HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070411flyingdog
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - April 11, 2007
~b~~
Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner'
RE:
Flying Dog Ranch Special Review, GMQS Exemption, 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual
Submission and TDR Certification
REQUEST: The Applicant has submitted a "master plan" for his Woody Creek properties, which limits
development to the North Parcel (where existing residences are located) and the East Mesa Parcel
(currently undeveloped). The South and West Mesa Parcels will remain undeveloped, with the exception
of agricultural buildings. In addition, the Upper Lenado Mining Claims would remain undeveloped with
four TDRs issued for use on the North and East Mesa Parcels, and two TDRs extinguished. The
Applicant initially submitted a land use application in July of2003, and has revised the application to
address concerns raised in prior meetings (additional background provided below).
The Applicant is currently requesting the following land use approvals:
. GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels to establish one development right for the North Parcel and
one development right for the South Parcel.
. Special Review to transfer the development right from the South Parcel to the North Parcel to
legalize the straw bale house; to utilize one TDR for additional floor area on the North Parcel to
allow up to 15,000 square feet; and to utilize 3 TDRs for a new single family residence up to 10,750
square feet on the East Mesa Parcel.
. 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope on the North
Parcel that encompasses all of the existing structures; to establish building envelopes on the East
Mesa Parcel for a new residence and agricultural buildings; and to establish a building envelope on
the South Parcel that encompasses the existing agricultural buildings.
. GMQS Exemption for the historic Homestead Cabin on the North Parcel.
. Certification of 6 TDRs from the Upper Lenado Mining Claims in order to obtain TDRs - 3 to be
used on the East Mesa Parcel, one to be used on the North Parcel and 2 to be extinguished.
. 15 year vested rights.
As this application has been in process since 2003, it is being considered pursuant to the 1994 Land Use
Code, as amended.
APPLICANT: George Stranahan
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
LOCATION: 3069 Woody Creek Road
\
ZONING/LOT SIZE:
. Ranch: zoned RS-20. 244 acres total with 156 acres north of Woody Creek Road and 88 acres south
of Woody Creek Road
. Upper Lenado Mining Claims: zoned RuralIRemote. 331 acres.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Comments from the Division of Wildlife, Open Space and Trails, Woody
Creek Caucus, Planning Engineer and Aspen Fire are attached for reference.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant submitted a land use application in 2003 that proposed to legalize
certain structures on the ranch and to preserve the majority of the ranch as part of his estate planning.
The Applicant proposed to designate an approximately 40 acre building envelope on the North Parcel
that encompasses the existing structures, and to preserve the balance of the ranch (204 acres) with
conservation easements. A maximum of 15,000 square feet of residential floor area was requested for the
four residential structures within the building envelope. This application also included a request to
certify TDRs from the Upper Lenado mining claims. Staff had denied the TDR request, since the parcels
were subject to a 1978 conservation easement, which staff determined had eliminated the development
rights on the parcels. The Applicant appealed the denial to the BOCC and asserted that the conservation
easement could be challenged, and, therefore, that the issuance ofTDRs and deed restriction of the
parcels would solidify their non-developability. The BOCC tabled the appeal pending submission of a
land use application for the ranch.
The Applicant originally requested to rezone 204 acres of the ranch (South parcel, East Mesa and West
Mesa) from RS-20 to "Transitional RuralIRemote" in order to preserve those acres and obtain TDRs.
However, the BOCC did not support the request, as "Transitional RuralIRemote" was not a zone district
in the Code. While the BOCC supported the Applicant's intent of preserving the agricultural lands, the
proposed rezoning was not considered to be the appropriate mechanism. This request has been
withdrawn.
At the meeting on January 14,2004, the BOCC expressed the concern that without the proposed rezoning
to conserve the majority of the ranch, the application would simply legalize the existing development on the
ranch, and would not provide any guarantees that the remainder of the ranch would remain undeveloped.
Therefore, the BOCC requested that staff and the Applicant work together to identify ways to preserve
the ranch. The best alternative was determined to be to create a separate development parcel on the East
Mesa, which could be sold to establish the Applicant's desired "ranch operating endowment" and would
then allow the Applicant to commit to preserve the remainder of the ranch, including the South Parcel.
The BOCC tabled the application on March 10, 2004 (minutes attached) to allow the Applicant to amend
the application to include a request for development on the East Mesa, including an "internal transfer" of
TDRs from the Lenado Parcels to the East Mesa Parcel.
In addition, the Applicant originally proposed a Code Amendment to transfer density between separate
parcels, subject to Special Review, in order to utilize the development right from the South Parcel to
legalize the Straw Bale house on the North Parcel. This code amendment was "picked up" by another
Applicant while this application was on hold, and was adopted by the BOCC pursuant to Ordinance No.
032-2005.
2
0/
The BOCC approved a lot line adjustment between the Flying Dog Ranch and the Circle R Ranch,
pursuant to Resolution No. 038-2005, which cleaned up the lot line to coincide with Woody Creek Road.
The lot line adjustment plat was recorded in Plat Book 79 at Pages 71-74.
PROPOSED '~MASTER PLAN": The Applicant proposes to divide the ranch into four parcels, as
described below:
North Parcel: 63 acres. Four existing residential structures - Main House, Straw Bale House, Ranch
Manager House and Historic Homestead Cabin - to remain, with the ability to rebuild, expand or relocate
structures within the building envelope. Applicant is requesting a maximum floor area of 15,000 square
feet for the North Parcel, with the flexibility for the Applicant to allocate floor area as he chooses, and
with no single structure to exceed 10,000 square feet of floor area. The historic cabin and the existing
agricultural buildings do not count towards the 15,000 square foot maximum. Up to 3,654 square feet of
new agricultural buildings would be exempt from growth management and floor area.
The four residences have been "building code" legalized (refer to attached Certificates of Occupancy).
The Main House and Ranch Manager House are legal units that existed prior to 1978; and the Homestead
Cabin is legal as an historic unit. The Applicant is proposing to obtain a development right to legalize
the Straw Bale house as part of this application.
East Mesa Parcel: 58 acres. The Applicant proposes to construct one single family residence of up to
15,000 square feet of floor area. This application requests approval for use ofTDRs for up to 10,750
square feet of floor area, but does not preclude the potential to request additional floor area of up to
15,000 square feet in the future. Up to 3,364 square feet of new agricultural buildings would be exempt
from growth management and floor area.
West Mesa Parcel: 35 acres. The Applicant commits to deed restrict the parcel to prohibit residential
structures and to permit agricultural structures and operations (including horses). Up to 2,030 square feet
of new agricultural buildings would be exempt from growth management and floor area; however, the
Applicant has not proposed a building envelope. The parcel may be sold separately with the deed
restriction.
South Parcel: 88 acres. The Applicant commits to deed restrict the parcel to prohibit residential
structures and to permit agricultural structures and operations (including horses). Up to 5,104 square feet
of new agricultural buildings would be exempt from growth management and floor area; existing
agricultural buildings do not count. All buildings would be located within the proposed agricultural
building envelope. The parcel may be sold separately with the deed restriction.
UplJer Lenado Mining Claims: The Applicant proposes to transfer 3 TDRs to the East Mesa Parcel and
one TDR to the North Parcel; 2 TDRs would be extinguished. All of the property would be deed
restricted to prohibit development. The Applicant is willing to transfer the fee simple ownership to the
USFS, County, A VLT or other appropriate entity. (See discussion on Page 8)
STAFF COMMENTS:
1041 HAZARD REVIEW & CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION: The applicant proposes to establish the
following building envelopes: on the North Parcel to encompass the existing buildings and accommodate
3
1,
future redevelopment; on the South Parcel to encompass the existing agricultural buildings and
accommodate future agricultural buildings; and on the East Parcel to accommodate a new single family
residence. An "irrigation pond envelope" and an "agricultural envelope" are also proposed on the East
Mesa Parcel. In addition, the Applicant has provided information on three alternative driveway locations
to the East Mesa Parcel.
Geologic Hazards: All of the building envelopes are located on slopes ofIess than 30%. The building
envelope on the North Parcel is within a mapped alluvial fan. The existing development has not been
affected by any debris flow. Staff recommends that any redevelopment be evaluated by a qualified
professional engineer or geologist to determine if mitigation is necessary.
All three of the proposed driveway alternatives cross slopes in excess of30%. Two of the alternatives
utilize existing ranch roads; necessary improvements would encroach on slopes in excess of 30%.
Alternative #2 has the least impact on slopes in excess of30% (approximately 155'). More information
on the alternatives is provided below. None ofthe driveway alternatives comply with any of the
exceptions in the Code that allow development on slopes in excess of 30%, therefore, the development is
prohibited and could only be approved as part of a takings remediation.
Wildfire Hazard Areas: The proposed building envelopes are all within low wildfire hazard areas. Art
Hougland has made recommendations to mitigate. The building envelope on the East Mesa Parcel is set
back 150' from the top of slope to the west of the envelope and 50' from the gamble oak also to the west,
as recommended by Mr. Hougland.
Wildlife Habitat Areas: The Division of Wildlife states that the Flying Dog Ranch lies within elk and
mule deer winter range. "The more important habitat types are the mountain shrub hillsides overlooking
the West and East Mesa and the riparian area along Woody Creek." The DOW states, "The primary
impacts of this application will be the development of the East Mesa. This area receives significant use
by mule deer and elk, both in the irrigated pasture as well as the mountain shrub hillside. From a strict
wildlife perspective, it would be best to locate the homesite on the south parcel and not develop the East
Mesa. If this is not desirable based on the goal of preserving agricultural-pastoral character of the
Woody Creek Valley, then construction ofa home on the East Mesa can be accomplished but with
negative impacts to mule deer and elk. These impacts are partially offset by the conservation of other
parcels on the ranch and mining claims in the Lenado area." The DOW recommends that the building
envelope on the East Mesa be located farther downhill (to the southwest) so the zone of influence does
not extend up onto the hillside to the north; staff supports this recommendation. Vegetative screening is
recommended along the north and east sides of the building envelope to screen the home and activity
from the hillside. The Applicant does not want to move the envelope downhill, but is willing to set the
envelope back 50' from the hillside to the east and to provide vegetative screening, as recommended.
The Code requires that dogs be kenneled within winter range areas.
Floodplain: The building envelope on the South Parcel is set back at least 500' from Woody Creek.
The Collins Creek floodplain is not mapped, therefore, the building envelope on the North Parcel shall be
set back a minimum of20 horizontal or 5 vertical feet from the high water line of the creek (as required
in the old Code).
4
\\
Historic Resources: Suzannah Reid; County Historic Preservation Officer, stated that the 1890s cabin
and the barn were found in the 1999 survey to retain their historic integrity and significance, and meet the
criteria for historic designation. Any improvements/alterations to the historic structures will be required
to comply with the applicable standards in place when a permit application is submitted.
Scenic Overlay/Quality: The property is not within the mapped scenic overlay.
Water/Sewage Disposal: The existing residences are served by existing wells and permitted septic
systems. The new residence on the East Mesa Parcel will be served by a well and septic system.
Access/Roads: The residences on the North Parcel are served by existing driveways. The Applicant has
provided information on three driveway alternatives to the East Mesa Parcel:
· Alternative # I - Historic Ranch Road off of Woody Creek Road
· Alternative #2 - Proposed Driveway off of Woody Creek Road (utilizing a portion of the historic ranch
road)
. Alternative #3 - Access through North Parcel
The Applicant prefers Alternative #2 as it utilizes a portion ofthe historic ranch road, and the upper
portion would not be visible from Woody Creek Road.
All of the alternatives require significant cuts and fills, retaining walls and vegetation disturbance, and
slopes in excess of30% will be impacted to construct any of the driveways. Catherine Berg, Planning
Engineer, has provided details on the cuts, fills and retaining wall heights in her referral comments. She
notes that Alternatives #1 and 2 consistently do not comply with the County's 12% maximum grade
standard, and have more significant cuts, fills and retaining walls, and suggests that Alternative #3 be
further analyzed. The Applicant does not wish to utilize Alternative #3 as it impacts the privacy of the
North Parcel and would require that the straw bale house be demolished. Staff would note that it appears
that the driveway could be configured to avoid the straw bale house, either by placing the curve of the
driveway farther to the northeast (beyond the straw bale) or by using the other driveway on the North
Parcel (to the northwest); staff understands that this will impact the North Parcel.
As noted above, the Code prohibits development on slopes in excess of 30%, therefore, none of the
alternatives comply with the Code and could only be approved as part of a takings remediation.
ElMeS-EXEMPTION FOR TDRs: The transfer of a single family dwelling development right to a separate
parcel or "Receiver Site" within Pitkin County is exempt from GMQS pursuant to Section 9-110-042 and is
subject to the standards and criteria of Section 3-310 and to the special review criteria in Section 3-210.
The Applicant proposes to utilize three TDRs on the East Mesa Parcel for a single family residence of up to
10,750 square feet of floor area and to utilize one TDR on the North Parcel for additional floor area to allow
up to 15,000 square feet. Only 541 square feet of the fourth TDR will be utilized to get to 15,000 square
feet; the remaining square footage from the IDR will be extinguished.
TRANSFER OF GMOS EXEMPTION: Section 9-110-051(A)(8) of the Code provides for the transfer of a
pre-1978 growth management exemption for one single family dwelling unit to a contiguous parcel under
separate ownership or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership that is separated from the fathering
parcel by a public road or other right-of-way, subject to Special Review and the following additional
5
~
.I. ................"............,._""..,,,..,._. _,...,.,,~~_......._....
standards:
1) The transfer of the growth management exemption shall:
a) Encourage the clustering of buildings and uses;
Response: The proposed transfer of the development right from the South Parcel to the North Parcel will
legalize the existing straw bale residence, and encourages the clustering of buildings and uses on the
North Parcel where there is existing development.
b) Encourage the preservation of open space, agricultural lands and/or wildlife
habitat areas;
Response: The transfer encourages the preservation of the South Parcel as open space.
c) Take advantage of a site's unique natural resources and scenic features, and
avoid or mitigate any hazardous areas;
Response: The South Parcel has considerable scenic value as it is very visible from Woody Creek Road.
The straw bale residence that will be legalized is not visible from the road and is not within any
hazardous areas.
d) The receiving parcel shall contain a minimum of two times the minimum lot area
in the zone district to be eligible to receive the growth management exemption.
Response: The North Parcel contains 63 acres, which is more than two times the minimum lot area in
the RS-20 zone district.
SPECIAL REVIEW: Special Review approval is required to establish the East Mesa and North Parcels as
TDR Receiver Sites, subject to compliance with the following standards.
A. The special review use shall consider the applicable County Master Plan.
Response: The 1987 Down Valley Comprehensive Plan ("DVCP") and the 1991 Woody Creek Master
Plan are applicable to this property.
DVCP: The property is located within the AgriculturallWildlife Reserve district. The intent ofthe NWR is
"to maintain agricultural land in agriculture and preserve wildlife habitat." The DVCP includes
performance criteria for development within the NWR district, including locational site planning
guidelines, visual site planning guidelines, guidelines to minimize interference with agriculture and wildlife,
and priority preservation lands. Staff offers the following comments with regard to the criteria:
. The use of a fiR for an additional 541 square feet of floor area on the North Parcel will have minimal
impacts.
. The development on the East Mesa will not be visible from Woody Creek Road. The topography
prohibits location near the road. The development does impact wildlife habitat areas, but is not located
in the most critical areas (on the hillsides). As proposed, development of the East Mesa will
6
\.
accommodate preservation of the South Parcel and the West Mesa Parcel, both of which contain
agricultural lands, and preservation of the South Parcel is a priority for the County and the Caucus to
preserve the character ofthe valley.
Woodv Creek Master Plan: The Woody Creek Caucus supports the application, "based upon the significant
conservation areas and open space that is created by this proposal and the fact that there would be a single
homesite on this large piece of land." The Applicant is developing less than the density allowed by the
existing zoning. Staff would also note that the TDRs are coming from within the Woody Creek planning
area, which has been an issue in the past for the Caucus.
B. The special review use sholl not conflict with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use
Code, including the County Land Use Policies in Article 2.
Response: The only provision ofthe Code with which the proposed development conflicts is the location
of the driveway to the East Mesa on slopes in excess of30%. The development otherwise complies with the
applicable provisions of the Code, as specified within this memorandum, and the County land use policies.
C. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed
to be located.
Response: The proposal is consistent with the intent of the RS-20 zone district to permit low density,
single family residential development, preserve agricultural operations, to locate development outside of
wildlife habitat and irrigated lands, and cluster development.
D. The special review use shall be compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposedfor development and surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary uses
and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
Response: Residential use is consistent with other development in the Woody Creek area. Preserving
agricultural lands and the historic structures maintains the traditional ranch character of the property.
E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed special review use must be in
harmony with the surrounding area and minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking, trash, service delivery, air/water pollution
or other impacts on natural resources, noise. vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
Response: The development on the East Mesa Parcel will not be visible from Woody Creek Road. The
Applicant asserts that Driveway Alternative #2 will have the least visual impact as seen from the road. Both
Driveway Alternative #s 1 and 2 are accessed directly off of Woody Creek Road in an area where the road is
particularly narrow; use of Driveway Alternative #3 would avoid a new cut on this stretch of road. The
development will otherwise have minimal impacts on the surrounding area.
F. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the special review use including but
not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools.
7
1
--.~ "'._~~~~-_.'-'----;'-".~"".'
Response: The Aspen Fire Protection District will require adequate area for turning around of fire
equipment, an approved fire sprinkler system and adequate water supply (minimum 20,000 gallons). The
new residence will be served with a well and an individual septic system. The uses will not otherwise create
additional impacts on public facilities and services.
G. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board of County Commissioners that
the proposed development will not:
1. Materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and
2. Substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property.
Response: Staff has no information that would indicate that the development would endanger the public
health, safety or welfare, or injure the value of adjacent properties.
TDR CERTIFICATION: As noted above, in September of 2002, the Applicant requested certification of 6
TDRs of 4 separate parcels within the RuralIRemote zone district (Upper Lenado Mining Claims). The
parcels are all subject to a conservation easement recorded in 1978, which states, "...it is the purpose
hereof to prevent the subdivision or further development of the Lenado Property...." Based on the
language ofthe conservation easement, staff determined that the conservation easement eliminated the
development rights on the parcels, and, therefore, that the parcels are not eligible for TDRs as requested.
The Applicant appealed the denial to the BOCC and asserted that the conservation easement could be
challenged, and, therefore, that the issuance of TDRs and deed restriction ofthe parcels would solidify
their non-developability. The County Attorney reviewed the easement and other documentation provided
by the Applicant, and agreed that the language of the easement is not "perfect" and that the easement
could potentially be subject to challenge. The BOCC has not yet taken action on the appeal, but
indicated to staff at the March 10, 2004 hearing that they were willing to grant the appeal and issue at
least a portion of the TDRs requested, if they were to be used only on the Flying Dog Ranch.
Open Space and Trails has expressed concern with the issuance ofTDRs off of apreviously conserved
property (see referral letter dated 4/3/07), and "encourages the BOCC to consider another source for the
TDRs needed to make this project happen." OST questions whether the Applicant received tax
deductions for the easement and is concerned with the precedent for other owners of properties with
conservation easements. The Applicant previously disclosed that he received an estimated $20-25,000
federal income tax savings for the 1978 tax year as a result of the conservation easement. The Applicant
also noted that the Assessor's Office was not aware that a conservation easement had been recorded on
the property, and, therefore, did not adjust the property taxes until recently. .
VESTED RIGHTS: The Applicant is requesting a 15 year vested right, which is consistent with the vested
-rights granted to the adjacent Craig Ranch.
OTHER
Preservation of South Parcel and West Mesa Parcel: OST recommends that the Applicant place a
conservation easement on these parcels, rather than a deed restriction, which easement would limit the
size of the proposed horse operations to a reasonable size and prohibit commercial operations, and that
the structures and fencing associated with horse operations be prevented from impacting the visual or
wildlife values of those parcels.
8
~
Trail Easement: OST notes that a trail appears on the GIS maps beginning at the USFS boundary with
the ranch and proceeding along Collins Creek to connect with a network oftrails on the USFS lands.
