Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.080.2003 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, APPROVING THE WATSON DIVIDE RANCH MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND AGRICULTURAL MASTER PLAN Resolution No.t~-2003 RECITALS 1. Watson Divide Ranch, Inc. ("Applicant"), has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, ("BOCC"), pursuant to Section 3-200-080 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code ("Code"), to relocate the Agricultural/Ranch Manager Envelope to the North and West, and implement the Agricultural Master Plan for the entire Ranch. 2. The property is zoned RS-30 PUD and AFR-10 and contains 830+ acres. 3. The property is located on Watson Divide. The property is more specifically described as Attachment A. 4. The Property received approval Vacating the Aspen Village Commons Subdivision and Associated Affordable Housing; Granting Scenic Overlay Approval of the Single Family Homesite, Single Family Parcel 1041 Hazard Review Approval, GMQS Exemption and Special Review for a Caretaker Dwelling Unit; Conceptual Submission Approval for a Single Fanfily Homesite near Watson Divide; Special Review Approval for a Ranch Manager Employee Dwelling Unit on the Ranch Parcel pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 96-143. The Ranch then received an Extension of Vested Real Property Rights pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 98-86. Additionally, the Ranch received a Minor Amendment to a Development Permit pursuant to BOCC Resolution No. 233-2002, which amended the roof criteria. Page: I of' 13 08/14/20~3 12:40P $ILVlA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R ~).00 D 0.00 / 6. No development of any structures shall be allowed outside of the designated development envelope for Parcels A and B, except for retaining structures necessary for the landslide mitigation and for berms associated with the proposed ponds, as described in the application. 7. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan for final review and approval by the Community Development Department. 8. Condition No. 2 of BOCC Resolution No. 98-86 shall be amended to read: "The fencing requirements for Parcels A and B shall adhere to the Western Ecosystems, Inc., report dated April 22, 2003 (see Attachment "B"), with the exception of the fencing in Zones 10 and 15. The fencing in Zones 10 and 15 shall comply with Pitkin County Land Use Code Section 3-80-080(A)11, regarding Wildlife friendly fencing." 9. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall be required to provide a timetable for the Wildlife Migration Corridor Enhancement as set forth on Page 4, of the Western Ecosystems, Inc. report dated April 22, 2003 (see attachment "B"). A bond shall be required for the completion of this project. 10. At the time of submission of any building permits on Parcel B, the Applicant shall be required to provide a timetable for the Winter Range Enhancement as set forth on Page 5, of the Western Ecosystems, Inc. report dated April 22, 2003 (see attachment "B"). A bond shall be required for the completion of this project. 11. Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level of black bear activity in this area. 12. The Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist and the CDOW Aspen District Wildlife Manager should be allowed access during fall and spring migration to ensure fences comply with approved design standards. 13. Dogs must be kenneled on Parcel B as per §3-80.80(C)(2) and §3-80.80(D)(2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Verification of a dog kennel, run, or other fenced area is required prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 14. Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the corners of the building and development envelopes and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the development envelopes. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the residence. Page: 2 of 13 0&/14/2003 12:40P $ILVI~ DI~VlS PITI(IN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 5. The BOCC generally finds that the request for the relocation of the envelope and implementation of the Agricultural Master Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners that it does hereby approve the Watson Divide Minor Amendment to a Development Permit to relocate the Agricultural/Ranch Manager Envelope to the North and West, and implement the Agricultural Master Plan for the entire Ranch subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall comply with the provisions of Board of County Commissioners' Resolution Nos. 96-143, 98-86 and 233-2002, unless otherwise replaced or amended by the conditions of this approval. 2. The Applicant shall prepare an amended 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan in accordance with Land Use Code Sections 5-70-040, indicating the relocation of the Agricultural/Ranch Manager development envelope. The 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan shall also define all areas where agricultural improvements, such as irrigation ditches and ponds, as well as non-native vegetation, including agricultural plantings, wetlands vegetation around the ponds and vegetation manipulation for habitat enl~ancement may occur. Native vegetation shall be maintained outside of such designated areas and the designated development envelopes as per section 3-80-080 (A)3 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code. The site plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval and recording, prior to submission of any future building permit applications. The Applicant may, however, submit an application for an earthmoving permit for the ponds proposed adjacent to Zone 1, as illustrated on the Master Plan, prior to the recording of the 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan. 3. The Applicant shall adhere to material representations made during the application process. 4. The Applicant shall be required to obtain an Earthmoving Permit for the represented holding ponds, and any other major modifications to the irrigation ditches and streams. The Eartlunoving Permit will require Aspen Valley Land Trust approval. 5. The Applicant shall be required to obtain an Earthmoving Permit for the ground water mitigation and landslide reconstruction work as represented in the CTL/Thompson Inc. Report dated November 6, 2002 (see Exhibit F of the Waston Divide Ranch Application). Page: 3 of 13 08/14/2003 12:40P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 25th day of June, 2003. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITK1N COUNTY, COLORADO By ~j k~Ha~fiel~ ,,~~ Date ~,/7/,/~ -~ Je ~'tte Jones D~ uty Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~2indy~I-ouben, Co--rarity Development Director County Attorney PID# 264306300001 and 264501300012 P048-03 Page: 4 of 13 08/14/2003 12:40P SlL¥IR DRVlS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 , 3930~2 05/2~/96 0~ ~P PG 9 OF 49 A'rrACHMENT~ l/ EXI-I~IT "A" TO ~,/~ RESOLUTION NO. 9~ ,/' A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED SECTIONS 1, 2 AND 12 OF TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN AND SECTIONS 7 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 9 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE EAST