary , !
.condifions,excc55ive commulin�,an�rocial ir.st�bility pr�valent in the `
=: permanent resident communit}•resultiric trom spectda:ive r�nd louri>t �
fMiuence in the permar.ent resideni housinc�markeL'lo provide a wid^r
choicc of hcu�ing altcrnatives lor persoru o1 lovi or modcratc inc:omcs
+ fivinc� in lhe communily:and to ensure that lhc•housing so proviCcd
� rem�ins iree trom specula�We or tourist influence,it is Ihe.policy ot the � �
Cuunty: .
' _ . -2-15J To direcl a portion ot new residerttizl devclapment nctivily So (
� '' alleviate ihc shorla�e ot Ic,w and.moUeralely priced housing units fn she
. Counly,and ' - . _ ...._. __ . . . ' , �
�
� � 1 �
" 2-15.2 Tocnsurelliatfuturedevelopmentalleviatesrathe�thancrcafes
- �-or viersens probl�rns oi iradr.quate hous:ng tor persoas residing or
worY,L,g within ihe County. {
� � To this cnd it is the policy oi the Counly io ensure lhat ihere is
avaitaUle,orwill bc made avaiiaCle,housirig�1 sui:abte;yp:s,costs,and
� � loeations fo accommodatc persons and thei�lamilies efnPloYed a;a •
�'� �' ' resuH.i the consiruaion or o�crat+on e(ary tuWre de�elopment,ard
. " l'o ordinarily disapprove tlinse devclopmenis n-hich are defin�d as
�s, . exdusionz��.and
�. 7o req�ire that except where proved inleasible such lo�.v and
�` mocfe�ately nriced housing is provided within Ihe site of 1he deeelop- �
�. meot proposal. ,
In accordance with provision 2-15.2 of the Pitkin County Land
Use Code, Little Annie proposes to provide 83 employee bedrooms. �
This represents 51$ of the number of employee bedrooms identiiied as �t
needed by the WRT report.. Verbal assurances have been made by Little 4 `
l
� Annie to provide 1008 of, the employee housing required by the ;
r . • i
development. To c3ate, however, no afEia-mative proposal for providing �
,
the additional 49� of required bedrooms has either been promulgated �
� �
or reviewed. ; �
. i
,
. � �
� ' ,�
. � . �
_ ' � '
f
�
. ' i
. � � !
�F:�'.� , . ' � �. (
},
i]
• t
• (I1
. .. . . � . �1".
'. .
�. " ........... ...... . . . . . .
�r�� .
� �
rJ
� $ �tt �:� . . . . .
! +��`i .
������
k. .,�'?:fil _ . . .. .
lf s—�,.;$; _'.
r •r�w_...:��-� .,,:. .......: -
�7 . MK1 .—.._ . _.._......_ . ,�:���� ��_
n F
�� -�. �����
r:i '. .
� 2^1G SC1:T�IC �Ul�LI'PY • ;
t�i . i
, �
• �
�
. �
2-16 SceM*.QuaINY � i
, It is 1hc pr,licy ol Ihe Coi-d�t�preseryc 1hc scr.nic qualily ot thc
Counfy tor 1hc bnneSil ot its tesidenl5 and ihc coMinued vial�ifity o(a �
recrealinn economy wliich is dcpenticnl Upon U�e quality of ils rural and
' , natus�l selting. ;
' To lhis end, it is ihc policy ol Ihc CouMy lu�prescrvc thc n�lural
, �ppearanca o! the mountain slopes,parlicula�{y irom major activity �
. OrrtiS,public ro1ds,and trails by regul�ting thc location,hcight,design �
end screening ol devclopmenl. ;
N is also Ihe policy oi the County to mi�imize any adverse visual elfecls j
uf to:+ds a�d tacililies by reryu4ating lhc location and use ot future �
� . devclopmenl an�thc er.pansion of exisfing development where new or
= Irtcreascd roaJs and tacilities woutd b�required to serve such areas and
+vhe�re the provision of such roads and lacilitirs v+oulo impact�he visual �s
quaiity ot arcas visiblc(rom pubiic roads 2nd traifs or Srom major.activily
centers. , �;,
. tt is also the poticy o1 the Coumy to minimize any adverse visual effecis
' ol roads and olher facililies by re�ulating Ihcir alignment,design,and
constructien so as to retluce their impact on ihe visual quality of any ' r
nreas in Ihe CouMy and particularly public roads and trails and major E
. activity<reas. `
. Il is�Iso the poiicy of Ihe County to control lhe u:e o(natural areas to �
. unsurelhalthefypeorinlensityo(suchusedoesnolresuftinscarstrom �
firc,erosion or��andalism. ;
'� �l i,also tho po�ic�u(the County to preserve and create scanic v+ews of �
° tfio surroundin�mounlains irom public pl<.ccs�vilhin!he County.
� �'a ' It i5 also Ihe policy ol lhe County to achiavc visuulc,ualitywilhin areas !�
- =, ot ezisling and luturo dev�lopment by prohibiling or requiring�.
��� +. provisions(or screening oi unsig;�Uy equipmer�t,uses and structures;
ti:.. eontrolling the desig�and alignm�nt ol electricity and phone lines and
�� � similar facililies and, v+liere feasible, requi�ing such lines to be ' �
��' undergrond; cpecilying design slandards such �s setbacks, height �
limits, viev+ corridors, hisloric zOnes and material requiremenls; �
� �� . controlling signs,and ensuring the rehabitatiun of areas suL•jected to �
;;" lemporary or discontinuous use,'such as mines,pns,ana quarr�e,. �
,;:
u The sulmission states intent to lessen visual.im�ct by use of helicop�'s during �
�
constsuction and by choosing color oanpat�ble paints and materials.
� �
' } The ��TfrP suhnission di.d not discuss in any detai.l the requir�ts of Re9ulation 1
(5-105.2), including a revegetation plan, an erosion a�ntrol plan, disclosure wheL-her !.
�.