OST encourages the Applicant to consider conveyance of a trail easement across the ranch that would
connect with this trail. The USFS has not commented on this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a motion to deny the 104 I Hazard
Review, Conceptual Submission, GMQS Exemption and Special Review for the East Mesa Parcel, as the
Code prohibits development on slopes in excess of30%.
As the East Mesa Parcel is an integral part ofthe Applicant's "master plan" for his properties, staff
recommends that the BOCC continue the appeal and the remainder of the application and wait until a
takings determination is made on the East Mesa Parcel to take action. Staff has prepared the following
initial set of conditions for your consideration at this time:
1) The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings
or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by
other conditions.
2) Within 180 days of the date of this approval and prior to submission of any building or other
development permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County
Attorney and Community Development a 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan(s) in accordance with Land
Use Code Section 5-70-040, which shall depict the building and development envelopes. The above
referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation. The mylar copy of
the site plan must be signed by the owner prior to submittal for recording. The Applicant shall amend
the site plan as follows prior to recordation:
A) Designate two separate building envelopes on the North Parcel: one within approximately 150 feet
of Woody Creek Road that includes the historic cabin and ranch manager house and one that
contains the area beyond 150 feet that is shown within the proposed envelope. A note shall be
included on the site plan that specifies that new structures or expansion of existing structures within
the envelope closest to the road that are visible from Woody Creek Road shall be subject to scenic
overlay review.
B) Amend the Building Envelope on the North Parcel to comply with the required 20' setback from the
high water line of Collins Creek.
C) Move the building envelope on the East Mesa Parcel farther downhill (to the southwest) so the
zone of influence does not extend up onto the hillside to the north.
3) Concurrent with recordation of the 1041 site plan(s), the Applicant shall:
A) Record a covenant/deed restriction in a form acceptable to the County Attorney to the benefit of
the County, which memorializes the extinguishment of the fathering parcel development right on
the South Parcel and the transfer of the development right from the South Parcel to the North
Parcel to legalize the straw bale house.
B) Record a covenant in a form acceptable to the County Attorney in which the Applicant agrees to
maintain, rehabilitate and/or expand the historic cabin in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
9
~
C) Record a covenant/deed restriction in a form acceptable to the County Attorney on the South
Parcel and the West Mesa Parcel to the benefit of the County that specifies the maximum size of
any new agricultural structures, limits the size of the proposed horse operations, prohibits
commercial operations, confines grazing to the irrigated pasture areas and prohibits
livestock/horse grazing on the mountain shrub hillsides, and otherwise ensures that the structures
and fencing associated with horse operations not impact the visual or wildlife values of those
parcels.
4) The North Parcel shall be limited to a maximum of 15,000 square feet of floor area, of which 14,459
square feet are existing and 541 square feet are available through use of one TDR. The Applicant
may allocate the 15,000 square feet among the approved residential and accessory structures within
the building envelope, with no one structure to exceed 10,000 square feet of floor area. The
Applicant may reconstruct, expand or relocate the existing structures within the approved building
envelope. Agricultural buildings and the historic Homestead Cabin shall be excluded from the
15,000 square foot maximum floor area. Floor area shall be calculated based on the definition in
effect at the time of building permit application. At building permit application for any additional
floor area in excess of 14,459 square feet, the Applicant shall surrender one TDR Certificate and a
copy of the deed(s) evidencing the Applicant's acquisition of the Certificates (if applicable), in order
to develop an additional 541 square feet of floor area. The "leftover" floor area from the TDR shall
be extinguished.
5) Prior to issuance of any building permits for redevelopment on the North Parcel, the building site
shall be evaluated by a qualified professional engineer or geologist to determine if mitigation of the
debris flow hazard is necessary.
6) Prior to submission of a septic permit for the new residence on the East Mesa Parcel, the Applicant
shall provide proof of an adequate water supply to the Environmental Health and Natural Resources
Department.
7) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the new residence on the East Mesa Parcel, the
Applicant shall:
A) Obtain a septic system permit from the Environmental Health and Natural Resources Department.
The sewage disposal system must be designed by a registered professional engineer and shall be
located within the approved building envelope.
B) Obtain fireplace/woodstove permits from the Community Development Department, if necessary.
C) Submit a drainage and erosion control plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer.
D) Pay the applicable road and housing impact fees.
E) Obtain a driveway/access permit from the Planning Engineer for the driveway to the residence.
F) Submit a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Engineer. The
Plan shall address employee traffic and parking, construction vehicles, staging and deliveries.
8) Prior to commencement of any earthmoving or construction activity, the Applicant shall stake the
corners of the building envelopes and install construction fencing around the perimeter of the
building envelopes. The fencing shall remain in place until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for
the residence.
10
,n
9) All lighting shall comply with applicable regulations in the Land Use Code.
10) The Applicant shall comply with the County's Weed Management Plan.
11) The Applicant shall comply with the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District,
including but not limited to adequate area for turning around of fire equipment, approved fire sprinkler
systems and adequate water supply (minimum 20,000 gallons).
12) No development, including grading, excavation, fill placement, berming, landscaping, vegetation
removal or disturbance, utility or driveway extension, wells and septic systems shall occur outside of
the approved building envelopes, except as associated with continued agricultural or ranching uses or
activities.
13) All areas disturbed by construction shall be revegetated with native shrubs and grasses to limit water
consumption and additional runoff within one growing season of the project's completion.
14) The Applicant shall comply with the following wildfire mitigation standards:
A) New or replacement roofs shall be constructed with a Class A roof covering or a Class A
assembly. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings are prohibited. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch
are not permitted unless they comply with the following:
i) All roof coverings shall be noncombustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly.
ii) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing the
roof.
iii) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. Protrusions above
the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited.
iv) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall have a minimum
slope of 1 :48.
v) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the
Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application.
B) Vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh with mesh V. inch maximum.
C) Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
D) Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash, and flammable debris.
E) All flammable materials and firewood/wood piles shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum
of 15 feet away from any structure.
F) Swimming pools or ponds shall be accessible to Fire Department vehicles.
G) Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris.
H) Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
1) Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container.
J) Propane tanks shall be installed according to NFP A 48 standards and on a contour away from the
structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any above-ground tank. Any
wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for 2 hour fire-
resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls.
K) Each structure shall have a minimum of one 10 pound approved ABC fire extinguisher placed in a
visible and accessible location.
L) Addresses shall be clearly marked with 2 inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible and
installed on a non-combustible post.
11
\1
M) New utility lines shall be placed underground within the driveway or approved envelopes.
15) The Applicant shall comply with the following to mitigate impacts on wildlife:
A) Dogs shall be kenneled. Construction workers shall be prohibited from bringing dogs on-site.
B) Silt fences shall be installed according to the County standard between any construction and any
body of permanent or ephemeral water body during all phases of construction (See Pitkin County
Asset Management Plan for silt fence standard).
C) Mesh fencing is prohibited. Wood fencing shall employ three rails or less, be the round or split
rail type, shall not exceed 48 inches in height above ground level and 12 inches in width (top
view), and shall have at least 18 inches between two of the rails. Wire fencing shall consist of no
more than 3 strands of smooth wire and shall not exceed 42 inches in height. Existing fencing
shall be brought into compliance.
D) Native vegetation shall be maintained outside the development and building envelopes, except as
related to agricultural uses.
E) Install and use approved bear-proof trash containers as required by the County's Wildlife
Protection Ordinance.
F) Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs should be avoided in any landscaping due to the high level of
black bear activity in this area.
G) Any areas disturbed outside the development and building envelopes for other than agricultural
uses shall be revegetated with native plants according to a revegetation plan submitted by the
applicant and approved by the County.
H) Hay shall be fenced with 8' mesh game proof fencing.
1) The Applicant shall plant a vegetative screen along the north and east sides of the building
envelope on the East Mesa Parcel. The screen shall be comprised of trees of significant height
(12' or greater) to screen activity around the home from the hillside. The plan for the vegetative
screen shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, prior to
issuance of a building permit for the residence.
J) If a caretaker unit is approved in the future on the East Mesa Parcel, it shall be attached to the
main residence or located within the agricultural building envelope.
16) Failure to comply with these conditions of approval shall result in revocation of the approvals and
permits for the Flying Dog Ranch.
17) Statutory vested rights for the approvals contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County
Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in Pitkin County Land Use
Code, 94-140 and C.R.S., 924-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on
,2010.
12
\v
Attachments
A. Division of Wildlife
B. Open Space and Trails
C. Woody Creek Caucus
D. Planning Engineer
E. Aspen Fire
F. Certificates of Occupancy
G. 3/10/04 BOCC minutes
H. 3/10/04 Staff memo to BOCC
1. 1/14/04 BOCC minutes
J. 1/14/04 Staff memo to BOCC
Ms Walfi'is 8 professional planner wilh I Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and is I member oflhe American Institute ofCeftified Planners, Ms Wolff has
. worked for the AspenlPitkin County Community Development Department for 14'h years, ami as a Planner/Senior Planner within thaI depanment for] 1 years In her planning position, Ms. Wolff
has reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code
13
J
'\
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO, DENYING THE FL YlNG DOG RANCH EAST MESA PARCEL 1041 HAZARD
REVIEW, CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GMQS EXEMPTION
Resolution No. -2007
RECITALS
I. George Stranahan ("Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
Colorado ("BOCC") for approval to develop one single family residence on a 35+ acre parcels. The
following approvals are requested and required:
A. 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope, an access
envelope, an agricultural building envelope, and an irrigation pond envelope;
B. GMQS Exemption and Special Review to establish the parcel as a TDR receiver site in order to
develop up to a maximum of 10,750 square feet of floor area.
2. The parcel is located on the east side of Woody Creek Road, and is more specifically described in
Exhibit A.
3. The parcel is zoned RS-20/PUD and contains 58 acres.
4. The Board of County Commissioners considered this application at a duly noticed public hearing on
April 11 , 2007, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application.
5. The BOCC finds that the proposed envelopes avoid slopes in excess of30%, that the wildfire hazard is
low and can be mitigated, and that the impacts on wildlife habitat areas can be mitigated.
6. The BOCC further finds that the driveway to the building envelope will encroach on slopes in excess
of 30%. Pursuant to sub-section 3-80-050.C.1.c.ii of the Land Use Code, development is prohibited
on slopes in excess of 30%. The proposed improvements do not comply with the exemption to the
30% slope prohibition for existing roads and driveways (sub-section 3-80-050.C.l.c.ii.d of the Code)
because the existing roads do not serve existing residential uses.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the BOCC that it does hereby deny the Flying Dog
Ranch East Mesa Parcell 041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review and GMQS
Exemption.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the
11th day of February, 2007.
DENIED this I I th day of April, 2007.
\\
Resolution No. -2007
Page 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By
Michael Owsley, Chair
ATTEST:
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
7~CU~t-\\
Cindy Houben,
Community Development Director
John Ely,
County Attorney
P071-03
PID #264323100001
,~
,,,~_...._~._--,-<--~"..,,,..,
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WilDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Bruce McCloskey, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone, (303) 297-1192
wildlife.state.co.us
January 7, 2007
Pitkin County Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Flying Dog Ranch PUD, 1041
Dear Suzanne:
The Flying Dog Ranch along Woody Creek lies within elk and mule deer winter range. The more important habitat
types are the mountain shrub hillsides overlooking West and East Mesa and the riparian area along Woody Creek.
The mountain shrub hillsides show signs of significant browsing by mule deer and elk. The irrigated pastures on
East and West Mesa also receive deer and elk grazing pressure, although this is not as important as the mountain
shrub hilIsides. The ranch also lies within black bear fall concentration area and within a human-black bear conflict
area. Bears will forage along the riparian area as well as the mountain shrub hillsides. Proper precautions need to
be exercised in order to minimize human-bear conflicts.
Overall, the application conserves large portions of wildlife habitat on the ranch as well as on several mining
claims in the Lenado area while concentrating most of the development on the already disturbed north parcel. The
primary impacts of this application will be the development of East Mesa. This area receives significant use by
mule deer and elk, both in the irrigated pasture as well as the mountain shrub hillside. From a strict wildlife
perspective, it would be best to locate the homesite on the south parcel and not develop the East Mesa. If this is not
desirable based upon the goal of preserving agricultural-pastoral character of the Woody Creek Valley, then
construction of a home on East Mesa can be accomplished but with negative impacts to mule deer and elk. These
impacts are partially offset by the conservation of other parcels on the ranch and mining claims in the Lenado area.
The development plan for the East Mesa parcel shows a building and pond envelope in the northern portion of the
parcel with an agricultural envelope in the southwest portion. This essentially spreads the development and
disturbance throughout the parcel increasing the zone of influence. By placing the home and/or envelope at the toe
of the mountain shrub hillside, it extends the disturbance area up onto the hillside. The hillside is important to mule
deer and elk during winter for foraging when snow covers the pasture. Construction of a home at this location will
add stress and possible displacement of big game from this hillside. If a home is constructed on East Mesa it should
be placed lower in the pasture. During a site visit, an old wooden fence post approximately 1/3 to y, way down the
pasture was observed. The home and upper building envelope boundary should be placed no further north in the
pasture than this post. The further down the pasture the home is located, the Jess impact it will have on the
mountain shrub hillside and big game utilizing that hillside.
The three driveway alternatives to access East Mesa will all have impacts to native habitat. Accessing the mesa
from the north parcel would be less impactive from a wildlife perspective but it is not worth demolishing the straw
bale house. Of the remaining two alternatives, the least impactive to wildlife may be the existing alignment but that
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford. Chair. Tom BurKe, VICe Chair' Claire O'Neal. Secretary
Members, Robert Bray. Brad Coors . Rick Enstrom' Richard Ray. James McAnally' Ken Torres
Ex Officio Members, Russell George and Don Ament
\~
may not be acceptable for viewp1ains. Both will require significant cuts and disturbance to existing vegetation. If
Alternative 2 is selected, then the existing old alignment should be reclaimed with native vegetation (including
shrubs).
Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have significant impacts to wintering big game through direct and indirect
mortality, increased stress, and displacement from preferred ranges. Control ofloose dogs is vital when building
and living in such close proximity to important winter ranges.
The following recommendations will help minimize impacts to wildlife and minimize human-wildlife conflicts:
1. building envelope for East Mesa should be moved further down (southwest) the pasture away from the
mountain shrub hillside
2. vegetative screen should be planted along the north and east sides of the building envelope to screen
the home and activity from the hillside. Vegetative screen should be comprised of trees of significant
height to screen activity around the home (12' or greater)
3. if alternative 2 is selected for the access road, a vegetative screen should be planted along the east
portion of the drive on the north side as it comes out into the east meadow. Reclaim/revegetate
alternative 1 route with native vegetation including shrubs. Applicant should submit a revegetation and
screening plan for approval by the County (see #2 above)
4. caretaker unit should be attached or contained within the agricultural envelope
5. utilities for East Mesa should be buried; if not, they should be made raptor and bear proof in order to
prevent electrocutions
6. fencing should be minimized; any old fencing should be brought into compliance with fence code, any
new fencing should not include mesh fencing and should meet fence code
7. if horses/livestock are kept, all hay should be fenced with 8' mesh game proof fencing
8. snowmobile use on west and east mesas should be discouraged in order to minimize disturbance to
wintering big game
9. contractors/construction workers should not be allowed to bring dogs on site. The Division has had
problems with construction worker's dogs chasing wildlife
10. native vegetation outside building envelope should be maintained; there should be no 1ivestock/horse
grazing on the mountain shrub hillside of east or west rnesas. All grazing should be confmed to the
irrigated pasture areas
11. implernent measures outlined under 7-20-70 of the land use code, especially those measures to
minimize conflicts with bears
12. round handled door knobs should be used for all outside doors instead of lever handles in order to
minimize a bear's ability to gain entry
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact DWM Kevin Wright at 947-
2920.
Sincerely,
8. t.v~
k~fe Manager
Cc: J. Bredehoft, R. Velarde, K. Wright, file
\1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Suzanne Wolff, Pitkin County Community Development
FROM:
Pitkin County Open Space and Trails
RE:
Flying Dog Ranch Land Use Application Referral
DATE:
April 3, 2007
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Flying Dog Ranch PUD, Rezoning, etc.
application. OST is encouraged to see that the application contemplates restricting the
meadow south of Woody Creek Road from residential development. OST would like to
offer the following comments.
TDRs/Conservation Easement:
The application includes the certification ofTDRs from mining claims which are
encumbered by a conservation easement. OST has participated in projects that involve
both conservation easements and TDRs and believes that these tools can be used together
to achieve the conservation goals for a property, if the conservation easement anticipates
the creation of TORs, or is conveyed subsequent to the certification ofTDRs. However,
in the case presented by Flying Dog Ranch, the conservation easement was in place long
before the creation ofTDRs in Pitkin County. Presumably, the placement ofa
conservation easement on the property extinguishes all development rights on the
property, so that no development potential remains to be "transferred" off. CertifYing
TDRs on lands under conservation easements raises two concerns:
1.) The Stranahan's may have received tax deductions for donating a conservation
easement which eliminates the development value of the mining claims. To
ensure that the County does not inadvertently participate in any misrepresentation
with the IRS, we strongly recommend that the applicant should fully disclose all
information related to any tax deductions associated with the existing
conservation easement, including and appraisal or other tax information.
2.) Issuing TORs on land thought to be sterilized of development rights would set a
precedent for other landowners that have conveyed conservation easements. Staff
roughly estimates that there are over 5,200 acres in Pitkin County under
conservation easement, which were not conveyed in anticipation of or subsequent
to issuance ofTDRs. If these acres were given the same consideration as the
Stranahan easement, it would resulting the generation of dozens more TDRs not
previously anticipated by the County.
OST supports the goals of the application to preserve the west and south parcels of the
ranch, and to strengthen the language ofan early conservation easement. We are
concerned, however, by the proposal that an older conservation easement be regarded as
a nullity. As an alternative, the Open Space and Trails Board would like to discuss with
"'~
the applicant the possibility of participating in this project to help achieve these
conservation goals without putting a cloud on the older conservation easement.
Other comments on the application:
· OST recommends placing a conservation easement, rather than a deed restriction
on the west mesa and south parcel, that would restrict the size of the horse
operations which could occur on those parcels, to a reasonable size, non-
commercial operation, and prevent the associated structures and fencing from
impacting the visual or wildlife values of those parcels.
· GIS depicts a trail beginning at the USFS boundary with the ranch that follows
Collins Creek and connects with a network of trail on the Forest. OST
encourages the applicant to consider the conveyance of a trail easement across the
ranch that would connect with this trail.
\9
Suzanne Wolff
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Phil Holstein [phil@aspensurfers.com]
Tuesday, March 27,20073:49 PM
Suzanne Wolff
Jan Schoeberlein
Flying Dog Ranch PUD rezoning special review
Dear Suzanne,
The Woody Creek Caucus strongly supports the PUD as proposed by the Flying Dog Ranch. Our
support is based upon the significant conservation areas and open space that is created by
this proposal and the fact that there would be a single homesite on this large piece of
land.
We would like to understand more fully what the types of agricultural uses in the
conservation areas would be.
Sincerely,
Philip M. Holstein, Jr.
Woody Creek Caucus Planning Commission
1
(\,\J
PITKIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5526 FAX# (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
To:
Suzanne Wolff
FROM:
Catherine Berg, Planning Engineer
Re:
Flying Dog Ranch PUD
DATE:
February 21, 2007
Alternate 1:
Max cut: 15' Max fill: 0'
Max retaining wall height: 22'
. Significant portions of the access driveway run through slopes equal to or greater
than 30%.
. There would be significant visual impact to Woody Creek Road and neighbors at
Circle R Ranch.
. The slope ofthe driveway is a consistent 13%, > 12%, the County standard.
. Driveway would cross entire top of mesa.
. Would require engineered bridge crossing irrigation ditch.
Alternate 2:
Max cut: 17' Max fill: II'
Max retaining wall height: 27'
. 190' of the access driveway run through slopes equal to or greater than 30%.
. Minimal visual impact to Woody Creek Road and neighbors at Circle R Ranch.
. The slope of the driveway is a consistent 13%, > 12%, the County standard.
. Driveway would cross entire top of mesa.
. Would require engineered bridge crossing irrigation ditch.