I/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE S 89° 59' 42" W, 3742.68 FEET; THENCE S 29° 30' 21" W, 166.79 FEET; THENCE S 37° 08' 11" W, 410.24 FEET; THENCE N 76° 11' 39" W, 812.56 FEET; THENCE S 53° 16' 21" W, 323.79 FEET; THENCE S 26° 54' 16"W, 127.90 FEET; THENCE S 03° 27' 50" E, 325.44 FEET; THENCE N 82° 06' 45" W, 180.18 FEET; THENCE N 16° 16' 12"W, 26.94 FEET; THENCE 165.68 FEET ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 124.43 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 76° 17' 25' AND A CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 54° 24' 53" W, 153.71 FEET; THENCE S 87° 26' 19" W, 80.45 FEET; THENCE 144.67 FF.~.T ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 90.16 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 91° 56' 05' AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 41° 28' 18" W, 129.64 FEET; THENCE S 04° 29' 47' E, 106.53 FEET; THENCE 65.44 FE.h-'T ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.61 FEFTT, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16° 15' 31' AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 12° 37' 36" E, 65.22 FEET; THENCE S 20° 45' 25' E, 29.17 FEET; THENCE 73.78 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 28.25 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 149° 38' 18" AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 54° 03' 44' W, 54.53 FEET; THENCE N 51° 07' 35~ W, 49.23 FEET; THENCE 61.12 FEgT ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 115.54 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30° 18' 33" AND A CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 24° 43' 41' W, 60.41 FEET; THENCE N 09° 34' 25" W, 210.91 FEET; THENCE N 01° 39' 08" W, 121.71 FEET; THENCE N 89° 43' 08' W, 332.45 FEET;' THENCE S 28° 30' 08" E, 1092.47 FEET; THENCE S 51° 35' 08" E, 200.60 FEET; THENCE S 03° 01' 52" W, 132.10 FEET; THENCE S 41° 36' 08" E, 102.00 FEET; THENCE N 75° 03' 08" E, 142.45 FEET; THENCE S 87° 18' 51" E, 22.16 FEET; THENCE S 51° 35' 08" E, 254.20 FEET; Page: 5 08/14/2003 12:40P SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO :~ 39~0~2 0~/28/96 03: ~ PG 10 OF 49 ~' TI4FNCE 8 07° 14' 44' E, 2158.42 FEET; TI-IENCE S 39° 20' 50' W, 661.80 FEET; THENCE $ 24° 09' 52' W, 355.48 FEET; TI-IENCE $ 00o 18' 48' E, 1185.63 F~.ET; TI-IENCE N 63° 09' 56· E, 562.10 FEET; T/-IENCE N 35° 20' 56· E, 678.18 FEET; THENCE N 39° 51' 14' E, 69.90 FEET; TI-IENCE N 63° 02' 14. E, 254.97 FEET; THENCE N 72° 19' 37' E, 577.52 FEET; THENCE N 39° 5i' 31" E, 700.41 FEET; TI'IENCE N 76° 01' 41' E, 663.19 FEET; THENCE N 80° 51' 09" E,. 563.90 FEET; THENCE S 66° 02' 39' E, 573.52 FEET; THENCE N 85° 39' 41' E, 897.65 FEET; THENCE S 75° 40' 27' E, 625.25 FEET; THENCE N 03° 06' 45' W, 624.73 FEET; THENCE N 89° 17' 23- E, 2361.84 FEET; THENCE N 36° 22' 50" E, 978.53 FEET; THENCE N 68° 46' 00" E, 184.10 FEET; THENCE N 83° 41' 00" E, 71.40 FEET; THENCE N 85° 19' 00" THENCE N 72° 45' 00- E, 137.80 FEET; THENCE S 86° 18' 00" E, 422.70 FEET; THENCE N 85° 49~ 00.E' 119.70 FEET; THENCE S 84° 41' 00" E, 268.80 FEET; THENCE S 83° 23' 00' E, 117.30 FEET; THENCE N 80° 14' 00" E, 245.80 FEET; E, 197.90 FEET; THENCE N 83° 39' 00- E, 134.50 FEET; THENCE N 78° 28' 00- E, 216.40 FEET; THENCE N 83° 10' 00" E, 130.30 FEET; THENCE N 75° 46' 00" E, 155.60 FEET; THENCE N 75° 59' 00- E, 78.40 FEET; THENCE N 24° 20' 00" E, 196.89 FEET; THENCE N 65° 53' 50" W, 99.07 FEET; THENCE N 65° 53' 50' W, 300.00 FEET; THENCE N 65° 05' 32- W, 297.69 FEET; THENCE N 65° 38' 48' W, 299.66 FEET; THENCE N 45° 29' 52- W, 297.06 FEET; THENCE N 44° 31' 16" W, 324.18 FEET; THENCE N 44° 42' 50- E, 199.47 FEET; THENCE N 43° 01' 