� the pmposed pcnaerline would be iu�derqround, discussion oi the impact- of road improvc- F
�'� .. `
,,;;" tr�nts in the Castle Creek Valley, on scenic �ality and is��acts of develo�ze�.nt on �
�
r` scenic quality vic�,•od fran t��e Independence Pass arca. The rorest Service �IS ideni-iiied
�
� ��' Lhree ].�ations on the develoi�nent sii;e as needing special nunagcymnt W mitigate
visual iair�zcts. These were U�e first secL-ion oi U�e gondol-a rising from town, Go�xlola �
7�e�.Yn'v�al 2 and Gotxiola 7CrnLinal 3. The i•ii:st of tliese w�s iduiL-ificci �s the area wl�i.ch k
will he�vc the great.est visual in�p:.�ct. Ab speci£ic measuLCS w mi.tiqute ttus im1�acC :, i
i i
t�e idei�titial iai eii��er the I'orc,i: Seivice )3IS or i;hc hTCP rc}�ort. �
. �
. i
� �
' ... I i
_ �
� '
�
'Yy +q}
1 y' .
������`�
_.�
,, �a '`� . �
,. „�;�.:�:k .
f:`��;�
. �� �3Ki'Y'�,a"� '
�,��.�:t+�
�,I `a1G��..���Ck'�r.�r::�'&S..s..�a�:�e . _--..�.��..�.....�.t,:.:�w.:e�".�.'�:3�i�?,�',a+�T`�a'"`�i�xd��r;�Yi:�:c'�'zt":" _ � :.��aL
i .�� n�,��f��.t
F:� � • 1 � � � :�Y���-i-.
g� • �� E�1sA'�A�'„��;t.�.
@
� 2-17,]\IIt QUN,ITY
2-17 Alr Qua1lly .
II Is Ihc pulicy uf I1��:CounlYto pr:rrnil only lh:il devclopm�nt which will .
nul conl�ibufr.�i!�ndicantiy to dc�ndaliUn ol air qualily in Iho County. � ' .
The sulmission i.dentifies five areas oi potential aix quaiity degradaii.on.
Fugitive dust will Jr_ generatcxi during constructiorr and will require a state
pollution control petmit. RestaUrants' fireplaces will be limited in rnmJ�er by j
�
oode restrictions anrl will not- be allowed to burn trash. Inciner.ators are planned (
at both base and irountaintop facilities and will l� designeri to meet state stand- �
arcis. Increasecl local traffic at the base area, coupled with an additional bus �`
- fleet will 9ncrease pol.iution downta+m. •
Regulation (5-106.2) requires an air gualit-y impact re rt re ed or reviewed , �
P� P 1�
- i
by a reoognized authority, identifying the ext�t of expected efficient dispersal (�
of ais p�llutants generated directly onsite by burning or indirectly by isaffic j '
� . �
--,�',:' around the site; the extent and acceptability of aii poll.ution created 17y the ��'`
'� addition of the proposal to e�:isti.ng pollution levels, etc. This information was I
'� not supplied nor. any indication of conti.ngency plans for incinerator malfunction
• and resultant inq�acts on the diarip, nor an consideration oi• continuc.d inspections
• needed to monitor cxxnpliance taith air quality standards.
�
' �
. ,
�
. (
. , , �
_ • �
;.:t;, • � ,
i
1
. . i
� . � .s
. i
.�
! y ._ . .._.. .. .
�i;���
;•t:._:•.".:+N
,.r,�
��
� ��.r s;;� '
���Y�
� � '�
����� � •2
u � ,.r�c,�: , .. -',s�:z.':1!i,�t'�'s'�"�i��i?tS�`�:.^�'�"y.`L �'+t"
��k''^r'^1'``��;++ac`r"..aeb«��s:::J;tC:;�!5':bi'SC:.-:.a."L-:...s,sn_.�ir` . -':,��..r�:+;�'i.a..�:t � T �
�H��.:.
. � " }y't;�.irs'�
. . � � . ��S'f1"y,••5' .
p.i�r�:s.._
2=1i3 173EPf�Y GLXJ:;1:itVAtI�id
2•18 Gncrfly Cattscrvntfo� �'
'Il iS lht��olicy n(tlia C�iurUy lo nnCOUraqC fcatures in any dcvclopmont
, or aclivity prc���o::d w:iich will conccrvo ener�y rr•�ource�and minirnize � .
tha consumptirm ot e�ergy.To this end,il is the�iolicy o4 the County 10 •
encoura�e oricnlalion o(strucWres lo take vdvantagc ot Ihc sun:to
p�evenl slruclures o�development Irom blockin�diroct sunlight to ahor j
— ""�) structurc;, improvem�,nts o� uscs: tu encourac�e usc ol barricrs as �
i • delanse�glinsl wmter winds;to pro��ote dig�ing ol structures inlo the h
j ground for insul�lion;tb promotC the usc ot{andecaping to niaximize
_ 3 cooling in the cummer and rete�tion ot heat in the winter;to sncourage
� road construction+rhich maximizes use o(the 5un for snow mc1t;lo
� . promolc consuuction and sitin��vhich conscrvc natural gas,cicctricity
anJ gasollne;and to encourage le�tures which promote iransportaticn �
� alternalives to aulomubilQ use,such as the use ot trails and transil. '
i , .
E
� � • S in ihe bullding �.�
. S
; The sutmission states intent to use some i.nnovative techni9ue
� and o ation plans for burning solid wast�s as an alternative.enexgy source;
! desi P� �.
: � ��
i tranagement of electricity usage to minimize the ma�'im�an dm�na xate% at� u=.e of �
j „ e�fective passive solar technology and thermally efficient building envelopes. �$�
� .
�" The cletai.ls of such intent are not included in the su�i-SSion and cannot ts� evalvated ���
�'; for efiective�ess. without further timderstarx�in� °f �t P�k'� al't�r�at�'v� will • �
#� . I 4
i�' actually exist and of the resul.tinq t.raffic fl�rv�s, evaluation oi the ener9Y conserva- i
� , i
! ti.on effectiveness of the propased transit syste�� i.s inoo�lete. f •
�
� . . � � I
' • ' ��
_ . i
=�-
• �
. I
. . I
�
� ;�
::?� t
.,
- � � , ,
, �
. � �
;�,;�:= �
. - 4 �
.:i y
<-� . • • �
; .