Alternate 3:
Max cut: 6' Max fill: 6'
Max retaining wall height: 18'
. Significant portions of the access driveway run through slopes equal to or greater
than 30%.
. Some visual impacts to Woody Creek Road and access to homestead site.
. Max grade 12%.
tl
.
Would minimize driveway length on top of mesa.
Would need to eliminate straw bale home if driveway were to switch back where
proposed. Is there an alternate location?
.
Given the above information I would recommend further analysis be done on
Alternate 3, is there some way to accommodate the house and the proposed access?
If the house would truly need to be eliminated I would recommend Alternate 2. In the
Alternate 2 scenario there is minimal visual impact and the future home owner would
have a more secluded access. If Alternate 2 were chosen I would like to know the
reasoning behind traversing the mesa, could the building envelope be accessed from
the near side?
My other comment is on the building envelope vs. landscape/pond envelope-location.
If a pond is proposed to be located above the building envelope I would like a
detailed drainage plan showing how all potential impacts of the pond on the
house/foundation would be mitigated.
-yV
Aspen Fire Protection District
420 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-2690
Memo
To: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
cc:
Date: January 30, 2007
Re: Flying Dog, PID 2643-231-00-001; Case P 071-06
Suzanne,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
This includes but is not Iim~ed to Fire Department Access (International Fire Code 2003
Edition Section 503), Tuming around of fire apparatus (IFC Section 503.2.5), Due to location
an approved fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all structures regardless of size (IFC as
amended Section 903), Water supply, a minimum of 20,000 gallons (IFC Section 508), and
detailed wildfire m~igation plans for both landscaping and structural standpoints shall be
submitted.
Please have the applicant contact the Fire Marshal's Office for specifications on the above
requirements.
Ed
'})
~:
>'
'r,
,,~
.-.;'
,.1:;',
'~,"}"'';-'
':;i,""T',
Certificate of Occupancy
Pitkin County Community Development Department
This certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of the 2003 edition section 110 of the
Internatlonal Residenflal Code. -It certifies that at the date of issuance, the structure as described
below was in compljahce with the various resolutions and ordinances regulating building
construction and use in this jl;ldsdiction.
Use Classification:
SFR
0550.2004prrb
Building Permit:
~I~~
Building Address:
3045 WOODY CREEK RD
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
Owner of Buildi~g:
GEORGE STRANAHAN
'3045 WOODY (:REEK FW
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
Owner Address:
Group:
Type ?f Construction~
Use,'Zone: I
IRC> 5000
V-B
Description:
PARCEL iD 26432.3100001 .
6.175 SQUARE FOOT NIO-STORY RESIDENCE INCLUDES THREE BEDROOMS'. TWO
FULL BATHS, ONE 3/4 BATH, ONE .1/2 BATH, AND ONE KITCHEN. .
Comments & Restrictions:
ONE WOOD-BURNING FIREPLACE.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 10/10/03. LEGALIZATION OF A
STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTIO~S.
a~ .
'/m.MJ
_ Chief Building Official
;tlxt&",~ ~,J0o
/ ate
Note: In all occupancies, except R, this certificate must be posted in iI conspicuolls place near the main exit on
the premises for which' it is issued., Any alteration or use of these de~crlbed premises or-portion thereof without the
~r(tten BP?fOIJBt of {he Building Official shall negate this C.O and sllbject it to revocation,
",-,,;'
}~
,~~~j
~~~i"-
,~tI!f
~.~
.;
~\\
,'{;:
'~;'
i,;
ii
~
....:'
:l
I'
1.
,
tiC
~!
<,:
~',
E
m:
t;-
Ii;
t~
Certificate upancy
Pitkin County Community Development Department
,This certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of the 2003 edition section 110. of the
International Residential Code. It certifies that at the date of issuance. the structure as descnbed
belo:^J was in compliance with the various resolutions and ordinances regulating building
construction and use in this jurisdiction.
Use Classification:
Building Permit:
Building Address:
Owner (if Building:
Owo,er Address:
Group.:
Type of Construction:
Use Zone:
Description:
SFR
0553.2004prr3
_*t'iW ~b ~
3041 I/IiOODY CREEK RD
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
GEORGE STRANAHAN
3045 WOODY CREEK RD
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
IRC < 5000 sf
V-B
PARCEL 10 264323100001 <
1.533 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY RESIDENCE INCLUDES TWO BEDROOMS, ONE FULL
BATH. AND ONE ~ITCHEN. .
Comments & Restrictions':
ONE WOOD-BURNING STOVE.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 10110/03. LEGALIZATION OF.A
STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS
fl-~1UIr'
Chief Building Official
~~~ktJ~
Oat
;
-Note" In all occllpancies, except R, this certificate must be, posted in a conspicuous' place near the main exit on
the premises for which it is issued. Any alteration or use of these described premises qr portion thereof without the
written approval of the Building Official shaH negate this C.O. and subject it to re\loc<atio,n.
,
, ',_.."". ,,,,..,..~,~""',,,' ".;'c'.;?...,.";.;.."....,.,,.;''':
. ~..."""...'.'.. r'.''''''''.''.''.''' '....."'.'."...""'...".,
I"" ,'.
,~;~ . _'J'."
.' .1
, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,""""',~_ .. -A "'~'->!.\~"'''''''''',;,-,,'''"'''~''_''.~; ,_"'::<;.'",,,,
..
~~ ,"
;i>i
f.)'
&
M
~,
':i
~"
);'
~J
(!;
}~,
:i~,,,,~.li~
~~~t_
m~!;~<!W,~,lfJ',
11{"",6"'''''' '''''~I
Ei~r.Ail.~
.
~
>
f;:
;;;
~\
iii'
"
"
":'
i:
??
,;::,"
Certificate ofO upancy
Pitkin County Community Development Dep~rtment
This certificate issued pursuant to the requirements of the 2003 edition section 110 of the
International Residemlai Code. It certifies that at the date of issuance, the stl'ucture as described
below was in compliance with the various resoluti'ons and ordinances regulating building
construction and use in this jurisdiction.
Use Classification:
SFR
0551.2004 prr3
Building Permit:
Building Address:
-~~D~~ tb~
WOODY CREEK CO 81656' '
Owner o(Suilding:
GEORGE STRANAHAN
3045 WOODY CREEK RD
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
Owner Address:
Group:
Type of Construction:
IRC < 5000 sf
v-s
Use Zone:
Descriptio.n:
PARCEL iD 2643231"00001
2,960 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY RESIDENCE INCLUDES FIVE, BEDROOMS, ONE FULL
BATH, ONE 3/4 lOATH. AND ONE KITCHEN,
Comments & Restrictions: , .
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 10/1 0/03. LEGALIZATION OF A
STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUlL TWITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS.
rJ,~-(~~
hief Building O(ficial
~~~ CJ,~~
Note: In all occupancies, except R, this certificate must be posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit on
the premises for which it is issued; Any alteration or use of these described premises or portion thereof without the
written approval of the Building Official shall negate ,this C.O. and sub~cl it to revocation.
.....',-.."....,
" .,'.'~. _.,,,...~;,,~,
" "c. ti'ii"I~;
"IJ I ~
/
r~
~
~"_,~",:";"_,,""'..: ,
~
. ',.' .~.. ~'_.
",".h.
~
~~
'f,
Certifi ccupancy
Pitkin County Community Development Department
This certificate isswed pursuant to the requirements of the 2003 edition section 110 of the
International Residential Code, It certifies that at the date of issuance, the structure as described
below was in compliance with the various resolutions and ordinances regulating building
construction and use in this jurisdiction. .
Use Classification:
SFR
0552.2004.prr3
Buiiding Permit:
, ,
Building Address:
_ttl~\V . ~'ol~
3043 WOODY CREEK RD
ASPEN CO 81611
Owner of Building:
GEORGE STRANAHAN
Owner Address:
3045 WOODY CREEK RD
WOODY CREEK CO 81656
Group:
Type of Construction:
Use Zone:
IRC CABIN
V-B
\
Description:
"
PARCEL 10 264323100001
944 SQUARE FOOT OJ\iE"STORY RESIDENCE INCLUDES TWO BEDROOMS, ONE FULL
BATH, AND ONE KITCHEN.
, '
Comments & Re.1>trictions:
ONE WOOD-BUKNING STOVE.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DATED 10/10103'. LEGALiZATION OF A
STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT PERMITS OR INSPECTiONS.
W~/~)
/" hie! Buiiding Official
~~,$~~ ~~O
Date
Note: In all occupancies, except R, this certificate must be (losted in a conspicuous place near the main exit on
the premises for which it is issued. Any alteration or use of these described premises or portion thereof without the
written approval of the Building Official shall negate this C.O. and subject it to revocation. -
f~
,
. ~
~;
,
,
e
.';
,
.
.".~",,,,<,o,,-,,,,',,"'_~'*
_r',' ,,~,"_"~"'"
"-c-",';,",';.,
r =~ .(' '''',," ..'I"""~''''''
," \ .n","
. !. -' ..
~1
Commissioner Hatfield said this issue for him, is clear cut and not a gray area. He said
the resolution has already been sent and this is an open the door for no good reason.
LAND USE CONSENT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ASPEN PITKIN ANIMAL SHELTER AND BOARDING KENNEL GROWTH
MANAGEMENT/SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION. SPECIAL REVIEW. SCENIC OVERLAY
REVIEW. 1041 HAZARD REVIEW. REZONING. CODE AMENDMENT. MINOR PLAT
AMENDMENT - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 14. 2004 - STAFF PLANNER:
EZRA LOUTHIS
COLLINS SUBDIVISION DETAILED SUBMISSION FINAL PLAT - FIRST READING
MOTION TO CONTIIiUE TO APRIL 14. 2004 - STAFF PLANNER: LANCE CLARKE.
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
Chairperson Farris opened the public hearing on these items for public comment.
There being no comment, she brought the matters back to the Board for action.
Commissioner Clapper moved to continue these two items to April 14, 2004.
Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed with four yea votes.
Commissioner Ireland left the meeting temporarily.
LAND USE PUBLIC HEARINGS:
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO GEORGE STRANAHAN FOR THE
FLYING DOG RANCH 1041 HAZARD REVIEW. CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION.
SPECIAL REVIEW. GMQS. EXEMPTION AND CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT. AND
DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC RESOURCES TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC
INVENTORY. AND DENYING THE APPEAL OF AN ADNlINISTRATIVE DECISION
WITH REGARD TO CERTIFICATION OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
- MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF
RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST BY GEORGE STRANAHAN TO REZONE A
PORTION OF THE FLYING DOG RANCH FROM RS-20/PUD TO TRANSITIONAL
RURAUREMOTE - MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-110-051 Ie) OF THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND
USE CODE. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT ON ANY PARCEL WHICH WAS LEGALLY CREATED BEFORE
JUNE 12. 1978. SECTION 3-80-060. HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCE AREAS AND 9.110-043. GROWTH MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE FOR
PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES - MOTION TO TABLE - STAFF
PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF
Suzanne Wolff gave a presentation on this item as summarized in her memorandum to
the Board contained in the BDCC packet for this meeting.
. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10. 2004
i 1-~
Ms. Wolff said that staffs recommendation at this point, would be to continue this
application, pending the applicant coming forward with an application with respect to
development of the east mesa portion of the property.
Jim Curtis, representing George Stranahan, said both the County Commissioners and
George share the same objectives. He said George would also like to deal with the
whole property as part of his estate planning so they support the tabling of this portion
of the application and doing it in a comprehensive fashion. He thinks this is the only
logical way to go to bring this to conclusion so it works for everyone. He proceeded to
review the site plans of the property including the proposed conservation easements
with commission members.
Mr. Curtis said that the reason they would like to proceed with getting TOR's from the
Lenado Mining Claims is that they feel there is a lot of public benefit in this plan and
given two to three years, he could get approvals on the east mesa, on the south parcel
and west mesa because they all have zoning rights associated with those properties
and there are procedures in place that would allow him, given enough time, to seek
approvals. He said the additional arguments he would make on the Lenado Mining
Claims is first of all, in his reading of the code, he thinks it is a completely discretionary
decision before the County Commissioners because it's an appeal and he would argue
that they the Board has the ability to judge that appeal in the context of does it service
the public service in total? Secondly, he said the TOR's on George's property would
basically be an internal transfer; they would not be going out into the TOR market. He
explained that the internal transfer, in concept, is very similar to what happened with
Bob Child's family; they took TOR's from the high lands and put them down and
legalized some of the home sites for the family. He said the second point, on the
TOR's, is it puts to the bed the issue of the potentially shaky legal conservation
easement that was created in 1978. He noted that George would never contest the
conservation easement, but what happens with George's heirs or estate thereafter, who
might know and this would be an opportunity to put that issue to rest.
With respect to whether or not this would be setting a precedent, he said he researched,
as best he could working with the GIS information, and as best he can determine, the
Lenado Mining Claims represent a one of a kind situation where they are basically the
only mining claims within and zoned rural and remote with three existing conservation
easements still owned by a private party. So in terms of a precedent, he doesn't
envision herds of people coming behind them. He said in a very small way, and he
knows this should not play in the public policy, he thinks this is an opportunity simply to
acknowledge the good deed that George did, in 1978, by being one of the first people in
the state to do a conservation easement. He summarized by saying in the context of
the overall plan he thinks it serves the public to convey the three TOR's because 223
acres of mining claims will be nailed down without any debate, an additional. 90 acres of
the Flying Dog Ranch on the south parcel, and an additional 50 acres on the west
mesa. He said that George has a cabin right on a parcel of mining claims and they
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004
j5
1P-
propose to keep those claims and that one cabin right and they have been consistent in
that representation for two years.
Chairperson Farris said she would like to ask for an executive session to allow her to
ask a question ofthe county attorney.
Commissioner Roy moved to go into executive session under CRS 42-6-02 4(b).,
at 4:SS p.m. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
Chairperson Farris reconvened the regular meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Commissioner Clapper moved to continue this matter pending the applicant
bringing the entire site, as planned, including the east mesa application with
specific language concerning the use of TOR's (the internal transfer).
Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-
ENACTING SECTIONS 3-80-010IB). APPLICABILITY. 3-80..oS0IA), AVALANCHE
AREAS. 3-80..oS0(g. POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES. AND 7.10..oS01Q1
HEARING OFFICER - MOTION TO DENY - STAFF PERSON: EZRA LOUTHIS
Note: The following resolution was prepared associated with the above action at
this meeting:
RESOLUTION DENYING THE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING OF SECTIONS 3-
80-010IB). APPLICABILITY. 3-80-050IA). AVALANCHE AREAS. 3-80-0S0IC).
POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SLOPES. AND 7.10..oS0ID), HEARING OFFICER
Ezra Louthis gave a presentation on this matter as summarized in his memorandum to
the Board contained in the BOee packet for this meeting.
Herb Klein said the proposed legislation is intended to apply very rarely. They think
most situations are either going to be where the entire property is in an avalanche zone,
in which case a takings hearing would ensue, and most outcomes of takings hearings,
especially for vacant land, is that the end result would be approving a road through a
red zone or there would be another alternative roadway that would not have huge
impacts. It might be ideally what the landowner would want, but it probably would not
go through a calving area, radically steep slopes, etc. He said this legislation is going to
be a situation where the other option exists 'so there won't be a taking situation. But the
other option is so destructive and impactive that when you get to balance and weigh
that option against simply allowing the road to go through the avalanche zone that the
board could decide, taking all that into consideration in a very discretionary way that in
that particular case, it is better to go through the avalanche zone and that is all this is
designed to do. He said Marcella Larsen's concern is that she wanted to have specific
standards in the code; she wasn't comfortable with the discretion and didn't want it to be
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 11
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2004
-{ ]~
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - March 10, 2004
Cindy it.s~:~ommunity Development Director
TO:
FROM:
Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner'
RE:
flying Dog Ranch Rezoning, Code Amendments, Special Review, GMQS Exemption,
1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Caretaker Dwelling Unit
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
. Rezoning of a portion of the property from RS-20 to "Transitional Rural/Remote" in order to obtain
TDRs.
. Code amendments to transfer density between separate parcels, subject to Special Review; and to
exempt historic structures from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the underlying
zone district, so an historic structure would not count as a unit of density.
. PUD to transfer the South Parcel's development right to the North Parcel and to combine the acreage
of the South and North Parcels for density and TDR calculations.
. GMQS Exemption for pre-] 978 parcels.
. 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope that encompasses
all ofthe existing residential and most ofthe agricultural structures on the ranch. A maximum of
15,000 square feet of residential floor area is requested for the four residential structures within the
building envelope.
. Caretaker dwelling unit approval to legalize the "underground bunkhouse."
. Certification of 6 TDRs from the Upper Lenado mining claims (separate from the ranch) in order to
obtain TDRs.
The BOCC continued the resolution granting 1041 hazard review, etc., continued the resolution denying
the rezoning, and approved the code amendment ordinance on first reading, all on January 14 and by a
vote of 5-0 (minutes attached). The BOCC was concerned that without the proposed rezoning to conserve
the majority of the ranch, the application simply legalizes the existing development on the ranch, and does
not provide any guarantees that the remainder of the ranch will remain undeveloped. Therefore, the BOCC
requested that staff and the Applicant work together before the next meeting to identify ways to preserve
the ranch.
APPLICANT: George Stranahan
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
LOCATION: 3069 Woody Creek Road
ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-20; 244 acres
ISSUES:
j\
_._~~~,,,,,-..,,.~,..,-,~.,
Conservation Qotions: The Applicant and staff have met several times since the last BOCC meeting to
discuss alternatives to preserve the ranch. The Applicant has also met with Dale Will, Open Space and
Trails Director, and Martha Cochran, Aspen Valley Land Trust Director. All parties agree that the South
Parcel has the greatest conservation value, and, therefore, are looking at alternatives that ensure that the
South Parcel is conserved.
It appears that the best alternative is to create a separate development parcel on the east mesa (35+ acre
parcel) and obtain approval to utilize 3 TDRs for up to 10,750 square feet of floor area. The funds .
generated from the sale of the east mesa parcel would be used to establish a "ranch operating
endowment" and would provide the means for the Applicant to commit to preserve the remainder of the
ranch, including the South Parcel. 1041 hazard review and special review approval would be required for
the east mesa site.
The Applicant proposes to obtain the 3 TDRs from the Lenado parcels, which would require that the
BOCC not deny the Applicant's appeal regarding certification of the TDRs (note that denial of the appeal
is currently included in the draft Resolution). The Applicant will be prepared to reiterate his argument
with regard to issuance of the TDRs (or a portion of the TDRs) at the meeting.
If the BOCC is interested in pursuing this option (development of the east mesa) in order to preserve the
remainder ofthe ranch, then staff suggests that consideration of the current application (legalization of the
existing structures) be continued until a supplemental application for the east mesa parcel is presented. The
I 041/special review application would only require a one-step review before the BOCC, so everything
would be brought back before the BOCC at that time. The Applicant has requested to add the following
condition to the current approval, "Nothing herein shall preclude the North and South Parcels from further
subdivision and development in compliance with this Resolution and the Land Use Code in effect at the
time." Staff recognizes that the intent of this language is to preserve the Applicant's ability to pursue
development of the east mesa parcel, however, this language serves to reinforce that this approval leaves the
future of the ranch undetermined. The BOCC has asserted on several occasions thattheir preference is to
address the ranch and the Lenado mining claims comprehensively, therefore, it does not seem appropriate to
proceed with legalization of the existing structures until the rest of the "package" is presented.
Ifthe BOCC does not wish to pursue this option at this time. then staff recommends that the BOCC adopt
the attached resolutions and ordinance as drafted (including denial of the Lenado TDRs).
Memorandum of Understandinz: The Applicant will amend the MOU to specify that building permits
will be obtained for other structures mentioned at the January 14 meeting, including a tree house and a
Jacuzzi.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the BOCC adopt the
following motions to:
. Deny the request to rezone a portion of the ranch to "Transitional Rural/Remote";
. Deny the appeal regarding certification ofTDRs for the Upper Lenado mining claims;
. Approve the 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, GMQS Exemption, Special Review and
Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to conditions;
. Approve the Code Amendments to transfer density between separate parcels, and to exempt historic
structures from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the underlying zone district.
