The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080213harveyMEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Me~~et((i''ng~~- February 13, 2008 THRU: Cindy Hou~;'C"om~munity Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner* RE: Harvey Request for Constrained Site TDRs -Continued Hearing REQUEST: The Applicant submitted a request pursuant to Sec. 6-70-40.a.7 and 8 of the new Land Use Code for the BOCC to make a determination as to whether the lots are "undevelopable or severely restricted" and/or visually constrained in order to obtain TDRs in exchange for preservation of the lots. The BOCC continued the hearing on October 24, 2007 (staff memo and minutes attached), to give the Applicant an opportunity to approach the Open Space Board. The Open Space Board discussed the proposal and is not interested in purchasing the lots. The BOCC conducted a site visit on December 10, 2007. The Applicant provided additional information at that time, which is attached. Additional letters from Ann Harvey and Holly McLain are attached. The Applicant also submitted additional information on mancos shale, which is attached. APPLICANT: Connie, Mark and Ann Harvey REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Ransford LOCATION: Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces PROCESS: The BOCC shall make a determination whether the proposed preservation sites are undevelopable or severely restricted under the Pitkin County Land Use Code. If there is a determination that that the lots are not developable, the Board shall determine that principles of equitable mitigation merit the issuance of a TDR(s). ISSUES: Staff has the following comments to clarify statements made by Ann Harvey in her letter: - Ms. Harvey states that if the rezoning of 1,435 acres of the ranch had occurred under the 2006 Land Use Code, then they would have been eligible to receive one TDR per 20 acres, or a total of 71 TDRs. Staff presumes that she is referring to the potential to rezone the property to CD-PUD, rather than Rural/Remote. Staff agrees that they could have gotten 71 TDRs for 1,435 acres within the CD- PUD zoning, but only if no development was proposed; existing and new development would reduce the number of potential TDRs. - Dale Will provided the following comments: "The issue at hand is simply whether the lots are "constrained" under the County Code. Ann Harvey's various arguments about how the conservation easement deal might have been done in ways more lucrative for the landowner are not relevant to the question at hand. Certainly, the conservation of the Harvey Ranch was of tremendous public value, ~, ~!`~ ~; and we appreciate all that Connie did to make this happen. One final note is that the "seemingly arbitrary" requirement of the County, that TDRs could not be pulled after a conservation easement was in place, was in fact a county code requirement at that time. All other conservation easements done up until this time were subject to this limitation. Hence, there was nothing "arbitrary" in the manner this applied to the Harvey Ranch. It is true that the code has since been amended to allow TDRs after a conservation easement, provided that this is explicitly reserved." STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC find that the lots are developable and, therefore, not eligible for TDRs, pursuant to the attached Resolution. Attachments A. 1 / 18/08 Letter from Ann Harvey B. 12/14/07 Letter from Holly McLain C. ] 0/24/07 Staff Memo D. 10/24/07 BOCC minutes E. 12/10/07 Supplemental information from Applicant F. 2/6/08 Supplemental information from Applicant (Mancos Shale) ' Ms. Woltf is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Ms. Wolff has worked for the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department for I S'/, years, and as a Planner/Senior planner within that department for 12 years. In her planning position, Ms. Woltf has reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING A REQUEST BY CONNIE, MARK AND ANN HARVEY TO OBTAIN TWO CONSTRAINED SITE TDRS FOR LOTS 25 AND 49, SHIELD O TERRACES Resolution No. -2007 RECITALS 1. Connie, Mark and Ann Harvey ("Applicant") have applied to the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") for a constrained site determination and issuance of Transferable Development Rights ("TDRS") pursuant to Sec. 6-70-40.a.7 and 6-70-40.a.8 of the Land Use Code ("Code"). 2. The lots are located on Shield O Road, are referred to as Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces, and are more specifically described in Exhibits A and B. The lots were created in 1969 and 1972, respectively, which was prior to the County's adoption of subdivision regulations, and, therefore, are legally created and exempt from growth management. 3. Lot 25 contains 2.12 acres and Lot 49 contains 2.099 acres; both lots are non-conforming in size in the RS-30 zone district. 4. The BOCC reviewed the request for a determination as to whether the lots are "undevelopable or severely restricted" and/or visually constrained and, therefore, whether it would be appropriate to grant two constrained site TDRs at duly noticed public hearings on October 24, 2007 and February 13, 2008, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 5. The BOCC finds that the lots are developable pursuant to the Code, based on the following: A. While the lots contain slopes in excess of 30%, there are areas on the lots comprised of slopes of less than 30%. Development could occur in those areas and/or it is possible to develop on slopes in excess of 30%, if the proposed development complies with one of the exceptions in the Code (i.e. parcels with some areas of less than 30% slopes, minor slope anomaly, short driveway encroachments), pursuant to Sec. 7-20-20.c of the Code. B. The lots are not within a mapped avalanche hazard area; therefore, Sec. 7-20-SO.a of the Code would permit development on the lot. C. Development on the lots will