��w�:� ..
,.-_:I � . .
' � . . .. . . , . �
� . . . • .
; �•
.._. .__..; .. _ ,
ti � � ` .
�.}�„g..�
t:r� �
� .:::���`' ?:6 . ' . .
� ����r'A� . .
>�j+f
� -r�'Y.*�stii . .. . . . . ..t .. ....�.a �
� �Rk�IP'ee.."afFer�Y��:.:S.��it.�+.���Y..t"�..�'+ui.4r.ni'T�tl.Mr�i(� ...Y�Jrit�.. ;�:M.L�IS�.I.''S�:i� .±':w'�,..,sy..e'r«t:..ti.:�.'"i«.`Gi�''•i�"ai.r�
������
`' ��r�.`.�`,.�...
! • . :�!t'1�';•'','
�. �. � . - E:�;r.�..- .
f:� •
�� z-1� i��asik�iirnriaa , �
j ' '
2-19 Trnnsporlr.11on
I1 M tfic�+alicy ol lfir.County to encourar�c in any new devclopmcnt or ,
� octivity prc�pa;;.it tnta::urc�v�hir.h minirnii.c aulornobilr.congestion:�nd
protnoic lrnffir. :��t�.fy �md to discuunpc aulomobile sourcc� ol air
. pullulion.'i u th�s und,it i:;ihc policy ol Il�c County to r,ncour��c in any
new�rw[:lopnn:nt or�r,tivity proposal mcasurc:5 which prornotu nnn-
• rnotorized transpo�lalion allcrn���ivr.s such as V[�il:for bicycles,hora�s, •
' pedeslriaiis,an[:cross-counlry:Y,�ers;mcasures which encour:iqe the �
, usn o(lrnnsil!:yslems,pubiiC ir.msportalion�nd thc like,as opposed to ' •
the individual u::c of ihc automoUilc;and mea,ures which reduce the ' '
" nurnber of vehicle trip�per day.
The transportation ir�aets of Little Annie and ski a�cp uision need to be viewecl on �
twa levels. In the micro view, I.ittle Annie's promotion of pedestrian and transiL-
` • ��
access to anl fran the ski area is a positive step tn�uard achieving :he County's Ysans-
. ��,
poriation p�licy. It is the macro�view of transportation and ski exp�nision that pre-
- . F.
• sents i-he unresolved proal�ms. � �
.!� The consultant analysis that resulteci in t-t� finding that "existing transpartation
� problcxns can rnntinue to b� solver3 and additional gro�ath in ski area capacity can b� �
----•+� .
allowed provided that this groerth is not hi.ghly dependant upon access by pr.ivate auto- �
� ,i m�biles," was pre3icated on the eonplete irt�l�uitation of 1-he Transportation I�velop- ,
� �� �nt Program. This finding was based on the assumpti.on i3�at the i�lem�ntation of the . �
��� Rio V7an3e 3us TerminaL and Parking Structure, busZ•ray, maintenance facility, bus fleet
e�.�pansion, passenqer wai.ting shelters, as well as_the creation of a v-alley-wide authority
to ma-k:ge a transit undertaking of this size was a gives�. The estimata3 price taq fpr
these capital improvem�nts is around $29 million (1980 dollars). �
An es:tr�ly critical el�tnt in evaluating ski expansion in the Crnmiy is tllat �ve !
�
�
are cua.�ently transpor�ition-boLUid. By this tae mean tl�at {he CAUnty Aii-port an3 S1� 82. � `
- our only m:.�ns of getting people to and frmn Aspen, aze at or currently excec�i peal: �
� capacity (see Ct��1 Rill riirport Master Plan v�d Colorado i�partrn�it of Hi9hways Carbonlale I
f
T.ast �IS). AL present we �e severely limited in our abili.t-y to get enouyh visitors into �
Aspen to achi.eve U�e 300,000 skier visits reguired by Little 1�nnie. �
Solutions to this.problan �re difficuli:. 'In fact, for SIl £i2 duria�9 the ne�:t five � �
,yea�s ihcre up��ar. {:o be none. 71�is is basai on a revi.eta of- U�e'Cf�I1 5 ye�u' Plan whi.ci� �
. �
� - , alloeat•cs n�ney for engi�:��rL��r ri�1�L•-of-w:�y z,ccp�isition, enxl :xifety in��rovc�nenls buL- •'
does not pr.�x��-cmi t3�e S�O ��.i1S 1111�.1].OI] estini.�tecl tor ihc: necc^.stixy v�n�r.uvcmr_nt-s to :.i.c7- 1 �
ni£ic,u�Cly iaicrcarc U�c cc�t�:�ci.l•y of SI1 E32. Gi.v�� i��c Li.ii.u�cial. ricture for Colorudo j
• ( �
�
^ I
4
;
��A� , ..__.
` A� .!�N�
} t
„�,w - _.
w�_�
�...
' � :'�
;
t i�y'`t t>�
�
0. r_�Fiv'�U_.Y��..._._....,._......,...�.e__ a ....._ .. ... _ � ...::.v�� .. . ,s.-anm�m*.a�f!!.ns,n-�.'?.is5x.+:.S:::[°'�.:.5':U.}ix."fay]Y-.:k.uK�-�.-..�- .� ..
�� ��-��w!
� �
�, � �"���
� ,. . ' . ft�r�..
�; ' . k::�•,.�...
.
' � 2-19 77tAIdSPqirrA'i'IUN (conL•intux7)
hic,Jhw�ys, it is G�ro}h,bly high].y unliY.ely tl�at we c�an cx�icct L•he oortq�lel-i.on oL• any.
. � I
significent itiq�rovar�ents i�� i-he 1980's. ,
ti .
I'or the a;�,-t there appear to be three potential solutions. The first two '_
- could serve to posipone what is the probaU].e inevit:able solution. The first of these
would be ko significantly aclzieve a spread'uig of the peak by getting visitors to `
arrive throughout i-he �reel:. This would forstall major i�rovermnts in the short term '
ar�d the County��uld avoi.d m�jor air.port ex�pansion crosts for the next few years. This i�
� m-
f,;
is lxn�ever, l�yond �he control of t1�e County and qiven the lack of success in the past•, �t
wou.ld require e:ctensive effort by the la9ging people in the oonna�nity. . A second
. poteniial solution o�ou].d be to chanye t�e �.isting policy on ni.ght f3ights to allas more
., oa�rcial op�sal:ions. This �•x�uld tend to alZeviate the inm°_diate prablem of access (
,�for Litile Annie but would not provide sufficient capacity once Burnt Mountain ca�
•.( on lins. . .