2
)1/
OR the BOCC may opt to continue the resolutions and ordinance until an application for
development of the east mesa is presented.
Attachments
A. 1/14/04 BOCC minutes
Ms Wolff is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University o(Pennsylvania and is a member of the American Institute ofCenified Planne~, Ms. Wollfhas
worked for tile Aspen/Pitkin Caullty Community Development Department for I J Y, years, and as II PlannerfSenior Planner within that department for g years. In her planning position, Ms. Wolff
has review~ llumerous land lIse applications pursuant to the Pitkin County land Use C:ode.
3
];3
-"".....~-,~~."~-.,._~._,--_.
Curt Sanders, representing the applicant referred to his application contained in the
BOCC packet for this meeting. He said he would be glad to answer any further
questions if necessary, but he thinks the application is fairly self-explanatory.
Chairperson Farris opened the hearing to public comment. There being no comment,
she closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for Action
Commissioner Clapper moved approval of first reading and set for second
reading on January 28, 2004. Commissioner Hatfield seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO GRANTING
APPROVAL TO GEORGE STRANAHAN FOR THE FLYING DOG RANCH 1041
HAZARD REVIEW. CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION. SPECIAL REVIEW. GMQS
EXEMPTION CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT. AND DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC INVENTORY. AND DENYING
THE APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WITH REGARD TO
CERTIFICATION OF TORs - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 25.2004-
STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF
FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO DENYING A
REQUEST BY GEORGE STRANAHAN TO REZONE A PORTION OF THE FLYING
DOG RANCH FROM RS-20/PUD TO "TRANSITIONAL RURAL/REMOTE" - MOTION
TO CONTINUE TO FEBRUARY 25.2004 - STAFF PLANNER: SUZANNE WOLFF
Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner explained that the applicant proposes to preserve the
ranch and to legalize certain structures on the ranch as part of his estate planning. She
said the applicant's goals for the ranch is:
· To pass the ranch to his estate without selling of subdividing
· To create a ranch operating endowment using TDR"s; and
· To establish restrictions on development of the ranch, if he estate or heirs
should sell the ranch.
Mr. Wolff explained that the applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
· Rezoning of a portion of the property from RS-20 to "Transitional
Rural/Remote" in order to obtain TDRs.
· Code amendments to transfer density between separate parcels, subject to
Special Review; and to exempt historic structures from the minimum lot area
per dwelling unit requirement of the underlying zone district, so an historic
structure would not count as a unit of density.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 12
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004
3~
· PUD to transfer the South Parcel's development right to the North Parcel and
to combine the acreage of the South and North Parcels for density and TOR
calculations.
· Special Review and GMQS Exemption to utilize one TOR to legalize the
Ranch Manager's residence.
· GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels.
· 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building
envelope that encompasses all of the existing residential and most of the
agricultural structures on the ranch. A maximum of 15,000 square feet of
residential floor area is requested for the four residential structures within the
building envelope.
· Caretaker dwelling unit approval to legalize the "underground bunkhouse."
· Certification of 6 TORs from the Upper Lenado mining claims (separate from
the ranch) in order to obtain TORs.
She proceeded with her presentation on these matters as summarized in her
memorandum contained in the BOCC packet for this meeting.
Ms. Wolff finished her presentation by saying that staff is recommending the following:
· Deny the request to rezone a portion of the ranch to "Transitional
Rural/Remote";
· Deny the appeal regarding certification of TORs for the Upper Lenado mining
claims;
· Approve the 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, GMQS
Exemption, Special Review and Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to
conditions;
. Approve the Code Amendments to transfer density between separate parcels,
and to exempt historic structures from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirement of the underlying zone district.
Chairperson Farris explained that the dilemma here is that we're trying to find a way to
place a conservation easement on a part of the property and allow the applicant to have
some benefit from "rights" that he has. She said she does not want to hear that the
code does not allow it. She said we have amended the code several times in the last
six years and it seems to her that we could find a way to this. She thinks the goal is
legalize certain structures and protect the property from future development.
Commissioner Hatfield asked for a clarification with respect to the four options:
Ms. Wolff explained the four options as follows:
1. The development right would be transferred and the fathering parcel would
not be restricted against further development.
2 Staff's proposal of being able to transfer the right, but it is sterilized.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004
3-'
--"'""'_~~_'-'__'^ __...., , T"" '.', ._.,.
3. That the fathering parcel would not be sterilized but would be prohibited from
being a TOR receiver site.
4. The proposal presented by the applicant the piece about the 50% density
reduction.
Jim Curtis, representing the applicant said the rural and remote with a transitional
definition, is codified in the existing code. He said he can clearly understand and
appreciate staffs concern saying it should not be used in this situation, but it is a
codified provision of the code. And in looking at that he thinks there is a way to go from
A to B, working with the existing code, understanding that there are issues and
concerns, etc. about doing that. He proceeded to review their concept with respect to
transitional rural & remote zoning as stated in their application contained in the BOCC
packet for this meeting.
Mr. Curtis said from his point of view, and he thinks what the P&Z concluded is at best,
the County looking at the public good, is certainly no worse off because you down
zoned a piece of property. Secondly, you retain more review processes over the
remaining unit because someone would have to go through a growth management
competition with all of the criteria. The other point he made to P&Z, and which he thinks
most people accepted is if you make the code amendment sterilize a piece of property
then there is absolutely no incentive for a larger property owner to use it, because in
their case, they have four units, and just to transfer to the north, why would we give up
those other rights?
Lance Clarke, Assistant Planning Director said the transitional section of the code is not
really codified the way Jim is talking about using it. He said what Jim was
recommending is that property be rezoned to transitional rural and remote. There is or
never was a zoning district called transitional rural and remote. Rather there is a
definition of transitional or fringe rural and remote area and what that says is if an area
is already zoned rural and remote, it may be considered transitional or fringe rural and
remote if it meets certain characteristics, but we don't have a zoning district
classification in the code called transitional or fringe rural/remote.
Commissioner Ireland questioned if there is a pool on the property, which does not have
a building permit?
Mr. Curtis replied that that pool probably does not have a permit when it was built and
he personally, does not know what permit would have been necessary, but he will follow
up and factually find out.
Commissioner Ireland moved the concept that the fathering parcel may compete
for growth management allotments for development rights, but shall be
prohibited from utilizing TOR's for new development rights or additional floor
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 14
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004
~~
area, but as a condition he wants everything out there to have a permit.
Commissioner Roy seconded the motion.
Mr. Curtis requested some clarifications to the conditions of approval to the
Resolution granting 1041 Hazard Review as follows:
· Elimination of Condition No.1. D. because it is no longer applicable.
· Elimination of Condition No.7. A. because it is no longer applicable.
. Condition No.7. B. an amendment to the language changing the "ranch
manager's house" to the "straw bale house".
· The Be it Further Resolved clause be amended to read "that the BOCC
hereby designates the "appropriate" historic structures of the Flying
Dog Ranch to the Pitkin County Historic Inventory.
· Condition No. 2.A. further research to be done by staff.
· Elimination of Condition No.3. A. because it is no longer applicable.
. Condition No.3 5. To amend the beginning language to say "The parcel
has four legal development rights use to legalize the following
structures: main house, straw bale house, ranch manager's house and
historic cabin. Additionally to change the square footage from 15,0000
to 15,459.
Commissioner Ireland accepted these amendments to his motion. Commissioner
Roy accepted this to her second.
Chairperson Farris opened the hearing. to public comment.
A short discussion ensued with Paul Taddune regarding clarifications with respect to the
potential development rights on the property.
Commissioner Farris asked that at second reading staff try to have some suggestion for
someway to put the land in question, in a conservation easement, and that the applicant
receives some benefit for doing that.
Commissioner Hatfield suggested that the Board technically approve the buildings that
need approval now and continue the rest of this pending a code amendment.
Mr. Curtis said it seems like legalizing the existing structures is something that can be
done now with the documents in front of the board. It seems like the discussion on the
Lenado mining claims and the additional conservation's on the ranch need to be
postponed and that discussion take place at a future juncture.
Ms. Wolff suggested that the resolution in front of the board does include denying the
TOR appeal. Secondly, because the code amendment does need a second reading
and needs to be re-noticed with all of the ~roper language, the matter would have to
come back, to the Board, on February 11t .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 15
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14,2004
!/J
Commissioner Roy said she would like to amend her second to the motion by
deleting paragraph 8, which reads: The BOCC further finds that the Applicant is
not eligible for TDRs, based on the elimination of the development rights
associated with the parcels by the 1978 conservation easement.
Commissioner Ireland said he would like Condition NO.8 to remain in the resolution
because he sees it as a benefit to the County to have TORs extinguished.
Commissioner Clapper said she does not have a problem deleting this condition, but
she supports staffs position that TORs should be denied. She further said what she is
hoping for is some way of getting TORs off of the AG lands for the conservation
easements.
Mr. Curtis clarified that in the application the package was taking the six TORs from the
Lenado claims, the five TORs from the Flying Dog and in aggregate they would create
the endowment fund. With respect to the cleaning up the issue on the Lenado claims, if
it was the preference of the County, they would just deed those fee simple to the County
so there is no debate about a conservation easement. But it was the accumulative of
the two that created the engine to create the operating endowment.
Commissioner Ireland moved to eliminate Condition No.8. Commissioner Roy
accepted this to her second.
After a discussion it was agreed that the resolution would be continued with
Condition No.8 included and further discuss the issue at the next reading.
Commissioner Farris called the question on the motion to amend certain portions
of the Resolution Granting Approval to George Stranahan for the Flying Dog
Ranch 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, Special Review, GMQS
Exemption Caretaker Dwelling Unit, and Designating the Historic Resources to
the Pitkin County Historic Inventory, and Denying the Appeal of an Administrative
Decision with Regard to Certification of TDRS. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Roy moved to continue the resolution to February 25, 2004.
Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hatfield moved approval of first reading of the Ordinance
Amending Section 9-110-051 (A) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, Growth
Management Exemption for One Single Family Dwelling Unit on any Parcel which
was Legally Created Before June 12, 1978, Section 3-80-060, Historic and
Archaeological Resource Areas and 9-110-043, Growth Management Incentive for
Preservation of Historic Structures and set for second reading on February 25,
2004 and to continue the Resolution Denying a Request by George Stranahan to
Rezone a Portion of the Flying Dog Ranch From RS-20/PUD to "Transitional
Rural/Remote". Commissioner Roy seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16
REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2004
1.,<6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - January 14,2004
Cindy HOUI~f&M~~ity Development Director
THRU:
FROM:
Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner'
RE:
Flying Dog Ranch Rezoning, Code Amendments, Special Review, GMQS Exemption,
1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission and Caretaker Dwelling Unit
REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to preserve the ranch and to legalize certain structures on the ranch
as part of his estate planning. As noted in the application, the Applicant's goals for the ranch are:
. To pass the ranch to his estate without selling or subdividing;
. To create a ranch operating endowment using TDRs; and
. To establish restrictions on development of the ranch, if the estate or heirs should sell the ranch.
While this application is presented as a "master plan" for the property, it is not technically a "master plan"
as referenced in the Code (it is not for development in the AF-SKI or PUB zone districts) or as referenced in
State statutes.
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
. Rezoning of a portion of the property from RS-20 to "Transitional Rural/Remote" in order to obtain
TDRs.
. Code amendments to transfer density between separate parcels, subject to Special Review; and to
exempt historic structures from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the underlying
zone district, so an historic structure would not count as a unit of density.
. PUD to transfer the South Parcel's development right to the North Parcel and to combine the acreage
of the South and North Parcels for density and TDR calculations.
. Special Review and GMQS Exemption to utilize one TDR to legalize the Ranch Manager's
residence.
. GMQS Exemption for pre-1978 parcels.
. 1041 Hazard Review and Conceptual Submission to establish a building envelope that encompasses
all of the existing residential and most of the agricultural structures on the ranch. A maximum of
15,000 square feet of residential floor area is requested for the j9;fr residential structures within the
building envelope. ~
. Caretaker dwelling unit approval to legalize the "underground bunkhouse."
. Certification of 6 TDRs from the Upper Lenado mining claims (separate from the ranch) in order to
obtain TDRs.
The Planning Commission reviewed the application on September 9 and October 21, and recommended
approval of the application and the proposed code amendment and denial of the proposed rezoning by a
vote of 3-0. The staff memos to the Planning Commission, which addresses all of the applicable review
criteria, and the minutes from both meetings are attached for reference. Only specific issues raised by staff,
the Planning Commission or the Applicant are addressed below.
3~
APPLICANT: George Stranahan
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Curtis
LOCATION: 3069 Woody Creek Road
ZONING/LOT SIZE: RS-20; 244 acres
ISSUES:
Memorandum of UnderstandinrJ' The Applicant has acknowledged that several structures on the
property were constructed and/or expanded without County approvals or permits. One of the goals of
this application is to legalize these structures, which requires "building permit legalization" (addressed in
the MOU) as well as "growth management legalization" (addressed in the land use application).
The Chief Building Official conducted building inspections on July 16 and October 6, 2003, and
identified improvements that must occur to the four dwelling units and the caretaker dwelling unit in
order to meet life/safety standards. As directed by the BOCC on May 14,2003, the Applicant and the
Community Development Department have signed a "memorandum of understanding" with regard to the
timeline to complete the improvements (Attachment D). Improvements have not occurred, since they are
contingent upon approval of this land use application. If approval is not granted, certain improvements
and structures must be demolished.
Growth Manazement Lezalization: There are six existing dwelling units on the property, several of
which were constructed or substantially modified without appropriate land use approvals (including
growth management). The following summarizes the status of the dwelling units and how they are
exempt or are proposed to be exempted from growth management:
. Main House - pre-1978 fathering parcel right from North Parcel
. Straw Bale/Kid's House - transferred fathering parcel right from South Parcel
. Ranch Manager House - TOR
. Historic Cabin - exempt historic structure
. Underground Bunkhouse - caretaker dwelling unit
. Trailer - removed
Rezoninl!: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial ofthe proposed rezoning of 204 acres
of the ranch to "Transitional Rural/Remote." The Applicant's intent with the proposed rezoning is to
preserve that acreage by accommodating the creation of TDRs. The Applicant acknowledges that the
property does not qualify as rural/remote, but hopes to find a way to utilize the existing provisions of the
Code rather than pursuing a code amendment to create TDRs from agricultural lands, which is an idea
that the County has discussed for years but has not pursued. While staff and the Commission support the
Applicant's intent, we cannot support the proposed rezoning. Denial of the rezoning precludes the
Applicant's ability to obtain TDRs in exchange for preservation of lands on the ranch and leaves the 204
acres "unprotected" against further subdivision or development.
2
~
. .
Density Transfer Code Amendment: The Applicant proposed to amend the PUD provisions of the Code
to allow the transfer of a development right to an adjacent parcel under the same ownership where
development is deemed "preferable" from the perspective of consistency with the goals of the County.
This application is not eligible to be considered a PUD, since the Applicant is not subdividing the
property. However, staff agreed with the premise ofthe Applicant's request and proposed to amend the
GMQS exemption for pre-I 978 parcels (Section 9-] 1O-05IA) to accommodate this concept. The
exemption currently specifies that one single family dwelling unit is exempt from growth management up
to 5,750 square feet of floor area. Staff proposed to add the following language as subsection AS:
The growth management exemption may be transferred to a contiguous parcel under separate
ownership or an adjacent parcel under the same ownership that is separatedfi'om the fathering
parcel by a public road or other right-of-way, subject to Special Review and the following
additional standards:
1) The transfer of the growth management exemption shall:
a) Encourage the clustering of buildings and uses;
b) Encourage the preservation of open space, agricultural lands and/or wildlife habitat areas;
() Take advantage of a site's unique natural resources and scenic features. and avoid or
mitigate any hazardous areas.
2) The fathering parcel shall be deed restricted against fUrther subdivision or de,'elopment.
At the September 9 meeting, the Applicant stated that the requirement to deed restrict the fathering parcel
against further subdivision or development was not acceptable. The Applicant argued that the South
Parcel contains 90 acres, which could accommodate up to 4 units based on the existing RS-20 zoning.
While he acknowledged that the parcel has only one development right and that growth management
allotments or TDRs would be required to develop more than one single family dwelling on the parcel, he
did not agree that the transfer of that development right should prevent future development ofthe other
three "zoning rights". Staff asserted that allowing other development on the parcel would negate the
public benefit since the premise of allowing the transfer is to provide a "better" site for the development.
After substantial discussion, the Commission requested that the Applicant provide other alternatives for
their consideration.
At the October 14, 2003 meeting, the Applicant presented other alternatives (Attachment A to October] 4
staff memo). Staff continued to assert that transferring the development right should not occur if other
development is permitted on the property in the future, and, therefore, does not support the alternatives
that do not require sterilization of the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of an
alternative that combined Option Nos. 3 & 4 as presented by the Applicant, which would prohibit the
fathering parcel from being a TDR receiver site and would subject the fathering parcel to a 50% density
reduction. The Commission assel1ed that this alternative would be "no worse than the situation today,
whereby the Applicant could either develop one single family residence on the South Parcel "by right" or
could subdivide the parcel into 4 lots, subject to growth management or use of TDRs. This language is
reflected in the attached draft code amendment ordinance. Staff has also added language requiring
recordation of a deed restriction to memorialize the transfer of the growth management exemption.
3
y\
-----"...~~--~"-_.-
Floor Area Allocation: The Planning Commission supported the Applicant's request to divide the
] 5,000 square foot allowable floor area among the residential and other accessory structures within the
building envelope. This is reflected in condition #6 ofthe draft resolution.
TDR Certification: In September of 2002, the Applicant requested certification of 6 TDRs on 4 separate
parcels within the Rural/Remote zone district in the Lenado area. The parcels are all subject to a
conservation easement recorded in 1978, which states, ".. .it is the purpose hereof to prevent the
subdivision or further development of the Lenado property...." Based on the language of the
conservation easement, staff determined that the easement eliminated the development rights on the
parcels, and, therefore, that the parcels are not eligible for TDRs as requested. The Applicant appealed
this determination to the BOCC. The BOCC initially considered the appeal on January 8, 2003, and
tabled the appeal with direction to staff to determine if the conservation easement could be challenged. The
County Attorney reviewed the easement and other documentation provided by the Applicant, and agreed
that the language is not "perfect" and that the easement could potentially be subject to challenge. The
BOCC reconsidered the appeal on May 14, 2003, and again tabled the appeal until such time as a "master
plan" for the Flying Dog Ranch and the Lenado parcels was presented to and reviewed by the County.
The Applicant hopes to obtain these TDRs to establish a "ranch operating endowment." Staffs memos
to the BOCC and the minutes from those meetings are attached for reference (Attachment] to the 9/2/03
staff memo to the Planning Commission).
The Planning Commission did not take action on the appeal, since this is within the BOCC's purview.
Staff continues to assert that the parcels are not eligible for TDRs.
Vested Rizhts: The Applicant has requested a 20 year vested right. Without the proposed rezoning to
conserve the majority ofthe ranch, the application simply legalizes the existing development on the ranch,
and does not provide any guarantees that the remainder of the ranch will remain undeveloped. Therefore,
staff does not support the request for an extended vested right.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the BOCC adopt the
following motions to:
(" \-b [:.
-v< '
,
.
Deny the request to rezone a portion of the ranch to "Transitional Rural/Remote";
Deny the appeal regarding certification ofTDRs for the Upper Lenado mining claims;
Approve the 1041 Hazard Review, Conceptual Submission, GMQS Exemption, Special Review and
Caretaker Dwelling Unit, subject to conditions;
Approve the Code Amendments to transfer density between separate parcels, and to exempt historic
structures from the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement of the underlying zone district.
""'"(~4 I yVl-fnl"l+e.--. z./7.."'-
4
~IJ
Attachments:
A. 10/14/03 staff memo to Planning Commission (actually reviewed at 10/21/03 meeting)
B. 10/21/03 Planning Commission meeting minutes
C. 9/2/03 staff memo to Planning Commission (actually reviewed at 9/9/03 meeting)
D. 9/9/03 Planning Commission meeting minutes
E. Memorandum of Understanding
Application provided separately
Ms. Woltl"is a professional planner with 1\ Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University ofPenllSylvania and is II member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, Ms Wollfhas
wurl..ed for lhe Aspen/Pitkin COUnty Community Development Department lor 11 'I, years, and as II Planner/Senior Planner within that department fOf 8 years In her planning. position, Ms Wolff
has reviewed numerous land \l~e applications pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code
5
4)
-
.