be visible from Snowmass Creek Road upvalley from Shield O Road, but will not break a ridgeline and would not "severely impact or destroy a Scenic View Protection Area." D. The wildfire hazard on the lots is presumed to be severe; Sec. 7-20-60 of the Code permits development in severe wildfire hazard areas, subject to mitigation. E. There is no mapped mule deer or elk habitat on the lots. 6. The BOCC finds that the lots are not eligible for issuance of TDRS for constrained sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it hereby denies the Harvey request for two constrained site TDRS for Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces. Resolution No. -2008 Page 2 DENIED ON THE I3`h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Jeanette Jones Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely County Attorney By Jack Hatfield, Chair Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: ~ C ' d Houben Community Development Director PID #264527201006 & 264527201007 Case P ] 12-07 P.O. Box 976 Wilson, WY 83014 January 18, 2008 Pitkin County Commissioners 530 East Main Street 3~d Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for considering our application to deed restrict Lots Z5 and 49 of the Shield-O subdivision, to eliminate all development rights from the lots, and, in exchange, to acquire two transferable development rights. For reasons 1 explain below, 1 think this proposal will add significant value to the conservation easements the County and our family worked so hard to put in place in 2005 and 2006. As far as 1 know, our desire to prevent development of these lots is supported by the neighboring landowners, the Shield-O Terrace Homeowners Association, the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus, the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department, and the Aspen Valley Land Trust. As you know, scenic values were an important reason that Pitkin County invested in the conservation easement on our family's ranch. The County Ordinance approving the acquisition of the Harvey Ranch Conservation Easement notes that the ranch "is possessed of outstanding scenic, habitat, and agricultural values." The Deed of Conservation Easement states that the ranch possesses scenic and natural values "of great importance to Grantor, Grantee, the people of Pitkin County, the people of the State of Colorado, and the People of the United States, which are worthy of protection in perpetuity." The easement further states that the property provides "publicly significant scenic views" from surrounding areas, including the Snowmass and Capitol Creek Valleys, the White River National Forest, and the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. I sincerely doubt that either the County or LOCO would have invested in the ranch easements, nor would the Aspen Valley Land Trust have agreed to hold the easements, if no publicly significant conservation values were at stake. The baseline survey that was prepared as part of the conservation easement states, "This property contains considerable open space values. The region is highly scenic with an agricultural emphasis, comprised of expansive ranches and some low-density residential development. Despite the pastoral nature of the Snowmass-Capitol Creek valleys, they are less than half an hour away from the Aspen/Snowmass Resort areas, resulting in increasing development pressure. Since the Harvey Ranch straddles both valleys, it is highly visible from the Snowmass Ski Area and the adjacent Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness in the White River National Forest as well as from the valleys below. As such, the Harvey Ranch provides tremendous value as relatively uninterrupted open space which will preserve wild and scenic views. The proposed conservation easements will guarantee that these views are not compromised by the development of large homes along the highly visible ridges of the ranch." The baseline survey further noted that the two Shield-O lots serve as a buffer for the ranch, and that "the family is considering permanent conservation of the lots if they receive a salable TDR for each one." My brother Mark and I, partnering with our mother Connie, bought these lots years ago for the simple reason that they are located on a highly visible slope adjacent to the ranch and developing them could compromise the scenic values of the ranch (and the surrounding area) just as surely as ridgeline development on the ranch itself would have. We wanted to protect the lots from development while the fate of the ranch was worked out, and we've always hoped we could find some way to extend permanent protection to the top of the slope. All three of us are willing to give up a large part of the income we could receive from selling the lots in order to do this. The County has shown its strong commitment to preserving this highly scenic part of the county with its decision to zone much of the upper Capitol Creek and Snowmass Creek areas as Rural and Remote, as well as its very significant investment in conservation easements in this area, including the easements on our family's ranch. We very much appreciate this commitment. Furthermore, the TDR program was designed to make it possible for the County to direct development away from those areas most deserving of protection. Preventing development on this adjacent hillside is a small but very significant final step in protecting the values of this easement, and we sincerely hope the County will join us in making this happen. I want to emphasize that we are not requesting that any new development rights be created in the County by this action. Both lots have development rights already. What we are asking is simply that these rights be converted to TDRs (one for each lot) so that development in this highly inappropriate location can be prevented. Although in an ideal world we would forego selling or developing the lots even if we don't receive any compensation in exchange for eliminating development potential, this is not a promise we can make. Over the years we've spent many thousands of dollars, first to purchase the lots, and then in property taxes, homeowners' fees, and very high road assessments, and these expenses will continue. At some point in the future we will inevitably face estate taxes as well. Over time, properties do change hands, and future owners will probably try to maximize their land value by building large homes. By far the best solution, for our family and for the long-term protection of the County's investment in protecting the scenic values of the area, is to eliminate the development potential of the lots. Once this is accomplished, we would certainly be willing to extend the conservation easement boundaries to encompass these lots if that's feasible. 