-. _ I�-
� �The m�st effective solution is however the expansion of the runway arid texminaJ.
� facilities to allow access to Asp�.r, by larger aircraft. The airport master plan oon- `,
' . sultant estimates that these itt�rova�nts s�vuld oost around $12.5 million a�l we�ulcl ”
Yequire voter approval to incur the indebtedr�ess. An in�ortant elc�nent to re�er
is thati these improvc��ts (as w�ll as t1�e others previously discussed) must cane on
�
line before or at the sa� tu� as ihe exparxia� sl:i capacity. ' ,f
, i
�
. Both the reca�ttmndations oi fi1�e many transportztion consuliants for Aspen and i
Pit}:in County aixl existing county policy call for increasing our transportation system �� ,
to imeL• gra.aing dem�-�nd,and io avbid unsolvable proble�ns of significant auto increase. ;
�
These, ho�.�ever, exist in a tim: when tliere are cril-ical questions aUout the County's , �
al�ility to fund theiz portion oi the e3;i.sti.ng system, let alor.e � up with the reve.��ues �
i
i:
that are necass�.-y in thc inm.-�liate Eutw:e. � j
. � 1
� �
The dc�nu�d to brang additi.onal ski.ers to i-he valley ia�crcases �vhen new sl:i �ucus ' . !
: � I
" are br.ought on li��e eu�d requires Uie County to cai� up with solutions in a much ti�hL-er j
time fremr.. 79�e m:�jor S.nyz�cl; occvrs ��i�viuri.ly dui-i.n� pe�,k'pericxi� whcn facili.ties ��r.e � �
. . � �
� . ... � i
. I:
. , {.
. .. .t
;
� . •i
�,� __. _. .
:r;ti� .
',�....,Y..,µtys . . �
.:a;w.j
��
,:.�.�.,.. -
_ _ _._.,
--- ___ _ .____
4 ,tC,r���'� � � .
Sl i "4 .
A
j ° �E;c.'
�
R� �;�;� ., .
t-....�.,z.k..:_. ar _.,,...., ,. 4....,� , .,�-�....
, v., _:_.._..__,_._..__._._ ..�'.....M.._...... ..__... .__>.. ....�.. «...�,. �,...,...,:�: -z,..,�....,.n.-•�,
�,�• . , _. ' �r, `
.` • '��{',,�,
�' .. , yr,.F.l�� ..,
. � � FINA��Si..� ..
�� •
2-19 T1t11t�ISL�lt7'A'1'TOI� (wnL-inucc])
highways, it is probeJ�ly hiyhly unlil:cly ihat we can exPecL• Uie ca�q�lcl•i.on of any
signific.�nt imprava�nl:s isi L-he 19a0's. � .
For Yhe airport there appear to k� i:hree �tential solutions. 2'he fixst t�+o
_ -� ' could serve to postp�ne what is ihe prob�ble inevitable solul•ion. The first of thcse
would l�e to significantly achieve a sprearling of• the peak by getting visitors to
! arrive throughout the wcek. This would forstall �jor improvem�nts in the short term
� and the County a.vuld avoid major airport expansion costs for the ner.t few yoars. Thi.s
�
is havrever, beyonrl the control of the Ccvnty and given the lack of success in the past, 1
� would requ�re er.tensive efiorE by the lodging �ec,ple in the comnunity. A second '�
potential solution �+�uld be to change ihe existing policy on night flights to allaa imre
. i
cattmxcial operations. This would tend to alleviate the ism�,diate px'oblem of access
� �.t
-• for Litile Ann.i.e but rAVld nat piovide sufficies�{:capacity once Burnt MounY.ain came �
. . �
y �
on line. � . �'
# : The trost effective solution is lxa�ver the espansion of the runway and terminal '
Aj � . . facilities to allow acc2ss to Aspen by larger ai_rcraft. The ai.rport rnaster plan con-
`f ' sultant estim.�tes that these i.-�rov�nts �uld cost around $12.5 million and c+ould
require voter approval to incur the irxlebtedness. An ir�ortar_t el�nent to r�nbes
is that ths� improvc�nents (as well as the others prcviously discussad) riust ceme on
. line before or at the same time as the expanded ski capacity. '
_ {
Boi-h the recam�ndations of the many transportatiion oonsultants ior Aspen and �
PiU:in County and existing county.policy call for increasing our trans�rtation system �� `
1
to m:et gra,ring dem�nd,and to awid unsolvable problcsns of significant duto increase. E
These, hot,ever, exist in a time when there are critical questions about U�e County's �
ability to fund theis portion of the exist-ing systpn, let alor.e ca�ie up with Uie revenues� '
that are necessar.y in the inn�^cliate future. t
I f
' . • � �
� The denuncl to bring addiLional skiers to t1�e v�llcy incrcases ��hen ncri s)d zu:eas I �
�
are bLrought on linc �u�d r.equi.res i:he Cow�ty to cane up wiUi soluCions in a nwch i:i.ghl:cr �
�
tSn�.: fr.tmr. 77�a»titjor vinx�cL occt�rs ��rin�r.ily duriai9 ���.al: ��ei-iods when f�cilii:ie, e�re �
�. ' 1
I �
,. i
. . .� I
. �
. ' . . . ' _ , . � i
�'�. � ' - . � � � � . � . . . . .
o,,.r. ._. ......'.... ....... . ._. . . ... .
0
�t,. '..m�:� ,
�'+??,"�.:�
�.....,,,..._„±.�':�� � � . , , .
,..�'��:'�;i�'.i�s.� a ' . . .
f�. n� . .
�Kr.-�' ,�� . .. . . ..
, ��'S . / �� �. . . .