.-
,.-
-
,~\.,
,.-
',..wi
.-
....
,...
...I
~
":)
o
Q
o
'0
o
.
=
o
o
....
w
c
o
Q Flying Dog Ranch
o Amended Master plan & Land Use A licat\on
o
o
o
o
.
-.
"
I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
"'
'"
,",
,.,
... Submitted to:
"
..
.,
"
.""
...
..
..., Applicant!
'''''''
~ Owner:
Q
=
.
.
. Planner:
.
.
.
.
.
C
Q
Q
0
Q Date:
Q
.
.
.
.
.
AMENDED
FLYING DOG RANCH
MASTER PLAN & LAND USE APPLICATION
FLYING DOG RANCH
3069 WOODY CREEK ROAD
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
PARCEL #264323100001
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Pitkin County Community Development Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 920 - 5090
Mr. George Stranahan
c/o Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 920 - 1395
Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 - 920 - 1395
Mr. Brian McNellis
Bluegreen
300 South Spring Street. Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970 429 - 7499
November 14,2006
~{
Page
No.
I. App licati on S ummary __n_________________________________________________________ I
II. Master Plan Goals __________________________n_____________________________________ 2
III. Amended Master Plan Summary ------------------------------------------------ 3
IV. Master Planning Chronology ---------------------------------------------------- 5
V. Existing Conditions -----------------------------------------------------------____ 6
VI. Description of Proposed Parcels-----------------------------------------________ 7
VII. Land Use Code Standards -------------------------------------------------------- 10
VIII. Incentives for Preservation of Historic Structures ---------------------------- 18
IX. Vested Rights for 15 Years-------------------------------------__________________ 18
X. Zoning Density Reduction ----------------------------------------------------___ 19
XI. Con cl usi on -------------------------------------------------------------__________n_ 1 9
Following
Page No.
1. Location Map n_______________n___________________________n______________________ 19
2. Existing Conditions & Existing Structures----------------------------------___ 19
3. Master Plan & 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan -------------------------------- 19
4. East Mesa Parcel Driveway Alternatives-------------------------------________ 19
..,
)
)
)
)
)
)
')
)
)
:1'
;j
"""
,"
,-
~"
-
'.."
-
--
..-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-,
w
~
=
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Q
o
C
C
o
C
Exhibit 1 -
Exhibit 2 -
Exhibit 3 -
Exhibit 4 -
Exhibit 5 -
Exhibit 6 -
Exhibit 7 -
Exhibit 8 -
-
.....
-
.....
~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAPS & ILLUSTRATIONS
EXHIBITS
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Legal Description
Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed)
Non-Merger & Woody Creek Road Title Opinion
Wildfire Report
Owner's Consent Letter
Agreement to Pay Form
List of Adjacent Property Owners
~~
""')
i
)
)
)
)
)
)
;)
;)
i)
I)
;~
I. APPLICATION SUMMARY
This application amends the prior Flying Dog Ranch Master Plan & Land
Use Application submitted July 4,2003. The amended application incorporates the
Pitkin County Commissioners comments from their public hearings of January 14
and March 10, 2004.
The 2 'is year delay between the BOCC hearings and the amended
application is due to the following:
'"
,
"
-
.,
'-
,
--
.-
-
-
1. The time required to legalize the existing structures on the property.
2.
The time required to acquire a Quit Claim Deed to secure ownership
of a small land sliver encroaching into the South Parcel.
3.
The time required to process a Lot Line Adjustment with the
neighboring Circle R Ranch to secure legal access off Woody Creek
Road to the East Mesa Parcel.
...
,-
--
Pursuant to the Planning Office determination of September 8, 2006, this
amended application will be processed under the "old" Pitkin County Land Use
Code. The application is for the following:
-
-
"'"
-
"'"
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
o
.
o
o
o
o
o
~
-
...
1.
GMQS Exemption for Pre-1978 Parcels (Section 9-110-051)
- For 1 GMQS exempted building right for North Parcel
- For 1 GMQS exempted building right for South Parcel
- To transfer South Parcel GMQS exempted building right to North
Parcel
2.
Special Review (Section 3-210)
- To transfer South Parcel GMQS exempted building right to North
Parcel
_ To transfer I Transferable Development Right (TDR) from Upper
Lenado Mining Claims to North Parcel
_ To transfer 3 Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) from
Upper Lenado Mining Claims to East Mesa Parcel
_ To extinguish 2 Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) from
Upper Lenado Mining Claims
3.
1041 Hazard Review (Section 3-80)
- For North Parcel building envelope
- For East Mesa Parcel building envelope
- For South Parcel building envelope (agricultural buildings only)
-
-
FlyDogRanch II 066AmendMasterPlan
1
~1
-
'-'
4. Incentives for Preservation of Historic Structures (Section 9-110-043)
- To exempt the Historic Homestead Cabin from GMQS, min. lot
size per dwelling unit RS-20 zoning standard & FAR.
5. Conceptual Submission (Section 2)
- For compliance with Article 2, Land Use Policies
6. Vested Rights for 10 Years (Section 4-140)
The application is illustrated by the drawings outlined below and following
the text of the application.
1. Location Map
2. Existing Conditions & Existing Structures
3. Master Plan & 1041 Hazard Review Site Plan
4. East Mesa Parcel Driveway Alternatives
n. FLYING DOG RANCH
MASTER PLAN GOALS
The Flying Dog Ranch is 244 acres located in the Woody Creek Valley as
shown on the Location Map. Mr. Stranahan purchased the property in 1968. Mr.
Stranahan has been "cleaning-up" his estate planning on his various Woody Creek
properties for several years and the Flying Dog Ranch, where George & Patty live.
is one of the last properties he needs to resolve concerning his estate planning. The
Flying Dog Ranch is very dear to George, and his original goals for the ranch were
the following:
A. George's Original Goals for Flvinl!: Dog Ranch
1. Pass the ranch to his Estate without selling or subdividing.
2. Create a ranch operating endowment using TDR's.
3. If Estate or heirs should sell the ranch. restrictions are in-place.
Unfortunately, the Pitkin County Land Use Code and the Master Plan and
Land Use Application submitled July 4, 2003, were not able to fully achieve the
2:oals listed above. However. bv working together. Pitkin Countv and Mr.
'- . -' <.- ~. -'
FlyDogRanchII066/\mendMastcrPlan
2
,.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
('
f
t
f
t
f
.
'"
.
.!I
.,1
.,1
.'1,
II
'I
e
..
""
-
""
,-
'"
e
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
yr .
0
.
..,
)
")
')
)
')
)
)
)
)
~
,
Stranahan have achieved an Amended Master Plan that is still a win-win plan for
both parties as follows:
1. Pass the ranch to his Estate without selling or subdividing. The Amended
Master Plan subdivides the ranch into 4 parcels, but preserves the most
valuable open space of the ranch and limits the development of the ranch.
2. Create a ranch operating endowment using TDR's. The Amended Master
Plan creates a ranch operating endowment by subdividing and selling the
East Mesa Parcel versus the original hope of attaining 11 TDR' s to sell.
,
,
3.
If Estate or heirs should sell the ranch, restrictions are in-place. The
Amended Master Plan accomplishes this goal by "master planning" the
total ranch and extinguishing the Upper Lenado Mining Claims as a single
package.
-
.~
..'-
-
-
-
.-
-
B.
Amended Master Plan Goals
-
-
--
Under the Amended Master Plan, George would like to accomplish the following
additional goals.
-
-
-
-
1.
Preserve as much open space as possible and limit the development of the
ranch.
.-.
-
.-
...
o
o
o
.
.
.
C
C>
o
2. Preserve the most visually important South Parcel as open space as a
legacy to the Woody Creek Valley.
3. Subdivide and sell the East Mesa Parcel to create an operating endowment
for the ranch. Design the driveway to the east mesa so it will have minimal
visibility from Woody Creek Road and the neighboring Circle R Ranch.
III. AMENDED MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
.-.
...
The ranch is proposed to be divided into 4 parcels as shown on the Master Plan
Map and as described below:
o
.-
-
I. PARCEL #1 NORTH PARCEL. 63 Ac. The North Parcel is where
George and Patty live and contains all the existing residential structures and most
of the agricultural structures on the property. The 4 existing residential structures
are:
.-
-
.-
-
.-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
FlyDogRanch 11 066AmendMasterPlan
3
o
4~
"..
FlyDogRanch 11 Oh6AmendMaslerPlan
4
(
(
(
(
(
(
r
f
,
,
.
.
.1
.1
.1
.1
.'
.'
.'
.'
.'
.'
.
~
,...
.
C
C
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~'Q .
#!It
a. Main House
b. Straw Bale House
c. Ranch Manager House
d. Historic Homestead Cabin
The 4 structures have been legalized. The applicant is proposing the
following for the North Parcel:
a. A maximum of 15,000 sf. FAR for the parcel
b. The flexibility to allocate the 15,000 sf. among the 4 structures as
he/she chooses
c. The ability to rebuild, expand or relocate the structures within the
North Parcel building envelope
d. No single structure can exceed 10,000 sf. FAR
e. The historic homestead cabin & agricultural buildings shall be
excluded from the 15,000 sq. FAR
2. PARCEL #2 EAST MESA PARCEL. 58 Ac. This parcel is
proposed for one (I) single-family home up to 10,750 sf. FAR. A caretaker unit is
optional at the discretion ofthe lot owner. Agricultural buildings are excluded
from the 10,750 sf. FAR. The future lot owner shall also rctain the right to apply
for designation as a TDR Receiving Area for up to 15,000 sf. FAR.
3. PARCEL #3 WEST MESA PARCEL. 35 Ac. This parcel shall
be Deed-Restricted prohibiting residential structures. Agricultural structures and
operations (including horses) shall be permitted. The parcel may be sold separately
with the Deed-Restriction running with the land.
4. PARCEL #4 SOUTH PARCEL. 88 Ac. This parcel shall be
Deed-Restricted prohibiting residential structures. Agricultural structures and
operations (including horses) shall be permitted. The parcel may bc sold separately
with the Deed-Restriction running with the land.
~ UPPER LENADO MINING CLAIMS. The Amended Master Plan
includes the "resolution" of the Upper Lenado Mining Claims owned by Mr.
Stranahan. The mining claims consist of 33 claims grouped into 5 legally separate
parcels containing 33 I acres. The mining claims "potentially could" qualify for 6
TDR's based on information previously submitted to the Planning Office. Mr.
Stranahan purchased the mining claims in 1970 and 1972, and voluntarily placed a
Conservation Easement on the mining claims in ]978 (Argenta Claim excluded
and has a pre-existing small cabin). The debatable point on the mining claims is
the legal validity of the 1978 Conservation Easement. The 197R easement was one
of the earliest Conservation Easements in the state and is not as tightly written
~
')
')
)
)
)
)
')
')
')
')
I~
r"
,.,
,,)
10
I.)
{~
compared to today's Conservation Easements and could be subject to legal
challenge. Both Mr. Stranahan and the County Commissioners are desirous to
resolve this '"loose end" of the mining claims in a cooperative manner as
previously discussed and as outlined below:
I. Three (3) TDR's from the mining claims will be internally transferred and
applied to the development of the East Mesa Parcel.
2. A small portion (541 sf.) of 1 TDR will be internally transferred to increase
the maximum FAR of the North Parcel from 14,459 sf. to 15,000 sf. The balance
of the TDR (1,959 sf.) will be extinguished by an appropriate legal document
approved by the County Attorney.
3. The remaining 2 TDR's will be extinguished by an appropriate legal
document approved by the County Attorney
"'"'
--
4. Mr. Stranahan is also willing to transfer '"fee simple" ownership of the
mining claims to the U.S. Forest Service, Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Land Tmst
or other conservation entity if this is desired by Pitkin County (Argenta Claim and
existing cabin excluded).
o
"'"
'-'
IV, MASTER PLANNING CHRONOLOGY
~
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
Q
C
o
.
.
C
o
&>
C
Mr. Stranahan purchased the property in 1968. The master planning
chronology for the Flying Dog Ranch is given helow:
Sept., 2002 -
TDR application for Upper Lenado Mining Claims. Six (6)
TDR's proposed to be used to fund conservation etTorts on
Flying Dog Ranch.
May,2003
County Commissioners table decision on TDR application for
Upper Lenado Mining Claims and ask Mr. Stranahan to
submit a joint Master Plan application for the Flying Dog
Ranch and Upper Lenado Mining Claims.
July, 2003
Mr. Stranahan submits joint Flying Dog Ranch and Upper
Lenado Mining Claims application.
.Ian. 14&
Mar. 10. 2004
County Commissioners public hearings on joint Master Plan
application. Commissioners table application and ask Mr.
Stranahan to amend the application to remove the request for
Transitional Rural & Remote rezoning for TDR' s for
agricultural lands.
FlyDogRanl:hl10h6^mendMasterPlnn
5
jl
March, 2004 -
Mr. Stranahan deals with legalizing the existing residential
June, 2006 structures on the ranch; acquiring a Quit Claim
Deed to a small land sliver encroaching into South Parcel; and
processing a Lot Line Adjustment to secure access to East
Mesa Parcel.
Nov., 2006
Amended Master Plan application submitted incorporating
prior County Commissioners' comments.
V. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Flying Dog Ranch is 244 acres, zoned RS-20 PUD, and bisected by
Woody Creek Road as shown on the Existing Conditions Map. Based on research
previously reviewed with the Planning Office and County Engineer, the Woody
Creek Road, which was built in the mid-1890's, is owned in "fee title" by the
Woody Creek Toll Road Co., a defunct corporation, or Pitkin County (see Exhibit
4 for Title Opinion on road), and subdivides the ranch into two legal parcels, i.e.
the North Parcel and South Parcel. These parcels are quantified below.
North South Total
Parcel Parcel Ranch
Gross Acreage 156.0 ac. 88.0 ac. 244.0 ac.
Woody Creek Road Deduct 1.8 .7 - 2.5
Woody Creek Stream Deduct .0 - 1.5 1.5
Steep Slopes Deduct ------.Jl ------.Jl .0
Net Zoning Acreage 154.2 ac. 85.8 ac. 240.0 ac.
RS-20 Zoning 20.0 ac. 20.0 ac. 20.0 ac.
Net Zoning Density 7.7 units 4.3 units 12.0 units
North Parcel. All of the existing residential structures and most of the
agricultural buildings are located in the "valley floor" of the North Parcel. The east
mesa and west mesa of the North Parcel are irrigated fields.
South Parcel. The South Parcel is bisected by the Woody Creek stream and is
mostly irrigated fields. A few old agricultural buildings are located along Woody
Creek Road. The south end of the parcel is a steep mesa wall which rises to the
upper mesa of Starwood Ranch.
FlyDogRanch 11 066AmendMasterPlan
6
-
(
(
(
(
r
,
(\
r
\,
(
C'i
..
('I
t:l
..
.~
tl
~l
~
cr,
C111
C~:~
"""
....",
-,
..,
-
..'
-
"
"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IV C
"\ C
..
"')
')
')
')
')
')
')
')
)
i)
II;)
i)
i)
1)
VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PARCELS
1. PARCEL #1 NORTH PARCEL
The North Parcel is 63 acres and contains 4 existing residential structures
and several agricultural structures as shown on the Existing Structures Map. The 4
residential structures have been "Building Code" legalized and are listed below.
" .,
I,
"
"
('
"..
,..
,'..
"
,..
-
w
-
...,
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
.-,
-
o
o
o
o
-
-
-
-
-
-
c
o
Q
Existing
A. Existin2 Residential Units Sq, Ft.
1. Main House 6,175 sf.
2. Straw Bale House 1,533 sf.
3. Ranch Manager House 2,960 sf.
4. Historic Homestead Cabin 942 sf.
11,610 sf.
The 4 residential units are "GMQS" legalized as outlined below.
B.
Existin2 Residential Units
GMQS
Buildin2 Ri2ht
1.
Main House
- Pre-1978 North Parcel
GMQS Exemption
I bldg. right @
2.
Straw Bale House
- Transfer South Parcel Pre-1978
GMQS Exemption to North Parcel
1 bldg. right @
3.
Ranch Manager House
- Pre-1978 existing structure
1 bldg. right @
4.
Historic Homestead Cabin
- Pre-1978 existing structure
1 bldg. right @
Sub-Total
4 bldg. rights @
5.
Internal Transfer of I TDR (fractional)
fr. Upper Lenado Mining Claim
plus
FlyDogRanch 11 066AmendMasterPlan
7
GMQS
Sq. Ft.
5,750 sf.
5.750 sf.
2,017 sf.
(pre-1978 sf.)
942 sf.
(pre-1978 sf.)
14.459 sf.
541 sf.
15.000 sf. FAR
1J
-
The Amended Master Plan proposes the following for the North Parcel.
a. A maximum of] 5,000 sf. FAR for the parcel.
b. The flexibility to allocate the 15,000 sf. among the 4 structures as
he/she wishes.
c. The ability to rebuild, expand or relocate the structures within the
North Parcel building envelope.
d. No single structure can exceed 10,000 sf. FAR
e. The historic homestead cabin & agricultural buildings shall be
excluded from the] 5,000 sf. FAR.
GMQS
Buildine: Rie:ht
GMQS
SQ. Ft.
(
!
(
(
()
(
(
(I
.1
.'1
..
..
..
..
"I
t'll
C:~I
Ctl
1""
",
"',
,..
,"'"
,,,
e
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~~ 0
.
The ]5,000 sf. FAR maximum build out for the North Parcel is requested to
keep the "numbers" simple and hopefully make it easier to track in the future. The
] 5,000 sf. FAR is achieved by taking the] 4,459 sf. GMQS "base" shown prior
and adding 541 sf. from the internal transfer of a small portion of] TOR from the
Upper Lenado Mining Claims. The balance of the 1,959 sf. trom the TOR of the
Upper Lenado Mining Claim will be extinguished.
2. PARCEL #2 EAST MESA PARCEL
The East Mesa parcel is 58 acres and one (1) single-family home up to
] 0,750 sf. FAR is proposed. A caretaker unit is optional at the discretion of the lot
owner. Agricultural buildings are excluded from the 10.750 sf. FAR. The future
~ ~
lot owner shall also retain the right to apply for designation as a TOR Receiving
Area for up to 15.000 sf. FAR.
The] 0.750 sf. FAR is proposed through the internal transfer on TOR's
from the Upper Lenado Mining Claims as follows:
1.
GMQS Building Right
Internal Transfer of 1st Lenado TOR
I bldg. right @
5.750 sf.
')
~.
FAR Square Footage Increase
Internal Transfer of 2nd & 3rd
Lenado TOR's
o bldg. right @
5.000 sf.
10,750 sf.
FlyDogRanch II ()6():'\mendM;:JsterPlan
8
"")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
')
)
)
; :)
The key issue for the East Mesa Parcel is driveway access. Three (3) access
alternatives are shown on the East Mesa Parcel Driveway Alternatives Map and
are briefly described below:
, "
, ",
A. Alternative # I - Historic Ranch Road. There is a historic ranch road to the
east mesa parcel which provides access off Woody Creek Road. The applicant has
examined upgrading the historic ranch road to meet Pitkin County standards, but
feels upgrading the historic road is not the best solution. Upgrading the historic
road would result in significant road cuts, retaining walls and vegetation
disturbance which would be highly visible from Woody Creek Road and
especially visible from the neighboring Circle R Ranch.
"
",
B. Alternative #2 - Proposed Road. Applicant feels the best access to the east
mesa parcel is a blended solution of upgrading the lower portion of the historic
ranch road and constructing a new upper portion of the road which would not be
visible from Woody Creek Road and only limited visibility fi'om Circle R Ranch.
The new road construction would be located in a "natural draw" which would
basically hide the road from view. The new construction would still require
significant road cuts, retaining walls and vegetation disturbance but this work
would be hidden from public view.
"
'1"
,
',,11#1
'.i<f/I
-
,""
'...
"
,""
....