10" W, 1070.41 FEET; THENCE S 44° 25' 50- W, 20.40 FEET; THENCE N 55° 21' 40- W, 293.50 FEET; THENCE 232.60 FEET ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1332.39 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10° 00' 08" AND A CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 56° 34' 10" W, 232.30 FEET; THENCE N 58° 44' 10" W, 173.37 FEET; THENCE S 11o 59' 51' W, 90.43 FEET; THENCE S 77° 32' 38" THENCE N 74° 43' 03" W, 552.24 FEET; W, 684.00 FEET; THENCE N 60° 37' 22' W, 228.50 FEET; 08/14/2003 12:4013 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 '~-'.~,; ..,~ .i I 3~3082 0~/2879~ :~OP PG I! OF 49 THENCE N 46° 30' 52" W, 700.00 FEET; THENCE S 52° 48' 51" W, 31.78 FF.F.T; TEENCE S 21° 06' 35" E, 21.98 FEET; THENCE 40.56 FEET ALONG A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO ~ RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 197.25 F~T, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11 ° 46' 55" AND A Ii CHORD OF WI-IICH BEARS S 19° 52' 34" W, 40.49 TI-IENCE S 29° 03' 29" W, 202.33 FEET; THENCE 451.64 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 427.82 F~F.T, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60° 29' 11" AND A CHORD WHICH W BEARS S 59° 18' 04" W, 430.96 FEET; THENCE S 89° 32' 40" W, 237.61 FEET; TI-IENCE N 62° 31' 42" W, 124.21 FEET; THENCE N 61° 07' 58" W, 14.95 FEET; THENCE 91.52 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 81.11 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 64° 39' 00" AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 86° 32' 32~ W, 86.74 FEET; THENCE S 54° 13' 02" W, 75.78 FEET; THENCE 56.14 FEET ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 169.27 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19° 00' 06" AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 63° 43' 05" W, 55.88 FEET; THENCE S 73° 13' 02" W, 115.28 FEET; THENCE S 16° 46' 58" E, 215.00 FEET; THENCE N 20° 44' 05" W, 215.00 FEET; THENCE N 12° 06' 52" E, 497.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINN/NG CONTAINING 879.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. '*:"':':':'~:*>~ 08/14/200:~ 12:40P ,: $IL¥IR DAVIS PlTKIN COUNTY CO R 0.00 D 0.00 ,': .:,(5, ; 7 t'Pestern Ecos sterns, ,5nc. cdosicd onsul an s West Coach oaJ, oulae CO 80302 (303) 442-6144 April ~, 2003 Page: ~ ot 13 e~/14/2ee3 12:4~p SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R ~.~ D ~.~ Joseph ~d]s ~d ~l~nin~ 602 Midland P~E Place ~pen, CO 81611 Re: W~dlife ev~uafion of ~e proposed Wagon Divide ~ch M~ter PI~, Pi~n Count, Colo~do. D~Joe, Per your reques~ ~is le~er address~ relevm~ ~l~ife related issues ~sociated ~ ~e proposed Watson Divide ~ch M~ter Plm. ~ you ~ow, I prepped ~e wildlife evMuafion md conse~afion plm ~hompson 1995) for ~e prope~ ~at ~ p~ of ~e 1996 Coun~ approvM (~ ~ibit B of Reso. No. 96-143). ~e prope~ h= been ~cmt md ~m~y dormmt for decades. The n~ o~ers of~e prope~ wmt to reestablish md develop ~culm~ uses of~e prope~ in a mmner consistent wi~ ~e te~s of ~e Conse~afion E=ement (~pen VMley Lind T~st 1998). Bo~d of Coun~ Commissione~ ~OCQ appro~ of ~re conditions on ~e subject prope~ requ~ed ~eso. No. 96-143, P~e 2, A, 1. e.) complimce wi~ MI reco~endafions of~ompson (1995). Pl~e reco~e, however, ~at ~ompson's (1995) repo~ emph~ized prese~ing ~e ~l~ife ~ues of ~e prope~ md did not reco~ize MI potenfiM con~c~ ~sociated wi~ restoring ~e prope~ to a wor~g rmch. Neve~eless, ~e proposed resto~fion, habimfion, md operation of ~e prope~ would be consistent x~ M1 wildlife related recommendations of~ompson (1995). However, some M=ter Plm componenm requ~e addifion~ ~scussion to demons~te ~e requ~ed consistent. Such