.S
� .��'�a.`�.�' . r- .�.�-�n,�«:u�r-z.v:':ic:��z .:as<,��..�wa.w,.�r -.:f:�.;sr:x.uFl�:-_�✓�+.f�nc•.4�+'G. , ��"'�. � .�.� r S f
�,j� r
�-I . . ' ',��,''
�' .. � . .�:
. 2-19 T17)1[d51'01YL`Al'ION (conL-inuccl 2) i
wer capacity. 1'his raisc, the fundamenL•�l yuestion thdt if we have not• yeL- s.olvcxl '
existing nr.oblc�ns,of the highway, bus�ray, parY.ing, and vul.ley-wide Yws service can
we zeasonably uccept the burden of g�nerati.ng the adclitional inillions of dollars rc- ,
� i
__ quirc�d wer the ner.t few years to pay for ihe inq�rovc��ents to our peak ca[�acity of i
facilities re��;rerl to acoamnciate additional ski areas?
• ' L�
�
' ' ,
� 4}
. �
� r
' , �
, A
_ . 1
�' . • . '
-� ' ' .
. l�
i
;.; '
. . . �
�:, • .
'`, ' -
. t
�
}�: . , • �
Y� '���� . � . , � �
'�-��']�.i.���� . ' . � . t
;:y... . . • . .
�4:. . . . . . . . • � '
. ,. . . ' _ . . . �
, . r
��' ..
' . .. .. . , � , �
,ry .•• . .. .,. • = ". _ _ .
_.._... . . --__-- ...,-,:. . .._._., , , . _ .
a; _ _
:�
f.... 'Lya.+. . .
�..„�,...�.��... .r.��.� �.. �.. a..
' ,J ,
1 �SS'_.�
� k't�riZ'� � - .
��t :a`..?�4�x..��"`s.n.��a1$v}.3:..'�?fd:.e'4_.�ra5.a...�...��..�.t ._....�......:s.�W��...�,..c.r�'�"L:f}'x�>:'.:'�k'i����lit�F:i3t! m'� .�'n�C�n'�i't`3.��' ^!r'�;1���'
; , ,`tk r.•^*,tt:::
4
�� r t
�. � 2-:
• L Rf
a � � • �
� z=zo DI:VITAI��7L•1Ji�oR ��crr,�siaa or sl:i ��u��s
2-20 Devclopnunt or 6xpan.^.lon M Ski Arr,os '
il I�thc policy ul thr.Counly 10 revicw any proposad ncw or mnjor �
expansion ol n sl:i area lur ils direcl and indirecl impacls so as toensure
. thaL' .
�
2-20.1 7he proposal, with any accessory lodc�ing, housing and ' • '
commerciat lacilitir.,,will be loaded in an area which is appropriate for
- Ihc cxpansion ol eaisting or devclopment of new urbanization modes.
� �
The pxop�sal plans to use existing and C� allrnaed future lodging and oatr�rcial
space within the City of Aspen. The City has approverl, with mitigai:ions, sukmission
. �
; proposals for trails, employee housing, buildings, utilities, street and transit. r�'
With restrictions on activity occuring in the Castle Creek Valley, the prop�sal's
base faciliti.es are located in �ui appropriate area. �
� 1r
� •• � 2-20.2 The proposal will be located on a site which will provide skiing !'�
opportunityforsY,ierso(alllevelsofabilifyandwhichissuiWblylocated • �
: to ensuro adequate natural cno�v conditions for the durafion of the �
� • astablished local ski season. •
---..',. . I�':-
# ' . ' . �.
'� _ The proposal erill provide an appropriate range of skiing for beginners, i.nter-
mediates an3 experts. Clim3te and snow conditions have b�en reviewed in detail and �:
judgod to be satisfactory for ski area operations for at least 130 days and p.xhaps
140 days, mhe conditions have been proven over.an ext�ued p�riocl of sno�•� cat use t
'of the area. Special interests of pcxaier skiers wi.11 be affected by develolamait !`_
- ir
of the area, but �uld be out�+�ighed by the larger nwnl�r of p�tential users of the � -
i
develop�it. �
. �< "•
_ . �
2 20.3 Thc proposal wiil be economic�lly leasibic and will po:.lively • �
�. eond�ibule to the local economy and wili not cnuse or substantially
�contribute 10 excessive c�ro�vth in lhe Counly. . j
' f
�
, �r
L�ia*nic Feasibilit-�� is stat�3 by t4I".P to b�. predicated on successful nr-irket pene- � �
' tration, site and desi i efficienc muki c�mnt, operai:in effi.cicn � �
_ m Y. 4 9 �S'� �x3 capiYal s
,stn�ct-urc. Tliei.r fi:..c�l feasibility analysis was l.�a..n�i uPon a Sno-L•'ngineering ��a].ytiis ; �
. � i
usiuxi prclvninary operat.ing costs providccl hy Li.ttle Iv�nic m�nagcmcnt. Ii: concludecl
tht�t o1�-alutg c�pen�e^, �uu9 Ix�s,ible cti��itul sUZ�cL-ures wer.e witl�in ��ccerL•z�b.le limils i �
for ooa�qxn-�iUlc ol�rciti.rn7��, a,:;imunq 1.12 intcr.c3L• 1tiCe,, a�x] I�rovicic.�cl :.cxm_ mu-gin for � !
' r
. ' �
• �
i
, i
I , . , . i
� • ... .
. . . , _. .. .
t� N '���
�.
�
. ;,�. �:-�.i . � • .
4 # f'--j
.
� � �
��..
�: ,.
f� ��,......a-�_.......k--�,��-:,.r.�._..., ..,.:_.: ..._.... _... ,...�.�..�..�,.�..�.,Y.�,.�..n�....:_.:�r____..---
..,... ..__ �;�r.�.
�� .. ���.,:.,;-:.
r� _ i3'4:..:,•
� Ft�'.i, .
.� " . t{`;'�;�;� .
�: � "
s 2-20 (mntinucd)
�
- � br�d sY.i sc�:�on, ars�muny annuul sY.ier duys to be �et 2cast 3D0,000 in !he fi.�:st .
year :.uxl then increasi.ng at C�SP rutes each succeeding ye�r. The study noL•ecl U�t•
ihe ca�ital cost/ca�city ratio is �bwt £our tim^_s the nat-ionul averz�ge.