.,
C. Alternative #3 - Access through North Parcel. There is an existing rough
access road to the east mesa parcel through the North Parcel. Mr. Stranahan does
not wish to use this access because it negatively impacts the privacy of the North
Parcel. would require the Straw Bale House be demolished. and upgrading the
road to meet County Standards would require significant road cuts. retaining walls
and vegetation disturbance which would be highly visible from Woody Creek
Road.
....
-
"
-
-
"'"
o
.
.
.
.
.
o
Detailed road plans, profiles and sections on the driveway alternatives have
been submitted separately to the Planning Otlice.
-
Mr. Stranahan feels the Proposed Access Alternative #2 is the best solution
because it is basically "out of sight, out of mind" As noted earlier. one ofMr.
Stranahan's goals is to have a road to the east mesa parcel which has virtually no
visibility from Woody Creek Road and only minimal visibility fi'om the
neighboring Circle R Ranch. The Proposed Access is the only alignment that
achieves this goal.
,..
.....
-
-
-
~
,~
o
o
Q
-
-
FlyDogRanch 11 O()6AmendMasterPlan
9
-
\wi
o
51
-
3. PARCEL #3 WEST MESA PARCEL
FlyDogR<111Ch 11066ArnendMastcrPlan
10
(
(
,
"
(
(
("
f'
(
r
t
t
..
"
.
.1'
.'
..
.
.
.
.
C
C
"',
",..
C
~,
C'i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c:
4~ Q
e
This parcel is 35 acres and will be Deed-Restricted prohibiting residential
structures. Agricultural structures and operations (including horses) shall be
permitted. The parcel may be sold separately with the Deed-Restriction running
with the land.
4. PARCEL #4 SOUTH PARCEL
This parcel is 88 acres and will be Deed-Restricted prohibiting residential
structures. Agricultural structures will be permitted in the Building Envelope
along Woody Creek Road. Agricultural operations (including horses) will be
permitted. The parcel may be sold separately with the Deed-Restriction running
with the land.
Mr. Stranahan is pleased to preserve the South Parcel as open space as a
legacy to Woody Creek. This parcel is highly visible from Woody Creek Road and
is a key parcel in maintaining the agricultural-pastoral character of the Woody
Creek Valley. The preservation of the South Parcel is a major benefit to Pitkin
County.
VII. LAND USE CODE STANDARDS
A. GMOS EXEMPTION FOR PRE-1978 PARCELS (Section 9-110-051)
Under Code Section 9-110-051. applicant requests the following:
One (1) GMQS exempted building right for the North Parcel
One (I) GMQS exempted building right for the South Parcel
To transfer South Parcel GMQS building right to North Parcel
The North and South Parcels are divided into 2 legal parcels by Woody
Creek Road. ^ 60 foot strip of land for the road was purchased by the Woody
Creek Toll Road Co. in 189 L and the road was thereafter built in the mid-1890's
and subsequently, the Woody Creek Toll Road Co. went into f()[eclosure in the
late 1890's. The "fee title" to the land is still held by the Woody Creek Toll Road
Co. as a defunct corporation, or the County Engineer thinks Pitkin County may
have some ownership claims to the road. However, it is clear Mr. Stranahan
doesn't own the 60 foot strip ofland as stated in the Title Opinion in Exhibit 4.
'"'
)
)
)
')
)
')
')
')
')
')
')
:)
.~
il)
10
~)
The South Parcel GMQS exempted building right is requested to be
transferred to the North Parcel under Code Section 9-] 10-051 (8). The transfer
complies with the criteria of Code Section 9-110-051(8).
B.
SPECIAL REVIEW
(Section 3-210)
Under Code Section 3-2]0, applicant requests the following:
To transfer South Parcel GMQS exempted building right to North
Parcel
To transfer] Transferable Development Right (TDR) from Upper
Lenado Mining Claim to North Parcel
To transfer 3 Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) trom Upper
Lenado Mining Claim to East Mesa Parcel
To extinguish 2 Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) trom
Upper Lenado Mining Claim
"""
-.,tII
-
Code Standards & Criteria for Special Review
Code Sections 3-2] 0-020 are addressed below:
'...
.-
'''''
,-
A.
The special review use shall consider the applicable Coun(l' Master Plan.
.."
-
..,
~
To the applicant's best knowledge. the application complies with the
applicable County Master Plan. The application "resolves" two key
properties in the Woody Creek Valley, i.e. Flying Dog Ranch and Upper
Lenado Mining Claims. The application limits development on the Flying
Dog Ranch, preserves the visually important South Parcel as open space.
allows the creation of an operating endowment for the North Parcel, and
resolves the conservation status of the Upper Lenado Mining Claims.
"'"
...
o
.
.
.
.
.
o
o
c
c
B.
The special review use shall not conflict with allY applicable sections of
the Pitkill County Lalld Use Code, includillg the County Land Use
Policies in Article 2.
-.
To the applicant's best knowledge, the application does not cont1ict
with any applicable sections of the Pitkin County Land Use Code other than
the necessity for the proposed driveway to the East Mesa Parcel to cross the
steep side slopes of the mesa. However. any driveway to the parcel will
require crossing the steep side slopes of the mesa. and the applicant feels the
proposed driveway is the least visible, most "out of sight. out of mind"
alignment.
-
...
-.
-
...
-
...
-.
-
-.
-
-
'<oil
C
o
rlyDogRanch 11066AmendMasterPlan
II
{l
~.
FlyDogRanch] I066Arncndl\1asterPkm
12
('
('
(
(
(
!
"
(
!
"
!
"
(
('
c:
."
t
t
.,1
.'
.,
('I
('I
C'I
'"
"
"".
"
-
'"
C
c
e
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
~i .
e
The application "resolves" two key properties in the Woody Creek
Valley, i.e. Flying Dog Ranch and Upper Lenado Mining Claims. The
application limits development on the Flying Dog Ranch, preserves the
visually important South Parcel as open space, allows the creation of an
operating endowment for the North Parcel, and resolves the conservation
status of the Upper Lenado Mining Claims.
C. The special review use shall be consistent with the intent of the Zone
District in which it is proposed to be located.
The applicant feels the application is consistent with the RS-20
PUD zoning of the Flying Dog Ranch. The application limits
development on the Flying Dog Ranch significantly below its RS-20
zoning, preserves the visually important South Parcel as open space. and
allows the creation of an operating endowment for the North Parcel.
D. The special review use shall be compatihle with the character of the
immediate vicini(v oft/Ie parcel proposedfor development and
surrounding land uses, or shall enhance the mixture of complimentary
uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposedfor
development.
The applicant feels the application is compatible with the
character of the surrounding vicinity. The application limits
development on the Flying Dog Ranch significantly below its RS-20
zoning, preserves the visually important South Parcel as open space. and
allows the creation of an operating endowment for the North Parcel.
E. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
special review use must be in harmony with the surrounding area and
minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, traffic generation, parking,
trash, service delivery, air/water po{{ution or other impacts on natural
resources, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties.
The applicant feels the application is in harmony with the
surrounding area and minimizes adverse etTects. The application limits
development on the Flying Dog Ranch significantly below its RS-20
zoning. preserves the visually important South Parcel as open space. and
allows the creation of an operating endowment for the North Parcel.
F. There must be adequate public facilities and services to serve the
special review use, including but not limited to roads, potable water,
~
)
)
')
")
i
")
')
)
)
)
sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical
sen,ices, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools.
The applicant feels there are adequate public facilities and
service to serve the proposed uses.
G. An application for a special review use must demonstrate to the Board
of County COlllmissioners that the proposed development will not:
,
,
,
1. materially endanger the public health, safety or welfare; and
2. substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting
proper(v.
.
"
,;
The applicant feels the proposed plan and uses will not endanger
the public health. safety or welfare, and will not injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property.
..
,"'"
",
",
-,
'..,
,"'"
'I",
c.
CONCEPTUAL SUBMISSION
(Section 2)
,
".,;11'"
"
1.
Article 2, Land Use Policies
",,#
"-"
-
o
~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
o
Q
To the applicant's best knowledge, the application complies with all of
the Article 2. Land Use Policies other than the necessity for the proposed
driveway to the East Mesa Parcel to cross the steep side slopes of the mesa.
However, any driveway ,to the parcel will require crossing the steep side slopes
of the mesa. and the applicant feels the proposed driveway is the least visible.
most "out of sight, out of mind" alignment.
The application "resolves" two key properties in the Woody Creek
Valley, i.e. Flying Dog Ranch and Upper Lenado Mining Claims. The
application limits development on the Flying Dog Ranch. preserves the
visually important South Parcel as open space. allows the creation of an
operating endowment for the North Parcel. and resolves the conservation status
of the Upper Lenado Mining Claims.
2. Section 3-60, Environmental & Aesthetic Standards
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-60 other than the
necessity for the proposed driveway to the East Mesa Parcel to cross the steep side
slopes of the mesa. However, any driveway to the parcel will require crossing the
steep side slopes of the mesa, and the applicant feels the proposed driveway is the
least visible. most "out of sight. out of mind'" alignment
FlyDogRanch IIOCl6AmendMastcrPlan
]3
5~
The application limits development on the Flying Dog Ranch, preserves
the visually important South Parcel as open space, allows the creation of an
operating endowment for the North Parcel, and resolves the conservation status of
the Upper Lenado Mining Claims. The application limits development
significantly below the RS-20 zoning, is consistent with the surrounding area and
adds to the conservation efforts of the adjoining Craig Family and Circle R Ranch
properties. The East Mesa homesite is not visible from any public view, and the
proposed driveway is basically "out of sight, out of mind."
3. Section 3-70, Water Resources
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-70. Collins Creek
runs north-south through the Building Envelope of the North Parcel. Any new
structures in the North Parcel will be set back 20 feet from the creek. Woody
Creek runs east-west through the South Parcel. The South Parcel is preserved as
open space. The Building Envelope of the South Parcel (for agricultural buildings
only) is set back 500 feet from Woody Creek. No other streams flow through the
property.
The water rights historically used on the irrigated lands of the property will
be allocated according to their historic use.
D.
1041 HAZARD REVIEW
(Section 3-80)
1. Section 3-80-040, Floodplain
Not applicable. No 100 year floodplain areas are mapped for the
property. Woody Creek crosses the South Parcel and the Building
Envelope of the South Parcel (for agricultural buildings only) is setback
500 feet from Woody Creek.
2. Section 3-80-050, Geolol!:ic Hazard Areas
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-80-050
other than the necessity for the proposed driveway to the East Mesa
Parcel to cross the steep side slopes of the mesa as described herein.
The 1041 Geologic Hazard Map identifies the "valley floor"' of
the North Parcel as an alluvial fan. The valley floor encompasses the
Building Envelope and is basically flat land. The existing structures are
built in the valley floor on basically flat land. The existing structures are
f1yDogRanch 11 066AmendMasterPlan
14
-
, ,
(
(
("
("'
f
C' "
'II
'I'
.n
.+
'1,
.~
~
'1
..
..
C'I'
('1'
~
'",
,..
..,
"""
..
,..
..
,..
..
-
-
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\~f'J .
.
"')
")
')
)
.,
. .,
.:)
.:',)
,:)
I')
"
I:;)
I::'
the best "proof' that the valley floor is a good place to build - - i.e.. the
homestead cabin was built in the 1890's and has had no problems: the
original ranch manager cabin was built in the I 930's and has had no
problems; and the main house was built in the 1970's and has had no
problems.
.."...
The East Mesa Parcel is tree of any mapped geologic hazards
other than the steep side slopes of the mesa. The Building Envelope is
on the upper flat land of the mesa. The proposed driveway for the parcel
does cross the steep side slopes and will require significant road cuts,
retaining walls and re-vegetation. H-P Geotech, soils engineers, has field
inspected the proposed driveway alignment and their report has been
given to the Planning Office along with detailed plans, profiles and
sections for the proposed driveway. Any driveway to the East Mesa
Parcel will require crossing the steep side slopes of the mesa. and the
applicant feels the proposed driveway is the least visible, most "out of
sight, out of mind" alignment. As noted earlier. this is the only
alignment which has virtuallv no visibilitv from Woodv Creek Road and
...... -' -' ~
limited visibility from the neighboring Circle R Ranch.
""I
1'1 ~"
,0111,,\
"III'
,"~
,...
''''
-
.....
-
.....
,,~
.....
-
3,
Section 3-80-060, Historical & Archaeological Resource Areas
..,
o
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
&)
&)
o
o
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-80-060.
The Historic Homestead Cabin (Structure # 4 on Existin2 Conditions
Map) was inventoried as part of the Pitkin County Reconnaissance
Survey, 1999, by the Colorado Historical Society. This report has been
submitted to the Planning Office under separate cover. The cabin was
estimated to be constructed in the 1890's and was the original
homestead cabin for the property. The original cabin has been added
onto several times over the ensuing years. To the best knowledge ofMr.
Stranahan, the cabin has not been formally designated or listed on any
Pitkin County or State of Colorado registry of historic structures.
Mr. Stranahan would like to keep and continue to use the cabin
as he has done since he purchased the property in 1968. Mr. Stranahan's
only concern is that any historic designation is not too burdensome or
overly bureaucratic.
4.
Section 3-80-070, Wildfire Hazard Areas
-.
..,
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-80-070.
The 1041 Wildfire Map delineates the North Parcel Building Envelope
as low wildfire area. This makes common scnse becausc the North
-.
.,.
-.
w
-
...
-.
.,.
~
FlyDogRanch Il066AmendMasterPlan
15
~\
-
Parcel valley floor is basically flat land vegetated with native grasses,
cottonwoods and aspens.
,
The 1041 Wildfire Map delineates the East Mesa Parcel Building
Envelope as low wildfire hazard. Art Hougland, Wildfire Consultant,
field inspected Building Envelope on October 23, 2006 and also rated it
as low wildfire hazard. His report is given in Exhibit 5. His primary
recommendation was that the Building Envelope be setback from the
western side of the mesa slopes as follows: - - - 150' setback from top of
steep slopes (50% clc) and 50' setback from gamble oak vegetation edge.
Mr. Hougland was less concerned about the eastern side of the mesa
slopes and vegetation edge because of the uphill orientation ofthe
eastern side. The Building Envelope complies with these setbacks.
1. Mr. Wright, from a wildlife point of view, would prefer the east
mesa not be developed and that the proposed homesite be
relocated to the South Parcel. As briefly discussed at the January
and March 2004 public hearings with the County Commissioners,
the Commissioners must balance the competing "public
objectives" in preserving the South Parcel as visually important
open space against the development of the East Mesa Parcel
which has no public visibility. Mr. Stranahan strongly feels
preserving the South Parcel as open space is important to
preserving the agricultural-pastoral character of the Woody Creek
Valley and does not wish to see development occur on the South
Parcel.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(I
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
fit
fI
(I
C'~
5. Section 3-80-080, Wildlife Habitat Area
Jim Curtis and Kevin Wright, Co. Division of Wildlife officer,
did a field inspection on August 25, 2006, to inspect the East Mesa
Parcel. Mr. Wright observed that the sage and oak hillsides of the mesa
were more important to wildlife than the irrigated pasture land. Due to
the amount of irrigated pasture land on the mesa, Mr. Curtis understood
that the mesa would generally be considered as elk and deer winter
range but not critical elk and deer habitat. Mr. Wright stated the
following preferences to Mr. Curtis.
,.-
\il';
,....
"
.-
,
-
",.
.-
...'
FI) DogRanch 11 066AmendMasterPlan
16
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\1/ _
2. Mr. Wright would prefer the east mesa homesite be located away
from the eastern edge of the sage and oak vegetation line of the
mesa and to the south of the mesa. Based on these comments,
Mr. Curtis has rclocated and reconfigured the homesite to better
<II)
)
)
)
)
I)
address these preferences. Mr. Curtis hopes he has found a
workable middle ground.
~I')
3.
Mr. Wright would prefer the driveway to the east mesa be the
Alternative #3 - "Driveway Through the North Parce!." As
noted, Mr. Stranahan opposes this alignment because it impacts
the privacy of the North Parcel, would require the Straw Bale
House be demolished, and would require signiticant road cuts.
retaining walls, and vegetation disturbance that would be hi ghlv
'-- <..- '- '"
visible from Woody Creek Road. The Proposed Driveway
Alignment (Alternative #2) is the only alignment with basically
no visibility from Woody Creek Road and only limited visibility
from the neighboring Circle R Ranch. This alignment is "out of
sight, out of mind" and is felt to be the least distributive
alignment.
II)
I )
)
\
I
,
" I
" ,
,
"""
.....,'"
'''.1#
."""
'Il"",,,
."'"
Mr. Stranahan understands and appreciates Mr. Wright's
comments representing a wildlife point of view. However. Mr.
Stranahan feels the County Commissioners must evaluate the overall
bene tits of the Amended Master Plan and balance the competing public
objectives. In total, the Amended Master Plan "resolves" two key
properties in the Woody Creek Valley. i.e. the Flying Dog Ranch and
Upper Lenado Mining Claims; limits development on the ranch
significantly below its RS-20 zoning; preserves the visually important
South Parcel as open space; and resolves the conservation status of the
Upper Lenado Mining Claims. The Amended Master Plan also proposes
the best driveway alignment to the East Mesa Parcel with the least
amount of public visibility from Woody Creek Road and the adjoining
Circle R Ranch which are very important goals for Mr. Stranahan.
'4l1li1'"
..,
"..
."
....
,,,
-
-
.....
-
.."
-
-
-
"."
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
o
Q
6.
Section 3-110. Improvements & Services
Applicant feels the application complies with Section 3-110 and
will result in limited demands on public facilities and services.
The North Parcel existing domestic water is provided as follows:
. 1 well
Main House
1970's well wlpermit
Ranch Mtg. House. Historic Cabin & Barn
1930's well wino paperwork
Straw Bale House
No paperwork
-
-
. 1 well
-
..
-
-
. 1 spring
-
-
-
-
o
Q
.
FlyDogRanch I I066AmendMasterPlan
17
~~
IX. VESTED RIGHTS FOR 15 YEARS
(Section 4-140)
,..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
C I
( I
C'
'1
"1
,.,
...
..
.~
..
..
..
..
..
..
"
t""
, .
,..
,
,...,
-,
(:")
c
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
'n\ \or
-
_.
The North Parcel existing septic is provided as follows:
. 1 septic
Main House
1970's septic w/permit
Ranch Mtg. House & Historic Cabin
2000's septic w/permit
Straw Bale House
2000's septic w/permit
. 1 septic
. 1 septic
The East Mesa Parcel homesite will be serviced by individual
well and septic. Other utilities will be buried in the driveway.
VIII. INCENTIVES FOR PRESERVATION
OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES
(Section 9-110-043)
As provided under Code Section 9-110-043. the applicant requests the
Historic Homestead Cabin be exempted trom GMQS, minimum lot size per
dwelling unit RS-20 zoning standard. and FAR.
Applicant requests vesting for 15 years. The 15 year vesting gives Mr.
Stranahan and the family an extended period to continue to work on his estate
planning without undue time pressures. The extended vesting period would he
consistent with the extended periods granted by the County Commissioners in
other estate and family planning situations. For example. the adjoining Craig
Ranch received a vesting period of 15 years and the Childs Ranch received a
vesting period of 20 years.
FlyDogRanch II 066^mendMasterPlan
18
~
)
)
)
)
)
I)
I)
.; )
,)
:)
X.
ZONING DENSITY REDUCTIONS
The zoning density reductions are given below:
,
North South Total
Summary Parcel Parcel Ranch
Gross Acreage 156.0 ac. RR.O ac. 244.0 ac.
Woody Creek Road Deduct 1.8 .7 7 "
~.)
Woody Creek Stream Deduct .0 1.5 1.5
Steep Slopes Deduct .0 .0 .0
Net Zoning Acreage 154.2 ac. 85.8 ac. 240.0 ac.
North South Total
Steep Slopes Calculations Parcel Parcel Ranch
Slopes Over 45% 21.6 ac. 17.5 ac. 39.1 ac.
Gross Acreage 156.0 88.0 244.0
13.8 % 19.8 0;', 16.0 %
less than less than less than
30% threshold 30% threshold 30% threshold
of Code of Code of Code
n
, ,
, ,
,
..
",
.,
'.
"
~,,'"
.....
......,
.....