componen~ ~e addressed below. Fibre I fllus~tes ~e proposed M~ter Plm md mm~ment'zones. Fibre 2 i~us~tes componen~ wi~M ~e relocated a~cul~ development envelope. Relocation of the Agricultural Build;ng Envelope The Ranch Manager's Employee Unit Development Envelope and Agricultural Out Buildings Envelope on Lot B are currently located in irrigated pasture on the eastern periphery of the lot, contiguous with the Aspen Village Trailer Park and a sewer treatment plant. Thompson (1995, Pag~ 24, Para. 5) specified that the envelopes be located in the lower irrigated hayfield, but did not recommend a specific location. However, it is likely that wildlife related recommendations during undocumented discussions included locating the envelopes within existing human disturbanqe zones along the eastern and northern flanks of the lower pasture to maximize habitat effectiveness of native Page: 9 of' 13 08/14/2003 12:40P Mr. Joe Wells S~LV~n DRVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R e.ee D Apdl 22, 2003 P~e 2 habim~ above ~e im~ted hayfields md of~e non-nafve hayfields &emselves. It is my undersmding ~at &e ~isfng envelopes were established in ~eir present locatons to facilitate connecfons wi~ ~e Aspen Village domesfc water md s~e systems ~OCC Reso. No. 96-143, Page 7, B, 1. c. ~d d.). However, fi~ese envelopes may be relocated ~in ~e lower ~ted hayfield on Lot B wi~ BOCC approv~:,~;Ee~y~ey ~ff~Tmst 1998, p~e 1, P~, D), ~e c~ent M~ter Plan proposes combining ~e ~ch Mm~er's Employee Unit Development Envelope md A~culm~ Out Buildin~ Envelope md relocating it to ~e no,western comer of ~e lower irfi~ted hayfield (Fig. 1). ~is proposed location ~ a s~ght depression w~ selected p~y to mini~ze ~su~ impact ~ ~g ~e,~ ~ Wagon D~de R~d's zone of ~s~b~ce ~p~m vegetaton, include& but not limited to, shrubs, a ~d-cmopy (e.g., ~llow n~owleaf co~onwoods ~. C~enter, DHM Desi~, pen. comm.) plmted ~ong a series of pon& md m i~6on ditch to &e sourest of ~e envelope, will p~y screen facilites md act~tes wi&in · e envelope from potent~ wildlife use wi&in &e rem~ing majofi~ of ~e lower ~ted ha~eld. A possible inconsistency wi~ &e proposed envelope is ~at it i* ~ages, while ~e existn~ ,~.~er s Employee Umt Development ~velone' ~d'A~m~. Out oun~n°' :~: ompson 99S). %is is to me v %0sea en ei tena' , sheltem assocmted w~ each of 12 horse paddoc~ (Fig. 2). Such sheltem ~e considered s~cm~ dcvelopmcnm, which were to be con.ned ~in ~c envelope(s) ~ompson 1995). ~c ~scrcpm~ is immatedfl relative to presc~ng ~e propc~'s consc~afion vflues, but it diffcm from what prc~ously documented ~ompson 1995).' In addi~on, ~ompson (1995. P~ 26. 2.) rcco~cnded ~at: ~y co~ fenc~g for hon~ adj~mt to ~e tach ~'s/~ployee's residence sh~ be con.cd ~ ~c 5.0 a~c development mvelopc. ~c proposed home ~ddoc~ ~ig. 2) ~pr~cnt co~ fenmg. If~ f~c~gw~e ~cluded ~ ~t B's proposed developmmt envelope, it wo~d to~ ~o~d 10 acres, ~o ~cee~g ~e 5.~acre env~ope prc~omly considered. ~N ~r mvclopc wo~d ~o bc locamd m~dy ~ non-native p~c, oumidc of ~e~ent c?~?~,, =d ~u~?e,ofwha~ ~4.,~,~,~ated ~ b~ ~e ~ter m~ (see ~ompson ,~{se~ng, me ~ md ~dlife co~s~fion,~u= on me tach, mou~ it Wo~d ~ffer ~om ~e of me envdope pre~omly conSid=~'~°mpst~:~I'~$. ' Pond, Four seB of ponds ~e proposed on ~e prope~ to re~ water, to provide/enhmce ~fe habimB (open water, weflmds, md dpmm) not ~renfly presen~ md for aes~efics. ~e ponds ~11 incre~e native vegetation md ~l~ife dive~i~. Ponds ne~ ~t A's proposed home site were reduc~ in s~e md reconfi~red to be compatible wi~ adjacent ~l~fe movemenm ~ompson 1995). Ponds were Page: 10 oq ].3 Mr. Joe Wells 08/].4/2003 12:40P April 22, 2003 szLvm D~VIS