_ - The analysis did not yuestion i1�e ability to at•tract sufficienL• skiers nor
oonsider whether scane other factors could e,ffect economic feasi.bility. As stated
in previous secti.ons, access iransportation into the County is at capacit-y r�a,+,
r�uiring czspital facility i�ravmrnis, changes in policy, or cbanges in pea}; ;
/�l : "
� utilization patterns to bring i.n the additional skiers neodeal by Little Annie. "
wa s ��
A Sno-I]>.ginersing Opinion Research Studyncotc�leted for the USFS. •The Study sha+�ed �
� 8$ of adults over 16 in the U.S. were active sY.iers, 9$ were inactive skiers and �;
� 98 potential skiers. The major deterrent to inactive and potential skiers becoming
`� active taas c�st. Pitr.in C�unty ski area oosts are continuing to rise anci may be a
f major detesxent to an increase in sY.i�r days ls� 1985 or 1990. • �
�'�I�a - The anal sis did not oonsi.der tlie . �
y potenL-ial for Burnt Mouni•aui to be developyd
� ':1 . ' -
,
� ;;J . ' as an existing nP.�;tted�area, and whetl�er sufficient market penetration can be . �
,;;� .
�;jj generate3 for Little Annie if Burnt Mountain creates stiff marketing cxm��ei:ition
far the additional skiers capable of bVing housed under C� growth rates. Until
�� ii: can be shaam i-hat Bur.nt Mountain cannot occur until late i.n the decacie, the pro-
__ � ponent�+�ld need to shaa that approval nc7w of Little Annie ��uld not have a negati�e i
- effect on t]ie local econonry or would not create substantial pressures for growth }
i
" because of the er.istenc�e of excess skiing capacity.
. ' � . �.�
Q� cJrotet-h rates will provide, in the al�sence of sa� otl�cr consi:r.aint, i-he poten-
tial for an adclitional 310,OD0 skier days by 1985 and an addi.tional 310,000 by 1990. j
� i
In ordet to approve addii-ional ski ca��city needing imre than these allowahle skicr. '
f
increases, the BOCC caiuld need proof of positive eco�xmic in�MCt and assurance tivit �
.
surplus ca�ciiy �nuld not create cjrocaui pressw:es. � �
. !
si;af:f prepared T �
The follaa.uic7nchurt presents currenL- 19II0 and projectcci 1985.�v�d 199d u1-ili.r.ation �
rates for Counl-��vicle, Sno�,�iti�.ss and 71s��n n�t•xo arcas, xssuming Gh1P grrn✓lh in popu.l.�r ! i
, ;
!
tion. Sl;iing cc,pacifiy i�uxea:�cs for 1.9f35 inclixic 1300 �cldit.ional �it lli.9hlands, 3700 �
' �
aL• Sna,nniss t�ti.st srcl•o1; �nx] 9GQD aL- LitL-le Mnic. 27ie c��p:.�ciCy ii�crcuse f:or 1990 S.rs �
� i
. �
an .�tc]iLi�ai�i1 7Yii0 tw. Ifui:nC rvkrunLuin. ;
i �
• i
� • ,
� �'
:. ..._... ... .. ._. . . .
� � �� ' .
� ��4r,y�w,C .
l�.;e ;s•�`.�
�
1 � ��L �.� - � . . ' .
��Y T�`�. ,' � � - .
d �'�j
r .
......�:�� _. . . .. .. . .- _ ...; . . _........:.:: �.� ,:.-----�-_--- �,.1...��
k... .
LT'�
� �s��� .
o„Yr,..:
E�: . � � '. �������,._
i;� � ' �''�ti�'s;;."-
:�
�; ' 7.-20 (cbntinucc])
' F+ '
19E30 19b5 199D
1lspen Metxo arceis' . .
' peuY, usaye • 75� , 592 G72
i
10 highcst weeks 548 '. 452 51� ' .
. Sna�anass Village I .
pe�tk usage 99£ 75$ 578 �
10 highest weeks 713 56$ 92�
I . .
Cbunty�ride �
� �.:,
peak usage 812 65$ 61ti
' 10 hiyhest we2lcs 62� 50$ : 46�
& Sixty Er,scent utilization dwring the ten highest weeks is considered an acceptable i
F ��level for sY.iing density. Fifty pesc�nt a11oH�s a�le capacity for growth. It shottld �
1� noted that 1980 excess capacity in the Aspen 29etzo area was.not effective in reduc- �_
� - ing utilization of Snoi�miass. •
��
# .
i� , In 1980, peak usage of 99$ and i:_n high �•x:elc uage of 71� indicate the need for
� • • ea�pansion at S�s. Co�leting the t�rest secti.on of Snaanass, adding 3700 skier
i '
� day capacity, cen pro3uce acceptable utilization by 1985 only if Little Annie exlx�n-
sion in the Aspan rletro area attracts rtnst of the skiers residing in the iretro area,. 1
I1��
- - aixl if tl;ere is not significant cross flow between areas. Statecl a different way, �:_
t
adding additional capacity to Asp�n does not in itself solve the problc3n. It needs �
tn be dc�nsisated that �,�e can capture skiers in the Aspen area that are currently �: =
going to Snaenass. . �
The proponent has �ztioned pleans to use U�e Jrountaintop facilities for ofi-paak
activities such as sunmer conventions. Conceptually, these c,auld positively contri-
r
bute to the 2a�lancing of the local e�r�any. . . �
• '. �
. '
. � �I; !
• • li '
-.' ' �I
;I
(
�
.�
� . i
' • f
..� ,� . . ......._. .:.-.,,...�.. .., �:... .. �.. . .. ... . . . . :...�.. _ .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . .
Y �
. �l�.eea�_� .
��f1..;1��i".: . -
.� ._.�....��..��w..
l ,
r ,,,,�,�r�c+� � .
Y, . � ,
i ...
� t`^+i.��e . � . . . . _ .
r �.. . . � K �n r.