-
--
--
-
--
-
XI. CONCLUSION
-
o
o
o
o
o
-
w
""
-
Mr. Stranahan feels the Amended Master Plan retlects the public hearing
discussions held before the County Commissioners on January 14 and March 10.
2004. As chronicled herein, Mr. Stranahan has been working on his estate
planning and master planning of the Flying Dog Ranch and {Tpper Lenado Mining
Claims for approximately 4 'is years. This has been a long process. hut Mr.
Stranahan feels the Amended Master Plan achieves most of his original goals and
is consistent with the land use goals and objectives of Woody Creek and Pitkin
County. The plan "resolves" two key properties in the Woody Creek Valley. limits
development on the Flying Dog Ranch. preserves the visually important South
Parcel as open space, allows the creation of an operating endowment for the North
Parcel, and resolves the conservation status of the Upper Lenado Mining Claims.
Mr. Stranahan feels the Amended Master Plan is a good plan which is consistent
with and respectful of the surrounding neighbors. the Woody Creek Valley and
Pitkin County. Mr. Stranahan looks forward to working with the County
Commissioners on the plan.
c
""
"'"
o
o
c
o
o
-,
"""
-
....
""
"""
Q
FlyDogRanch II06nAmendMastcrPlan
19
~7
-
j
,
,
...
,.J
,;
,"
I,,,
,"
",
"..
,,,
,"
.4'
-.
-
.'-
-
-
....,
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
c
c
0
.
.
Q -
.....'
..",
-
-
-
w
0
M~S & lUustration~
'l
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
,
,
..
,
~
"
,
..
,
..
"
"
"
"
'"
.,
~I'"
,.,
",.,
,,""
",.,
~t
~I~
~I
.11
41)
~:)
II)
l~
f'""
\,-
f'""
,,-
,~
-
".
-
'....
.-
.....
,-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
w..,q Cmk
"
Wildeet Ranch
-
2643
17
__r.
tindt_l000feet
,
-
1.-,. >>. ~
-'"
Jlllphyo1>tJ.II;Ya.do>Grnooood
~1
~
,
)
.--
\
I
I
I
.
,
I
\
I
I
I
I
)
/
(
)
)
)
)
~
')
I;)
;)
)
:,
., ,
,
:,
.)
"1
1""-
"-I;
-.
\" ~
\~fl
(\ .
\r~ .
,~~ If~
.""kY ,
~\ \ 1\ .
~~I\ (~I i -~
'~\I,-: "-
1~\0; .\ ~ ~,
,,,,,,,' 'T' )
~\'II\:\~'l, ~
~\~'\\:' '" \\l\ ~ '- ~
;:\\\'\\"\::\' l'-"--"
,~\\~\\},,, ,,,-,"'---
>\\ ~~'\..~,,:-.. "" '- "
~~~'\~ ", \, ,"- '-:::- ,-" J ./
'!..~ \! ","I. ",~_:::.~_-..____.J ~
~ ~,,, ,~,"""~,---:::----;:----:::.""------~~ ,.' '1-
~ ~~,':ZJ,' .;::--.....:: "'-"~ -- ----. --
~~"".,'~,~ \.' -:;~ -.. -.., '- / ...-
\~~~~~~s:~~~",,";;:-'-~:::"'" '-_/ /' :,-
'i~~~~\" ,,,'\\,\,-,, ,,, "- ,~ "'- ./
~I~'*~\~~~~~'-""':::"'~'~ ,,', ..........----'---/ //1
~,\ &.\\\~~:"'" ..::::-",~ ~ " '- ./
~~,J:~~~\'~~~~\~," "",- ~,', ",', ..-/ /'
~1~'%\\~\\\~~~~ \,\""",,,,,'\ \" '- " - /--.
I~"l~\\\\\~~\~ ,\1,.1"\'\ "~,,,\ '- -,:.......,," ./ -t
~IW>\\:-: \''''\'-0''-''--''''''''-/''''
"\\\\\\\\\\\\~ ~~'\~~~:\-" ',-'-:: ~~ - .""~.
.\\ \ '--~~,~~~:;'~=:---':;'5-~~",; .0-
. --- ,-~",--,~\... t
--,
-,
~ If'
.......
""."
,"
-.,
'"''
CIRCLE R RANCH
,,'
,",
-
....
....
-
:)
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
Q
C
.
C
o
o
:>
Q
flying Dog Ranch = 244 Acres + 1-
ItfSJDfHTIAL STRUctURES
I. Main House
2. Stral"lllaleHQ<lS<'
3. Ranch ManagerHouS<'
..HlsloricCabin
AGRlCULlRAL/ACCESSORY
STRUCfURES
5.Pa(ldleTennIf;Court
6.Stor<lgeBlllldlng
7.1'<:101
8. PumpHoUSl'l
9.P\ayHouse
10. Barn
11. Hay Sh~d
12. Abandoned Tra,ler
13. HorseShe\ter
H. Granary
15.SIlOP
16. Machjn~ Shed
17. Tad< Room
18. Ilam
19. Stora9~
20. HaySh....
21. HaySh.,d
I
sm~J"U5IMI~N(}TA""TtMIU'I
.,
I
l
I
......
srAR
MOUNTAIN
~NCH
S'"::NwgjO .......
......
'-.1
UGfI\lO
Property line
hisitingSlructures
-
CJ
V"\l/!Utlon
F.,no:eUn.,s
-.
""'"
II
.....,...".,
....<-.'''''''......-
.........
b1_ree" ........_.......,.....'''''.._-.,.''''.''''.,...''''.''.....'......-....'-
Existinq Conditions
Flying Dog Ranch - Amended Master Plan
lon......,.....'Md.pItIO",O\Inly.-
~
\n<
-
.,00 ,..
,-,...
-.
....
-
...,
)
)
')
')
')
;)
')
~
;)
I'"
I:')
I)
,
.-.
,
I
I
I
I
,
\
\
\
\
\
I
I
"""
"1'
",
'"
'...
'II~
.,
'....
,
'....
'"
'....
--
,
- ,
._""""'.....
,
1
-
"'"
C1RaE R RANCH
.-.
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
.
.
.
o
o
o
I
PARCELS
p~",,.j 11. Nortl> Parcel
Pa,cel#Z-fastMes;>"an:el
Percel #3-WestMe." Parcel
Parcel'.-Soull> Parcel
63 "c +/-
se ac
3S "c.
B6..c.
144 ac..total
SrEOl1JUSJIJT~""""'A""<,'"I1!
I
,
-
...
~
( "M
MOUNTAIN
RANCH
AESIOf-NTlAL STRUCTURES
RANCH
1. MalnlioU$f!
2.St.....B11leHoo""=
3. Ranch Manager HOlJse
4 Hislonceabln
-
WI
'-..J
o
.-.
-
-
WI
LEGEND
PropertyUne
ExisitingStJ1JctUf<lS
.
o
.-.
WI
VegetatIon
Fer>celines
.-.
-
.-.
WI
II
--
m_-...."'........,., '_._'''" ,,"'....,... ,.."'.......,-.......--..-
Flying Dog Ranch - Amended Master Plan
lOO;9..""""~.~'_...''"",........<-..''''
~
-
'W
::"""":"00 ,00
'""'......,...........-..
.-
Master Plan & 1041 Site Plan
.-.
~,
-
.-.
~
"")
)
)
.,
')
')
')
, .,
.,
')
I')
I')
)
}
u
o
.."...
----/;-:::~::-:----:..:-;--
'- _ --:::. -::..;>:: _ }92.0-:-7~OO----
~-.:::::::::10-0/,'-::::::--:.-:,- ---
~ -- -- --..- --
---.........- ..-.............--
-::..,e~-:::-':::/"~-
- -- ----
/ //
::./
150_
,
., ,
,
-;'<b"
..,"....
'"
1".....
"'1'"
...".....
...,
-
.....
-
.....
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
o
Q
o
~ "
7720-
~
~-
"7690~
,
I
"
'>0
,
I
--1680,
"
1\
(j ~
dI
.
o
CIRUERRAIVCH
~
'-)C
LEGEND
PropertyUne
ExlSlt,ngStructu,es
.
a
:( :( l:
-
...
Veg...tation
-.
....
o
~
c
o
.
Fence lines
II
~-
...<....., "."".......-.
.-
East Mesa Parcel Driveway Alternatives
Flyin'g Dog Ranch - Amended Master Plan
,......ody..-"..._"..................-
~
flD
:--'" ,..
,.. tlNItll.....
"'_'""""~''''' .....,., I ._."".....".'" ,,,..,,"..' """"....' _._...........,...
...,
)
)
I)
')
~
,
.,
,
,
:>
()
,
. )
I)
I)
~
\~
.,
'"
,
.w
-
.,.,
-
-
.-
--
.-
....
Q
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<<:>
o
o
<<:>
o
o
o
Exhibits
-
-'
-
~\
EXHIBIT 1
.-
\
)
)
. )
)
)
)
)
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
(Submitted to Planning Office under Separate Cover)
"
.,
"-
"
.,
, '"
"
. "
"
'Ow
w
"
',""
-
',""
-
.",
""
.."
;:;)
~:>>
I'
1:>
1~
4'
41
.
I.
10
o
~
Q
Q
~
~
-
-
-
f\1-
....
,....
"')
)
j
')
j
')
,
,
)
,
I
,
. I
,
I
,
I
...
."
....
."
,
,
,...
.,
."
...
11-'
,''''
\1""
l~
(~
I:)
(~
.
.
.
.
o
o
o
"'-
WI
C
C
--
WI
EXHIBIT 2
FLYING DOG RANGH
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EXHIBIT" A"
A tract ofland being all of Lots 1,2,3,7,10,13, and 22; and part of Lots 8, 9,14,17. and 18, all
in Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85 West ofthe Sixth Principal Meridian, said Tract is
more fully described as follows:
Beginning at the East Quarter Comer of said Section 23 (a red sandstone marked Y. 1913);
thence North 2722.50 feet along the East line of Section 23 to the Northeast Comer of Section
23;
thence North 88046' West 2582.58 feet along the North line of said Section 23 to the Northwest
Comer of Lot 3, Section 23;
thence South 0043' West 2044.78 feet along the West line of Lots 3 and 7 to the Northeast
Comer of said Lot 10;
thence West 1139.98 feet along the North line of Lot 10;
thence South 2013' 2678.94 feet along the West line of said Lots 10, 13, and 22 to a point on the
West line of Lot 22;
thence South 651.00 feet along the West line of Lot 22 being a point on the South line of Section
23;
thence North 89051' East 994.91 feet to the South Y. Comer of said Section 23;
thence North 0043' East 1987.50 feet along the East line of Lot 22 to the Southwest Comer of
said Lot 14;
thence East 88.36 feet along the South line of said Lot 14 to the Northwest Comer of said Lot 17;
thence South 1341.12 feet to the Southwest Comer of said Lot 17;
thence North 7020' East 2230.17 feet;
thence South 83015' East 2266.84 feet to the Point of Beginning.
EXCEPTION THEREFROM a portion of Lot 22, Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian conveyed to Henry L. Stein by Deed recorded October 11,
1963 in Book 204 at Page 276 as Reception No. 11639 I.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM Right of way conveyed unto Woody Creek Toll-Road
Company, a corporation as set forth in deeds recorded September 28, 1891 in Book 93 at Page
289 as Reception No. 43941, and recorded October 3,1891 in Book 93 at Page 292 as Reception
No. 44023 and recorded October 3, 1891 in Book 93 at Page 293 as Reception No. 44024.
TOGETHER WITH that portion of Lot 18, Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 85 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian lying North of Lot 1, Star Mountain Ranch Tracts, according to the
Plat thereof recorded May 25, 1982 in Plat Book 13 at Page 44 of the Pitkin County real property
records.
-
WI
-.
....
-. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
....
-.
-
-.
-
-.
WI
-.
"""
1J
<.7 "'\Id"rjHlt"""'-~~'~.~ ~.._S~,._
__l~_. __
~",~....'
o
'.
it, "
I ;,
. ..... ;w
""'"r:-t
,f, '
R"u~'lkd .L.u),; a.2 ....o'eIOC'k... r ;\-1., ..... ." leb .24. 1969
a...pll.. N.'. ... .134~~~ .... .. relllY...I.. !\1kllch
~O!lt\";,W /^Gl b,j/~"
RHotdtlr.
a1lCOaDER'~ llTAIIP
30th
I. . THIS DEED, lIodo Iblo
. i Ileetllllber
'i""'lIIll 68
.,
, 'ili of lbo
'1", "
'I :.~ . lIlatt of Oolorodo, of lbo rlrot pori, ...d
,h.~~..;,.:' . f.' '
.....,'. GBORGB STRAIIIAJlI!IIf
"~~;;.,tIIe . ComltTof PHkin
\t'l~:..
PJ'I:"" , WlTNlII88BTH, Tb.ll.... 0Il4 port Y of tile tlrot port, r.r ond In .0IIIIdnaII0n of the IUln of
,':::..n. JlOLLUS MIl 0'1'IID VALUABLB COlfSXDIIlATIOIfS--n-.,.------IlQIo~Jl.I,-
I~,' 'ii,
'J;~l~.',' ~
l~~,.,;> "
,~,
~f.':': 10 tile oold pori f
'j'..
it . reaoIpI..b.....r II> b.reby oolr_d ..d ..t.owlodre4, h. .
I,:. Ul4 br IhoI p""'lI d. ..
I,
~porl,
cJqof
Ia tho ,... of ..... Lor~ one Ibouoon4 m... b1lJldro4
boI_
1111I MurhTIII m
H U '-</. Id"~
_ ...D4..,,-.
~1Ii:I-,.r.L...__
GBR'1'RUDB HIlT J1oIllIIIll', formuly Gntrude
.eet 'eder.en
0011111 of .itkin
Inf]
0IId 810le .r OoIorocIo, of the ...0Dd port I
of lb. tlrot port ID b.nd paid bylhe ..Id port Y
of the _d port, lhe
,...nIHl. b....11lOd, 0014 .nd _YITod,
....1. bAr..ln. ..U. ""IT .nd _tlrm unl. lb. Mill porlY
of lb.
hh
hofr, ...d ..I... r......, .11 Ih. t.llowln, dooorlbod 101
or po....
of
land. 011..\0, .)'In,.nd boln,ll lhe
8101e of 1:<, ',,",do, ""wll,
Qonnly.t
Pitkin
0IId
,;;
" tract of. land boln.; a11 of [,Clts 1. 2, 3. 7,
10, 13 and 221 and part of LClts S, 9, 14 and 17,
all in Section 23. Town.hip 9 Sout.h, Range 85
West of the 6th principal Meridian, said Tract
i. more fully described as follows.
. BoginninC] at tho tut Quart..r Cerner of said
Beetion 23 (a red .ftndatono marked; 1913),
thonce tl. 2722.50 'Ct.along tho Clast. Uno of
Beetion 23 to the: norlhoft"t cornor of Boctien ~3,
thonce N.CSo46' W. 2582.58 Coot along tho north
lino of eaid Section 23 to the northwc~t corner of
Lot 3, Section 23, thence S. 0043' W. 2044.7a
feet along t.he won Un', of Lote 3 and 7 to tho
northeast eornor of said Lot 10, thence west 1139.98
feet along the north lino of Lot 10: thonce
B. 2.13' E. 2678.94 feot alen.; the wost Uno of
.ald Lots 10, 13, and 22 tv a point on tho woct
Une of Lot 221 thone" South 651.00 fcot along
the woet lino of Lot 21 belng a point on tlte
eoutl. line of eaill ~'!'cl:l.on 23, thence N. 89.51'
E. 994. 'It Ceet- to tho ""utlt I.t Corller a!' aRid
Seoticn 231 thenco N. 0043' E. 19A7.50 foet along
tho O"tlt line oC L~t 22 to th~ "outhw,,~t corn"r of
allICI 1.ot 1.4, thon"o f:a,c!; e!l.36 Cr.ot .,long th.. ""u';1I
linn of lIa.l." Let 14 to t11c lIC1r.th'"enl eerr,.,r. of eaid
. Lot 17, \.1I..neo ,"outl, 1"l41.1.2 Ca"t to tho nOllthwunt
oornar of aaid toOt. 171 tll'In"" U. 'I'~O' f:. 2230.17
;.' foot, ~her.e'" 8.83015' E. 22Gf>.84 {(Oet to tho p:>int
, : of. be..innl.nq. t09othel' wI ~1l "ll. ditch ~nd ..:ate"
riqht.. u~~d ulJOl;"or. 'al'p',rten""L to ""y 01: tho for,,-
9oir~ land"_ ~ '
JII..1It. .......... D.... .......... ,.,.......o-.-r.t"................~.t'......
,. _l~
"
1\
EXHIBIT
3
I'
j. ;\
~ . .',
I
,
~
~ '
,.
'TOOl
.
.n~'.
'" -
profit.. lb,
JIIrIY
lb. h",..II,
TO IJ
n.n(ell! unl
Iho ..1,1 p.
An.t t
'or
and a<<rre
tI.....r Ih,
.bo,., enn'
.Implfl, ant
lUIe In m
rnnt"t b.,
except 0;
road.: I
minereln
1~
(,i ]~k,j'
p
.
part;
nn at
"'Illl,-
t, the
eyed,
If the
of
and
. ,,,,-,,
"':"~~~,,*.~,~
\0 '" I ., ~ ".~..t~al~di, :','l': I\! l,~ ,~,,'" \\ .I'"
~~
I'
"60(Jl;lm r~t~hJJ
,.
'" ~~""t,'l',. >
,t't~
"
,
.If.> .
,
\i
I
n
iF'
I'
"J' "
.
.~:;
""~~
""""........-
'TOGETHER witb all and aIDpIu lb. boroditommta and appnnman... tbere1mto beI...,w" or ill
-' "
.. ..'
an~ .ppei1.ainiD~ .r'" the l'1C1"::u:v.. aDd rnenioM, nmaiDder aud remainden, now, il!llUeI &lid
profits' the~f; and all the ewtate, righ~, title, interm, e~ aDd demand whaW>e'Ver, of the laid
pm y of the lint part rither in i... or equit" of, in aDd to th~ above barcah~eJ prt':rniJel, wiu..
the bereditamenbl and appnrtenaDl"ell.
TO IlA VE AND TO HOLD tho Mid Jm"';- a_ bargainod and d...,.;bM!, with Ih. appnrle.
nanees unto
GEORGE STRARABlUII
the Mid part Y of tbe 8ffond part,
bis bein and Uligns torent'o
An.llh. uid GERTRUDE PEET JANNEY, formerly Gertrude Peet Pedersen
pan y
of lhe fint part,
for
he...If
f'O'fenlnt, Il'iJlt, bargain
her heIra, ......ton end adminlntraton, cloes
and agree to Ind with the aid part Y
of Iha .....,d pari, his
hpin ad ..ip8" tbat at th.
time of the MJleating and deliftr7 of thne preteD"
she is
...n ooizod of the pI'OIII;-
above eonveyed,.. of good, Aft, perlltet. ab80lute ADd. fndeftuible pilate of inherit.nee in lAW, in fee
.impl~J and ha s
good ritJbt, full _ and lawful eutbori17 to grant, bllrpiu, ..II aD~ ronvq tb.
same in manner and form donald, and that the same are ~ and etear frollS aD former and otba
grants, bargain., .Ie!. lieu, tax..., aaeament. aod fn.enmbNul"t'I of whatever kind or nature lOenr.,
except easements and rights o~ way for public utilities, ditches and
roads: patent reservations and prior rencrvations of lotil, gas and
mineral., if any,
'j.
II ~
,.
.
<:)
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
".
~:
,.
.1:'
.,..
.
.
I.
~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
:---1. -.
i::J;~;.
1
-.~,.
~
I
I
I
I
t
I
,.
,
,
I
I
.~(
.
'~"')'f':"!tt~'2r~:!~:~~~t
":;"r~1' .
-i-. , r
I
lJ'
1:1 Jo
.,
')
"
')
')
')
.,
)
)
"
,
"
'"
"
'"
"
"I'"
.,
,,"
,
Dtil!b
.-
'MIll
~d
~,
:~
.
"1"
.
.
"Ie
0
0
<:0
to-
'&
i A.
..
aT
cr.
.,P/l
- I
-
0
- 1
w
0
. 'J~;;';~~~~~;:" -
...........,..,... ...........................................................-.