PZTKIN COUNTY CO R e.ee D e.ee Page 3 not addressed by Thompson (1995) or Aspen Valley Land Trust (1998), however they are considered con~atent with the property's consetwation values because ponds are valid agricultural features and they would enhance wildlife values. It is recommended that ponds located in pastures seasonally grazed by domestic livestock should be fenced to exclude livestock from access to flanking wetlands/riparian habitats that would otherwise be destroyed. Fencing The Master Plan proposes five foot-six inch fencing in the. riding arena, hot pen, and walker areas, all located within the relocated agricultural development envelope (Fig. 2). Horse paddocks would be limited to four foot-six inch fencing. ~ ~/ // The fairly extensive horse paddock fencing and the barrier presented by other structures within the proposed agricultural development envelope would not impair big game movements through the lower imgated pasture. Such movements do not occur now because of fencing barriers present on the Gerbaz and Stutsman properties on the opposite (i.e., north) side of the road (Thompson 1995). Aa such, this fencing would not have a material adverse impact on the conservation values of the property's "open area" and would be consistent with the conservation easement. With respect to the above fencing within the agricOmral development envelope, Thompson (1995, Page 26, 2., Sent 3) recommended, but did not require, that such fencing be compatible with wildlife movements. While the County (13OCC Reso. 96-143, Page 2, A. 1. e.) required compliance with this recommendation, it initially superceded the Thompson's (1995) recommendation by requiring (BOCC Reso. 96-143, Pages 7-8, B. 1. e.) that "all fences on Lot B shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) strands of wire or three (3) rails and 42 inches in height." However, in a later resolution (BOCC Reso. 98- 86, Para. 8 [Z]) the County recognized that fencing to contain livestock on agricultural lands could exceed recommended specificatiOns for fencing ~omp~bl~,~th wildlife movements. ~4.bject prgp,~ ~a,~%l~. sifted by the Assessor's O~ce as '!~'":~¢"putsmnt:to'~_O~ty Ordinance 98-20, ;;.:;may have fences of uP to six feet in height without re~g a permi~ ~e~e~ore, the Proposed feh~ within the agricultural development envelope wood be consistent with Thompson (1995) and County polio. The Master Plan also proposes four foot-six inch pasture fencing to contain horses in Zones 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17 (Fig. 2). While such agricultural fencingwoOd be allowed ~muant to Count), Ordinance 98-20), it wood not be compatible with wildlife movements or with recommendations of Thompson 0995). Thc issue then becomes to what extent the proposed fencing rrdght significandy impair or inteffcre with wildlife (specifically elk and deer) usc of these areas or the larger property? Zone 13 is the horse paddocks described above and needs no further discussion. Pastures and hay fields in Zones 11, 12, and 17 would be effectively isolated as grazing habitat by structures and fencing associated with the agricultural development envelope and the Zone 13 horse paddocks. These areas did not receive much biggame use because of their location adjacent to disturbances associated with Watson Divide Road, existing residences and fencing on the opposite side of the road, and Highway 82. If the agricultural development envelope and horse paddocks are developed in their proposed locations, the proposed fencing in Zones 11, 12, and 17 would have no material effect on big game foraging opportunities. Mr. Joe Wells P~ge: ~ or ~a 0fl1141~'003 