��.�.:;�..^��� , .- , �-.,,._,:. ,_�-.:N..:.�.:..�1..�.,-...s-.a.�.�._ � --..�.e.&F:i.:s..:.���!. � R� r � i�;4�
�...,.. eY�..d-R• r
� �;t �
�� w��t�"�,y7;a,t,k:',.,
's�1dj �
a� .r � . . � � . R 3r,•F:�:
J '
:f� �
�1
2-21 ca�mnrlu7r�:iy vn.z7i r•xrsi�:ri�c �ncs.nrr rrczcin:or��oo�s ' i
;'
2-21 CnmpallbUlty�vlth fxisling hcl�,cent I�ciryfiborhoods
' It is lhc pulicy af thc Cuu�ty to ensurc Ihat any npplicaM under the �
. provi;ion�of lhi,Code con;ull wrth{ho local ncigbborhood caucus or ' •
homeawners' aseociatian, open to all residema, co�ceming tno
compatibi lily u l U�c usc;proposcd with er.+stin�nci9hborhood�ises and `
- any adopled neiyhbu�hood go.ds a�tl ob{eciives,or th�+t thu procedures I
lor llio prucessin�of any Cevelopment application provide 1or notice to �
and hearinq of such locali groups. � . .
��
The City of Aspen has held public hearings attencleci by intereste� representa- °
' tives oL• adjaeent neighborhoocls to detennine miti;gation rec�uired for r.oise, trans- ��
, portation, air quality, e�loyce housing density, parking, and other factors deal- �
�S
ing 4rith ihe caripatibility of the aevelognent with the East L•tid of Aspen. Ccmpa- 'ti
tibility ques�ions of this nature are wnsidered the responsibiLity of the City. . ��
� ,��N�'
, � ' � . . • � � . i. \�
. j �
. �
..__....�. . � . . ' . I a
.�� ' � . . . . . .
. , �
�
_.�_1
�
` j '.f .
i
� �
. . - . �
i'�;.. •
•.� �
:{ . • . , i
� . � ..
__�'i
::.'.:A � . . , �
�-.,.,i . . . � . . . . . - � . .
i
'�-.��1. . ' .. ' .. . � . . � .
��'��:i � � . ' � . . - . ' . .
.
.� . � . �� . . � . . . ,
. . . . . , . . . .
_
. .. ... .. . . .:
�����__ .:..;'._... � �' ���. '.., .. � .. . . . ... . � . .
. uy..�. �. -
�:pM.!:�'t-p? .
, - �
� F �s;�,•�:� '
f y��t�7.�� � . � .
Z
� � ti � ..T� � . . : . .
R�a'r�?.'kri. � -s _ ..._ . :�:
�j ���' '�'� �i7e"'�`eJtt�t�3�..�.:i�::i�tt+�iiws�ly:s:'.:o _.."_�'r.�u�:,.rl.f;i........,.,'o�l�e`.a'�kfSu53fii4—+:w"+"b�:.:.."I�ES��a'Gv�'-S':aL::�...=�''�.'�R',�����h.
t
. �a . . n ��.:
i ��y��_
� � t,�,.° ;.
�. •♦ . ��>,�-i'.;-��N��
\p�- V
fi��
� 2-zz W1�1T�7t ItL•':,ou�ac�.� �l���ncis �
2-2.^. 1Ynlcr(lesources Impacts
• tl is tl�e poiicy al Um County Io pmserve and protecl ils present w:UCr
►escurces, reco��nizing Ihe Cuuntys sr.mi-and character and thal
, . sit�nificanl �t�nsrnountain and Irai�;:basin divcr::ions snd tha vc�led � '
ri�hts of seniur appropri:dors in the basin huve m:rtcrially curtailr.d thp • �
- availabilifyof an alre�d�scareewater resourca7a fhis cnd il is lhr.policy
_ policy of Iho county thal no land use be inilialed which�vould edversely
alfcct the quantily, qualiry, or accessibility of the Cuunty's water �
resourccs;Or vihich wOUld occu�a(thc expense ol est�blished vi�tcr
dependent agriculWral activities; or which would result in incroased
salinization ol watcr courses, loss of minimum strcam flows,lurthcr
destruclion oi wildlile habilat,or major expenditures to reacquiro or
. rodislriAule major water resources. ' i
The st�nission contents state that the 180,000 gallons per day wacex supply 1
' • ' i
- needed for the m�untaintop facilities is expectect.to oca�� fx+�n four we.�ls, with �
• . ��
' supplelmntal L-lavs fr.om USFS lands, springs and possible surface water out of Mac �
�'
' Farlane GYeek. With no final taater rights issued, and no water au�itation plan
�. for out of priority diversion and f.inally no real Ys�aan impact of the sewer land
,� �
trea�nt plan, ca�liance �nth the County Land Use Code Policies 2-5,6,7,22 and
� ��� Regulai:i.or. 5-107, 204 and 205 cannot b� shok�.
� .;��j . .
� �� •, .
�`�rT� These code sections rc��ire t1�at the propone�t show tl�at its water supply and
Li*1. ' �
�-`�� wastewater tseat�nt plan will not dcgrade the e�:isting quality of both surface : �
:�� and ground:•mter supplies; that it wi.11 not adv�rsely affect ihe adequacy of �,*a�s {
�� �
available for irriqation in ihe Count1�; that it�vill not cause undue interference I
=i' iai.th any critical recharge area in the County; and that it will not recluce natural f
_ ��: i
stream flaas }nlav minvmun acceptable levels. �
t
1
Only the appropriate water court deci-eas and state pesmits can shoiv oompliance ,�
,T j
� wit]i tliis secti.on. State p�nnits are issuc�d til�s-�i to const-ruction and evalua- �
� �"..-'7.. :I
tion oi p�sfornunce. . �
. :�
�� �I
tiiG ? 6��' �� I
c' � `�� �j I
. ..F` ��� � �
. .. � �� }
. . �� �s.
iyGn/G � ;�
� �
. �4..
, �
. o I� �
. .. � ���, .�,
. , ;�
(�i
. �;
�u���, . .
�,f �,.z
- • .