"
.;....
, ~OOK ~l:l rlf,t !j:J4}ti.!g
''i',:,':".~:
.r..""..,.....,._~. '-;"'1""~'--' "'-_."...~'""'~1 ~-~~...".....~;<:~~:>;l;_~_
.... lilt abcm buplllOd ,r..,u.. .":'"
.." '. . ,t\).\
tb. qul.t .n,l ""....bl. ~ of tb. ..klJ'lrtr r of tho _d ~ hi. bel.. 1Il4'~
J. .. j.' ,.,,'
....111"", .a.lnRt .11 .ud """1 poroon or Jl'!no.. ..",.11,. .Iolmltl. Oi""tIo Iltbn tho w~pr ...,. ~)-i','
1 '-',:_'{
tb.....,r, tb. ..Id p.':" of tbe flm p.rt ....n .... win WARRANT AlII) POUVER 1IU'BND. t;.,'::\.
-.~ ';. ';-> - ti'~'~:\'
IN WITNESS '\VHBRBOF, The ..Id peri Y 01 tho flnt put III '.S lInnnto oft . her '.(
:- --~"1
h.,:~._,~::~~::=:rf'l'llt.~~i~~_;._.:;.,"
{ ~::~;~u~.r. e::-~1811AL] -;
" ! : ',r . ". ' _ '. < ,. ., ,.~<
_____._._.__' ';-:-'".[SB~l;{;~
..........._...._..__, ._;,-._...:...._..~_.._....(8BALl.,:rr
"'.,;' ...".. ..'
,
IUTUYOIY ,kDO.....IJI.IfY. ~ lilt'
:
GT~TB OF COLORADO, . r
iii ,.'
....................Count,. of .....ll\RF.IJ:ld)........ ...............
A(~'~:"'h
~\ ~
" .~
. "'
, "
Tbe '.'fllOlnllnotrumonl w.. ,.kno"l.dAOd before.... Ib.. 30th _ ar of De~..;.be:>"
~ lY 68, b,.' , aERTRUDE PEI!l'1' .:nu...~, . formerly Oertrucl..
'Vlt_....... ~ond .... offl<lal..... '--.
~lIft;,,'rr6';'(;C"_' ." "'.
~ ",' ..." ".... ~.;,:.'lia~iAlr~
1..:.'''0 ~::":.~~~ t-::::?it } r.~inlllluion expires Ju1r 25. 1
1',.'~ .~"' " ". ~....\ .{lI,
. ...'.' T" 1\ It i,1'
1'\f:~~:'\O ~.ltlf b\}". ;:'.~ ':1' -............ I.
. "i- ~ ... I 5. ,'"
'~f:.ij' :. . \~...." *:. f"'li
. : . .. ,.,. , I.." "
" ~.~~~::.~:,~~.~..t-!r.:r.'::.:'i5':i=
~ M,~''}.~;' ,,~..~.... ~;-r Uf""" . .........
.:., '~, # ....:........~~ ~tr'l ,.~,
: ~;}~.,: ..' 0". C G \..."".~,-,,,:., ,
: , , \'" '.. . .~,..... .
.~.."II".,..rr'.',.,.l~'~'\"'-,.
,~: .~,;"t~.:t~;,1:',,-:'i\:.-I.,.r,
:..'-\l~;:{~.{~?\:. "
u _
Peet Peelers,'n,
.~."...~~
\{;
"
!
r ;'i':':'
t ~!,\f:
..... ~:!4.:
"~" ."
I< . .". ~,c.."~ E;r~:
f'
.t.i~~~;:
.~~... '.
i~' ~/~;
...;'f:,
{~h,;
~'*" c~'..
i~";f4
.,h
'l r;~
~~~'
..!'.4,,'1;;-
1ft"
:n~
.-.0
~I
I
. "',-"l
"
",:>
'.. :'.;'j
<i:'
-J ,~
.:;i..,.
;~"
.
.\
,.,
, :',
..,
)
)
,
)
:)
"
.:)
:,
.,
I)
I~
)
I:)
II:)
II)
:1)
o
.'"
......
~'.....
~'"
-.
w
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c
c
o
c
.Q
c
-
-
-
-
--
....
o
-
-.I
-
....
-
ow
C
EXHIBIT 4
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC
60 I E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970-925-1766: 970-925-6527 FAX
877-217-3158 TOLL FREE
June 27, 2003
Jim Curtis
300 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Stranahan Ranch Sec. 23, T9S, R85W
Dear Jim,
You have asked that I provide you with information regarding merger issues in Pitkin County for the
Stranahan Ranch. George Stranahan acquired the subject property (copy of Deed attached hereto) by Deed
recorded February 24, 1969 in Book 239 at Page 532. The subject property is far in excess of35 acres, which
would make it exempt from the merger requirements of Pitkin County. You also had asked about the status of
the Woody Creek Road within the subject property, the road was conveyed to The Woody Creek Toll Road by
Deeds recorded in Book 93 at Pages 292 and 293. Subsequently The Woody Creek Toll Road company became
defunct and the title is still vested in that defunct corporation and therefore it is clear that George Stranahan is
not the owner of the road. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Vjh
Enc.
~~
~
)
)
)
)
)
,
1
l
,
)
,
)
)
)
)
HOUGLAND & aSSOCIATES
CONSULTING ON WILDFIIlE HIlZAIlD MITI&aTION
FIIlE '1l0TECTION AND BUILDING & FlIlE CODES
EXHIBIT 5
October 25, 2006
Mr. Jim Curtis
Curtis & Associates
300 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subject: Revised Wildfire Hazard Mitigation for Stranahan property located at 3069
Woody Creek Road, Pitkin County, Colorado
..,
"
...
,.I
...
"
...
'.
DearMr. Curtis,
l~
..
l'
II
.
.
fl
I'
'.
.
.
C
o
C
.
.
.
o
o
o
Q
Q
c
Thanks for meeting with Brian and me on site on October 23, 2006 to go over the
recent relocation of the building envelope. The new location has moved the building
envelope out of the oak and brush up slope and to the east and is now somewhat closer to
the tree line to the northwest. After reviewing my original report and recommendations I
believe that this relocation does not cause substantial changes in my recommendations.
However in this revision I will modify my recommendations to be more applicable to the
new location of the building envelope.
The relocated building envelope is located in the same general northeast portion
of the East Mesa parcel. Slopes to the southwest below the building envelope are
between 5% & 10% and most is pasture. The easterrunost portion of the building
envelope has been moved out of the tree line of the slopes uphill that are between 20%
and 35%. The building envelope is in a Low Wildfire Hazard area but is adjacent to the
slope above to the east that presents at least a Medium Wildfire Hazard to a portion of the
building envelope.
To remain within the Low Wildfire Hazard designation I recommend that no
structures be placed closer than I 50-feet of the top ofthe steep (50% + -) wooded slope
to the northwest and at least 50-feet from the drip line of the oak trees in that direction.
Any structures that are located closer than I 50-feet of the top of the steep (50% + -) slope
would be considered to be in a High Wildfire Hazard Area and I recommend that a site
specific evaluation and recommendations be accomplished if this is anticipated.
17 &aMB. DBIVE, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLOmO 81601
FHONE (970) S84-1221/ FBX (970) S84-ISSl/liresale@gwspriugs,uel
q(
I would like to point out that if a landscape plan is developed that includes any
trees within fifteen feet of the house then the recommendations below will need to be
considered to be distances from the expected drip line of the trees when mature. In other
words protecting these trees as a portion of the structure(s).
The following are Vegetation Management and Modification Recommendations for all
structures located within the Low Wildfire Hazard Area as previously described:
I. Around a proposed house and other structures and beyond the furthermost projection
of decks or other appurtenances for a distance of 15. feet, the area should be of
primarily noncombustible hard scape surfaces, low growing perennials, flowerbeds,
cut grass and deciduous, well-trimmed and irrigated plants. Woody vegetation should
not be planted within this area. An exception would be trees that are within this area
with a defensible space beyond the drip line as described herein. Lower branches
should be pruned to a height of 10- feet or Y, the height of the tree whichever is least.
Branches should not overhang roofs or decks. Firewood or other combustible
materials should not be stored within this area.
2. Beyond the IS-foot areaup to 50-feet of the tree line to the east and northwest of the
house, garage or other structures, maintain natural and/or irrigated grass at less than
6-inches. Landscape trees and brush should be be divided into individuals or clusters.
Limbs should be pruned to one half the height of the tree or IO-feet whichever is less.
No brush or shrubs which when mature will be tall enough act as ladder fuel should
be provided or maintained around the trees. Clusters of bushes or shrubs should be
separated from each other and from those beyond the 50-foot area by a distance of2
Yz times the height of the mature vegetation. The diameter of a cluster at the crowns
should be limited to 2 Yz times the height of the mature vegetation. As an example: If
the expected mature height of the vegetation is 10 feet then the diameter of the cluster
should be no greater than 25 feet and the distance between clusters should be greater
than 25 feet. Ideally the plant material growing between trees and clusters of bushes
or shrubs is grass maintained at 6-inches or less. The building envelope is ample and
seems to provide for building design that would preclude the need for extensive
vegetation management on the northwest slope.
3. For a distance of 100-feet of all structures remove or chip all standing dead and
deadfall. Please note that trees and bushes at the perimeter of the 50- foot area should
have separation as specified in Item 2 above.
2
('""
(
(
(
(
(
,
,
(
(
(
C
f
('
.'
fIl.
.'
.1
.1
t,
C
Cl:
111
C'
,...
""'
,-
'"
,...
,,",'
e
e
e
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1q .
.
.
~
)
)
)
)
,
)
')
)
,
,
.~
:)
:)
:)
:)
~
New Construction:
Pitkin County has Structural Design and Construction Requirements, the following are
paraphrased from the Pitkin County Land Use Code, chapter 7, Section 7-20-60 Wildfire
Hazards and mayor may not contain exact language but it is intended to be consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Pitkin County requirements:
"'
..,
Roofs shall be constructed with a Class-A roof assembly as defined in the 2003
International Building Code (IBe) Section 1505.2. Wood shake/shingle roof coverings
are prohibited in all wildfire hazard areas. Roofs with less than a 3: 12 pitch are not
permitted in wildfire areas unless they comply with the following:
1) All roof coverings shall be Class-A materials approved for installation on
a Class-A roof assembly.
2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural
process of clearing the roof.
3) All roof designs shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris.
Protrusions above the roof line, such as parapets, shall be prohibited.
4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted building code and shall
have a minimum slope of 1:48.
5) All roof designs, coverings or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically
approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit
application.
"'
""
....
.."
-
Maintenance:
a)
b)
c)
.-
'...
.-
....
.-
,....
.""
'....
d)
Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris.
Area shall be kept clear of al11itter, slash and flammable debris.
All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum
of fifteen feet (15') away from any structure.
Weeds and grasses within the fifteen-foot (15') perimeter and under trees
shall be maintained to a height of not more than six inches (6").
....
-
'....
Miscellaneous:
a) Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of
fifteen feet (15') away from the structure.
b) Fences shall be kept clear ofbrush and debris.
c) Wood fences shall not connect to the structure.
d) Any outbuildings or additional structures shall adhere to the same
standards as structures.
e) Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten (10) pound Class ABC
fire extinguisher.
f) Addresses shall be clearly marked with two-inch (2") non-combustible
letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or
common access road and installed on a non-combustible post.
o
o
.
.
.
;)
;)
o
;)
o
.
.
.
o
.
.
3
~
1 also recommend a publication titled "Firewise Construction Design and Materials"
available from the Colorado State Forest Service.
If you have comments, questions or require additional information please contact me.
...- ..
Art Hougland
NOTICE: This Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Analysis along with observations and
recommendations is intended to be an aid to the owner, architect and vegetation
management and/or landscape design and implementation professionals in the
development of defensible space and offire wise construction documents. The review of
the existing wildfire hazard potential on this property and the observations and
recommendations for the mitigation of these hazards does not constitute an acceptance of
any responsibility by Hougland & Associates for errors, omissions or discrepancies. The
behavior of wildfire is acknowledged to be capricious in nature. Hougland & Associates
does not proclaim that circumstances, including improper maintenance, may not arise that
would permit wildfire to overwhelm the mitigation measures recommended or
implemented. Observations and recommendations are intended to be collaborative with
wildfire hazard mitigation guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service and of other
nationally recognized standards and are intended to be constructive and in support of the
owners interest.
4
q>
,..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
fl>
(~
ti
f11
.'
'I
fl
tl
..
..
fI
fI
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
o
e
..
"")
'I
j
,:')
.,
,
.,
.,
.,
.,
,')
~
,)
.'~
~
"
)
EXHIBIT 6
October 30, 2006
Ms. Suzanne Wolff
Pitkin County Community Development Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-
Re: Owner's Authorization and Consent
Flying Dog Ranch Amended Master Plan &
Land Use Application
Woody Creek, Colorado
."",
.~-'
'",
-
"
-
Dear Suzanne:
.-
-
-
I hereby authorize and consent to the filing of the above referenced Land Use
Application. Jim Curtis is authorized to represent the application.
-
...,
~
-
w
.
.
.
.
.
.
:;
:;
-
....
-
w
Respectfully,
o
.
C
C
C
C
o
c
<=tV
""')
)
)
)
,
)
,
')
')
')
')
)
)
)
)
;)
"'
,
'",
,"'
...,
",
'~
::~
l~
II
II
II
II
II
II
.
I.
10
e
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
EXHIBIT 7
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPJYIENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of Pitkin County Development Application Fees
PITKIN COUNTY (hereinafter COUNTY) and Jim Curtis
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to COUNTY an application for
Flying Dog Ranch Amended Master Plan & Land Use Application
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT)
2. APPLICA1'\JT understands and agrees that Pitkin County Ordinances
No. 98-7 and 99-37 establish a fee structure for Planning applications and the
payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of
application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and COl.JNTY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
COUNTY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties for APPLICANT to
make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
COUNTY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. COUNTY agrees it will
be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process
APPLICANT's application.
4. COUNTY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
COUNTY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to enable the
Planning Commission and/or Board of County Commissioners to make legally
required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior
to decision.
<67
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the
COUNTY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of
application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount
of $ which is for hours of staff time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
COUNTY to reimburse the COUNTY for the processing of the application
mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be
made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to
pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
PITKIN COUNTY
APPLICANT
Jim Curtis
Cindy Houben
Community Development Director
Date: November 6, 2006
Mailing Address:
300 East Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO. 81611
g: ISll P po rtlfo rmsl. grpayp t. doc
05/05/00
I"'"
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
('
c:'
cr'
crr
_I
..
'1
.'
.
.'
.'
.
CII'
0
e
-
."
-
.."
-
..'
"..
'"',
e-
O
.
.
0
.
.
.
.
0
0
e
,..
....
~'^' e
-
"")
)
)
)
)
,
,
)
:)
)
,
:)
)
it
it
)
'"
,
,
"
'"
~
,
.,.
-
wi
:~
:~
:~
~
o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c
.
.
.
c
)
o
Q
C
e
EXHIBIT 8
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
FLYING DOG RANCH AMENDED LAND USE APPLICATION
This list of adjacent property owners has been compiled from the records of the
Pitkin County Assessor's Otlice as of November 7,2006, and is complete and correct to
the best knowledge of the applicant.
Allen & Kelli Questrom
16 A Turtle Creek Bend
Dallas, Texas 75204
Parcel # 2643-23-202002
Two Mile Ranch II LLC
300 Crescent Court, Ste 1000
Dallas, Texas 7520]
Parcel # 2643-24-30] 002
Ute City Ltd.
Carol Craig, President
P.O. Box]8
Woody Creek, Colorado 8]656
Parcel # 2643-14-100001
Parcel # 2643-]5-30200]
Parcel # 2643-23-300006
Bricol NY
c/o William R. Jordan. III
4] 8 East Cooper, Ste 202
Aspen, Colorado 816]]
Parcel # 2643-26-104001
Aspcol Corporation NY
c/o William R. Jordan. III
4]8 East Cooper, Ste 202
Aspen, Colorado 8]61]
Parcel # 2643-26-203002
Michael Craig
P.O. Box 483
Basalt, Colorado 8162]
Parcel # 2643-]4-100002
Parcel # 2643-]4-100003
Greg & Marcia Abbott
]200 Kessler Drive
Aspen, Colorado 8] 6] ]
Parcel # 2643-26-20300]
U.S. Forest Service
c/o Land Manager
White River Nationa] Forest
806 West Hallam
Aspen, Colorado 8]6]]
Parcel # N/ A
GRE II LP
c/o Schumacher B. Lee
210 East Hyman Ave., Ste 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Parcel # 2643-23-300002
Rosemary's Circle R Ranch East, LLC
300 Crescent Court, Ste 1000
Dallas, Texas 75201
Parcel # 2643-23-401001
Neal & Jacqueline Shear
23 East 83rd Street
New York, New York 10028
Parcel # 2643-23-30000]
~
l "-
,
,
\ \ \ \
.
c ~
\ \ \ \
\ \ \
\
~
,
,
)
'\ \ \
\ ,
\
\
I
I
/
~
~
/~I
.,-
t
""'
)
/
I
\!
.fu
\ f
'J
I
,-
\r'"
'~ --- \
)
\
I (
( PARC$ #4
s()IJTH PARcEL
',,- (88 ae. :,.;-)
<r" ~ "-
~
"
~
-___..__ ::1fo9G~- -
-""
~ ----"-
'. wood~~~
\ R~
--
--\
~\
.
CIRaE R (l#tCH
"'~
\,,, \, j
~ 0..'<.:~ J
,\\.;t'-... (;:~
,~"l, 1-""
, " ~
"-,,, "-" -
~ -... ,'" ~ _ ' J'
,,,- "'''~ ~, .
.-".,,- '-- ~-'
. ,~""-~-- ~-
,. \ ,_ ~ _ _ / v"'\ .
",-' "" _~_~ ",,_ -,..,-- ~ . 1/
,~ ,~-- - -,' _/ - /
,,~~ ,,-' ~~ 00" ~ - - - / /
"",,~ ~~ -~ - - -~ ~ (
,,,,,'::::,,,~;;:: ,''',_ ~ "'""_ ~ ~ _ /' . r
<~>"~I~ ;::-'" ,'", ~ ~ " " /./
~,,~"" 'Z~ --::.- ,,"- -..:::' " ,,-- / /
~""\~'1 ~,~.:::::- __ -"';;-- , ",," " ""'- _./ / I
~~"",,,,,-~,, ~ ~ """ " ~ /'
l' '!' ~'l.":",, .;:- ",---" ',' , / ~ /
ifit\'''';''-'\~'' ',' ,_/ / .
"",~\,,,~\).,,,?,-,,,~<,,::,>,,\,,,,,- ~--,," /' -f
'~'+" ('C'"'' ,0" --, ,- _/ ~ ,/
\\\\\~!:..~\.:~>~~~>-::::::.,~"__<::''--~ _~-2'~ '9'
:-..~~\\\ < - - ,--> . --- ~
\ ' '-.- - =",\\" ..;."'~ -'/,~- --~/
_ ~ __ _ -:::- />~,.:::::-::::5'''-......
.
,
\
\
\
\
~
parcel #1- !olo"" parcel--,
parcel #2 - EaSt I'\es& l''''''~'
p~ #3 _ west I'\es& parcel
parcel #4 - soutl' parcel
&3 ac. +1-
58 ac.
35 ac.
~
1.... .Co wtaI
\
\
I
\
_1flU5lDE~Nf1T'~
I
.
I sTAR
\ ,.,ouNTAlN
. RANCH
\
~
1. !'lain HOUse
2. Stf8'l' ea\e ~........
3. lUlod\ l'Iana9ef ~ou...
4. ~lstOr\C cabin
.
,
.
.
.
.
.........
.~
CI
V-'
,
\
\
\
,
\
\
""aster plan &. 1041 Site I
d,/,n9 009 Ranch - Amended \'I\as1
p -"""""-"""",....,^'
~
p~une
E><\s\tll'9 S'<fUC'U"'"
Ve9~""
--- . . .....
-
-------
fence U~es
~
y~~{~
._' _'"' \ _.----616" \ ,910.,.7$ \ ,.,....-;-~