12:40~ April 22, 2003 svvm o~vls pitl(m county co R e.ee D e.ee P~e 4 Proposed fencing in Zone 14 would be expected to reduce big game transitional range use of this hayfield, which is more isolated from the disturbances identified above. The loss of this 11.6 acres of non-native habitat would be more than offset by the increased productivity resulting from the renovated hayfields and i pastures throughout the ranch. While such big game use of alfalfa-hayfields should not be encouraged, ~ ~... such use is part of the property's values that the Conservation Easement seeks to protect. The first management priority of this hayfield should be to produce hay, with secondary uses of wildlife forage and  ? horse pasturing. The loss of this hayfield would not result in "a material adverse impact on the ~' Conservation Values of the Open Area of the Property" (Aspen Valley Land Trust 1998, Page 5, Para. F). Therefore, Zone 14's wildlife restrictive fencing would not be inconsistent with terms of the Conservation Easement. However, when this zone is not in use outside the growing season it would be beneficial if big game had access. It i~ recorded that the southwest and southeast sides of the Zone 14 fencing be modified ~o a~ ~ ~ess. Fence modifications could include, but not be limited to, removing the ~p rails in the identified fence sections, removing all rails in every fifth section of fencing, and/or opening gates in ~.ery fifth section of fencing.  - The Master Plan also proposes four foot-six inch pasture fencing to contain horses in Zones and 18 (Fig. 2), however this fencing would have removable top rails on those sections specified below '~.~ .,that, when removed, would make the fencing compatible with wildlife movements. The following fence sections would have removable top r~il~: Zones 10 and 15 - all sections; Zone 16 - south and west sides; ~- Zone 18 need not have removable top mils because it adjacent to Highway 82. It would probably be better '~ ~ for deer and elk if they were restricted from Zone 18's pasture and more importantly, the temptation to cross the highway in this area. The above sections of fencing shall have their top rails removed during the .. spring and fall :transitional range use periods, April 15 to June 1 and October 15 to December 1, dates I~ ; inclusive, respectively. Although elk also use these now abandoned Lot B hayfields during winter range (Dec. I to April 15), after these hayfields are restored, managed (i.e., cut), grazed as pasture, and then 'cov, ered.by snow, inadequate forage would remain to warrant leaving the top rails down over winter. However, if individual zones or all of these zones are not needed for pasturing horses, the ranch manager should leave the top milg down to facilitate whatever big game use might occur. ~ All other fencing proposed and to be retrofitted on the ranch would be compatible with recommendations il ' ~ and the County fencing policy. uses of the property (e.g., W2 Design 2003) are consistent with those anticipated (1995) and Aspen Valley Land Trust (1998). : ~ , ~l~o_ Corridor Enhancement ~ :~'A porti°n oft_he property at the northern junction of Lots A and B is proposed for native habitat ] restoration to enhance mountain shrub habitat values and big game migration through the eastern of two CDOW-designated migration corridors crossing Watson Divide Road. Mountain shrub reestablishment will increase winter range forage and better direct big game movements through the LTtion corridor. Fencing modifications (Thompson 1995 and those developed as part of the Master Mr. Joe Wells pa;a: 12 o¢ ~a April 22, 2003 ea/t4/2eea 12 s~Lv~ D~V~S ~ COUNTY Co ~ ~.ee o e.ee P~e 5 Plm ~ Desi~, pers. comm.]) will ~er enh~ce movements ~d decre~e road-~ll potenfifl. This me~ures goes beyond recommendations of ~ompson (1995) to m~nt~n wildlife conse~afion ~ues on &e r~ch. The approximately 15-acre =ea~ent ~ea w~ selected because it contorts most of &e specific movement routes wi~in ~e existing mi~fion co~dor, it cont~ns l~dfo~s directing movements, it is topo~phicflly buffered from ~e a~lmrfl development envelope, ~d native habitats facilitating movemen= could be restored in ~is comdor. M&ough ~e pfim~ road crossing points in ~is condor ~e wi~in h~rpin cu~es where horizon~ sight-dist~ces ~e limited, road desi~ md conditions reduce vehicle speeds to velocities ~at ~e less likely to result in wildlife mo~. Native habitat restoration is proposed ~ ~o patches on opposite sides of Wagon Divide Road. ~e patch on ~e sou~ side of ~e road follows ~e top a ridge, now a fo~erly irfi~ted meadow, ~at is now used for mi~to~ movements. ~e communi~ to be restored on ~is relatively mesic, no,- facing slope, would be ~e s~e ~ ~at present on ~e confi~ous slope to ~e e~t, dominated by ~bel s o~ ~s g~be&), se~cebe~ (~e~c~ al~a), md big s~bmsh (A~e~a ~). Subdo~t ~sociates co~d ~clude snowbe~ (Xy~h~c~s mtun&~s), mtelope bi~erb~h (P~a ~&n~), md chokeche~ (Pmnus ~us). ~e ~e Coun~ OOCC Reso. 96-143, Page 4, j.) required ~at "ill irfi~ted l~ds shill rem~n intact", ~is fid~line is one of ~e le~t conducive ~e~ of · e r~ch to kri~te, ~e v~t majofi~ of i=i~ted l~ds on ~e will be ~d ~e prope~ restored, proposed =ea~ent w~l restore impo~t wildlife habitat. ~e xe~, sou~-~c~g patch (no~ of~e ~a~ app~ to have bern hhtofi~y cl~ed ofs~b~h used ~ a ~lmd p~e. Sca~ered Roc~ Mo~ }~ipen ~ $~u~m) rems. Habitat restoration ~ ~s patch would be more success~ esmb~sh~g s~b~h md native ~ses. W~ter Range Enh~cement Most of ~e prope~ suppo~s native moun~n shrub habitat ~at is ~po~t ~sifionfl md winter r~ge for &e locfl big ~e population. However, much of ~is habitat is decadent wi& reduced for~e vflues. ~ M~t~ Plm proposes to ~t p~ly decadent studs by selectively do,mt' shahs in 5-a~e pat~heLm re~? ~is ~abimt md ~cr~e fo~ av~hb~ It. is ,~ re,he,non momtofing by ~'~iflidb[8[6~it dd~e~es ~at such ~ea~enm, ~ mottled, achie~ng desired resulm. Depend~g upon how m~y =~enm me implemented, such habim{'~ enhmcement would compenlate for reduced ~ing oppo~nifies on ~e Lot B hayfields. Conclusion For ~e repons dis~ssed above, ~e proposed M~ter Pl~ for Wagon Divide ~ch would be consistent wi~ ~e intent of ~ompson (1995), Coun~ polio, ~d ~e intended prese~afion of wildlife ~d a~culm~ conse~afion v~ues on ~en prope~. Indeed, most of ~e M~ter Plm components discussed herein (e.g., ponds, rip~m corridors, mi~fion comdor ~d w~ter m~ enh~cemen0 su~s ~e reco~endafions of &e conse~afion pl~ ~d would have a positive effect on ~e prope~'s ~l~ife ~d o~er conse~afion vflues. Mr. JoeWells P&ge: 15 of la 0ti/14/2003 12:4OP SILVIA DgVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO Aphl 22, 2003 e ~. ~e o e.e~ Page 6 Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Richard W. Thompson Certified Wildlife Biologist Western Ecosystems, Inc. RWT/s Attachments C:\...\Watson Divide Ranch\04-22-03 Master Plan Ltr toJ Wells Literature Cited: Aspen Valley Land Trust. 1998. Deed of conservation easement, Aspen Valley Land Trust (Aspen Village). Aspen Valley Land Trust, Aspen CO. Thompson, R.W. 1995. Wildlife evaluation and conservation plan for the Aspen Village property, Pitkin County, Colorado. Western Ecosystems, Inc. Boulder, CO. 35 pp. W2 Design. 2003. Wheeler Ranch Report. W2 Design, Ranch Management Consultants. Aspen, CO. Mar. 14. 6 pp. ! ! !