_� ��. . _,__
� ,� _�
, �
,� , �
�� �!�
� 5��`�=�
� ^- `-�,,'��;
-,.:��,� :
�,. _-- —.�..:.. ,.:.w.....-.,..�......> .-•
- ,..__ . . . .�_...�� ,,. ,�..�..:.,.��,..:..n„«..,�..,�:..,,�....�....x..,..>.,..,..�,a.3 ,.
� " , y .r, '
,� r,�,,;.
� . - - . 1��,,' ir;":_�
.f�
�T� �,.
� • � ' . I.T`��. :.•.
. . - L�t�7l i'r:;�-.
. 2-23 N015L � I
i
� 2-2t IlOIsC
Il is the pol icy of thc Cou nty fo permit only that dr.velopmcM which v±ill
- ' nol c�enar.��Q noisc v�hich would oUvc�scly impact land u,os or
occupants lhereoi.
• �
The sutmission identifies initial eonstruction, sewer land treat�nt/snv�nxilcing �
and increas�l traffic as pot�tial noise pollution sources. No significant levels �
aze antici�ted after constructian is co�lete. '. �
.. - . . �, . . � �{'4
' 2-24 Cer.��it!b!!i!y a:l!h l:d��ccr,t or nevrby PuS;lc Lznd. �
- !i is ihe policy.ot ihe County fo preserve and�,rcY�r.t public lands,
including but not limited to National forest and Rureau of Land
1J�ana�emenl Lands,trom tho impacts of incompatible developmenL
To ihis end it is the policy ot tlie County to: , �`;
2-24.1 C-nsure that development surrounding or near pu6fic lands will •�
not cause high conc�ntrations of population in such areas. �
�• 2-24.2. Avoid developmeM that will encourage the intrusion oi roadsor �
- . • l�iph levels o1 hum�n acfivilies on such fands. . „
�'�,� 2-24.3 Ensure that any development will not resull in adverse �
� environmental impacts on such lands such 2s wzter cr air pof(ution and �
threats lo wiltllife habitat by dogs or human activity.
� . ' .
Imract, un3�r this section have been discussed in the Wildlife section, road
•,u�rov�n.nt section and sewer and erosion sections. In genesal, these unpacts are
to]� expzcted zoi{-h any develoiarent into pUblic lands and can be mi.tigateci only by �
" m�nagu��t practices. The US['S has identific-z3 the area as appropriate fox ski area i
use and Uy so doing has e�xlors�l its c�n�atibility with adjacent uses of publ.ic lands.
The Forest Service EIS dicl identify sanc changes in recreational patterns arxl an
overall inra-ease in the usage oi adjacent wilderness as a result of developrnent but
_ m�de r.a in-depi-h analysis of the resulting urq�acts. �
�
�
k; ' � �
f
j,. �
. �
''y' 1
,• �.
�.
• f
' 4
�
;
', _..... _... .
i
� •
t�r -:fi�t .
�:;,_�:�'�'�
. i . ....____......__ �- .
' �M1 `-r
. �..r� ����st -� . . . iW
� xr%�45� . . � - ' �,._ .;... f.au.F.4a.�.asi�r!'�M�e.s��r.L'�e�w�..�c.�LCa� L � ��,�h1
':trr+}}��e�',+....�:��JZE"t�S:�t?4r�'",..Q..r..•fF.�.r'rc -.r.i.�.�.. ��i�.��� fi�N[,.�.
_ p ,
.. !�F i .'�Sll.n::
t . ..� ���{':�,.
��� , r +� • �,�,;.. ..
n
2-7.5 GItfJ.'7PfJ 1t1Y1'U% P1171.i7NG OF PURT,TC uliiNICL•'S ANA PACILI`1'IL5 �
k
E
3
� . . �
?.-T.5 Grovilh R�fc;I'hi.^.Inp o!Publlc&crvices nnd I°nclllllc+ � '�
It is IhC poftcy uf Ih�:Cu�mly to providc for c1liCicnt Phntinq ol public +
sCrvir.es :md I�cililir::; :d a rr.as�rn:iblc .innual �ruvilh r:dc in oneli • �
plannin� �rr.n o( Ilic Cuunry (t+�kinq intn con.idcr.dion qrnwlh in '
incurpur;dr,d arc�s nnt subjr.ct Io County cunlroq; tu.prcvent thc �
lucaliun of aelivities and dev�lupmonls which may resull in siryniticant
changes in nopulaticn dcnsilics(indu0ing visifor accununod:ilions or
facililiCS)nol consistcnt with ihe forcgoinr�and,if nccc:sary,Io�apP�Y
' � ' buiiding or devcloprt�rnt pha;in�or:�Ilolmr.nt pioccdures desic�ned to
. ossure that the lorcgoing shall not be excacded,
��
e Projections of population and housing have Yx'en made for the County's 4rowth
�;
manaqe�mn* areas ihrough 1990, in orcier to evaluate 'Lhe exte�t of ski e�ansion i:.
� neEx3ed during that period. Pf�tli Little 1�.�utie and IIurnt Pi�untain muld be acca�arodated ' �;
. during that t.'v� frame by C��JP qrowth r�tes in housir,q. � t
� =t may not be possiL�le, given fiscal. limi-tations of various pail�lic agenci�s, �
: � to pravide capital facilities or service levels appropriate to (3� 9r'o'+�th rates. ` _-
- � . - 44iis might require that future gra�rth rates in general and ski.expansion in parCi.- (�
�;; f
� • ' 1
cular (beinq p�ak facility use intensive) be condiU-one� uk�n �° voter appmval,
� t financing and �onstructi°n of appropriate public f:acilities. Or in the �.nte�'�n' � .,
� rovisions recocg�izing that such facilities {.
� .the proposal should con�iin contingency p .
needed tp suoport ski expansion may rmt 1� '-n Place iahen needed. �`
• .
r_ .
I.; :
� . . !
�
;
_
' • � �
i.
. • • �
_ . I
, . . �
. . y
. �
:i¢:ti;e .
. �
"�- . I f
- ' :i' i
,� . ..
. • . , i�
, . . . • , � :' .
,,..��, , .. . .,�. . . ... . .. .. - . .. . . . . � � �
�t��� �
i��y+y.�..v�_ .
ti:(::5<'7y:�.p. . �
F