2 At the risk of going on too long, and in case there is any perception that we may have already generated too many TDRs, or otherwise received undue compensation, please examine the facts below. 1. Connie rezoned 1,435 acres of the Harvey Ranch to Rural/Remote in March 2006. Under Pitkin County rules in effect at the time (1 TDR per 35 acres rezoned RR), this would have generated 40 TDRs. Connie received 15 TDRs, and gave up her claim to the other 25. Of the 15 TDRs received by the family, 7 will most likely be used on the ranch for the 6 homesites and the backcountry cabin. Thus of a potential 40 TDRs, only 8 have actually been added to the pool of TDRs in the County beyond the ranch. 2. If the rezoning had been done a mere four months later (July 2006) under the revised County TDR rules, Connie would have been eligible to receive one TDR per 20 acres, or 71 TDRs. By changing the rules, the County has indicated that it now believes 1 TDR per 20 acres is fair compensation for eliminating development rights. For the 1,425 acres she protected, Connie received the equivalent of 1 TDR per 95 acres. 3. Connie received a payment of $3 million from the County and LOCO for the conservation easement she placed on the ranch. Had she instead retained the 25 TDRs she relinquished to the County and sold them on the open market, her proceeds for the TDRs alone would probably have been somewhere between $6 and $7.5 million. Thus in essence she has personally given up on the order of $3-$4 million in potential gain in order to help the County keep TDRs from being generated in Pitkin County. 4. Connie was willing to give up a great deal of potential economic gain in order to protect the ranch. But like most landowners who place easements on their property, she wanted to receive the federal and state tax benefits that come with the very substantial charitable contribution a conservation easement represents. Because of the County's seemingly arbitrary decision in our case that the County rezoning and deed restriction had to rep cede the conservation easement if any TDRs were to be granted, she was unable to claim any tax deduction for the conservation easement covering Parcel 9, the 526 acres used to generate the IS TDRs. In other words, the County's insistence that a conservation easement could not precede rezoning (if TDRs were involved) meant that by the time the conservation easement was put in place on that acreage, all the development potential had already been removed by the County's deed restriction (which does not qualify for a federal or state tax deduction). Had the County allowed Connie to record the conservation easement first, then rezone to Rural/Remote and sever the TDRs (resulting in exactly the same degree of protection), she could have received a tax deduction equal to the value of the charitable contribution in excess of the appraised value of the TDRs received: According to the qualified appraisal done for the conservation easement, her charitable contribution for Parcel 9, over and above the value of the TDRs received, was at least $2,860,000. Whether or not the County 3 intended to block Connie from claiming a deduction for this contribution, that was the result of their decision. That the County's decision in our case was arbitrary seems to be borne out by the fact that this rule was changed in July 2006 (a mere 4 months after the completion of our easements) to explicitly allow landowners to place a conservation easement in place prior to applying the County's deed restriction, thus enabling them both to collect TDRs and claim a tax deduction for the value given up in excess of the value of the TDRs. We applaud this change, since the rule as it was applied in our case eliminated one of the important incentives for conservation easements. I mention all these things not to complain, but to illustrate Connie's (and the family's) past commitment to working with the County for the sake of preservation, even when it has meant considerable financial costs to us. I sense that the County may now be concerned that too many TDRs are being generated- but again, keep in mind that approving our request does not create new development rights but instead merely converts two existing development rights into two transferable development rights. I think the fundamental question the Commissioners need to answer is whether or not it's important to you to protect the scenic values of the adjacent conservation easement property (and surrounding lands) in perpetuity. Or do you want to see two large homes parked on this slope, visible for miles around? If protection is the desired option, what mechanism is the best? To us, the sensible solution is to convert the existing development rights to two TDRs, since this costs the County nothing. We think our proposal is a great opportunity for the County to work with us to complete the conservation easement, and we hope you'll agree. Sincerely, Ann Harvey 4 ~.Yl ~k~' ~.Jf ~ ~U 1 V 1~~~~ I'c~r}~t.>-r-rrr~xrr[e urrc~5~vr°t f/c~r•str.1.jt~r- crld Discki}~tirrt~.~• >. X276 Snt~r~~rtnass Creek Read Sn~~~~mass, CCU ~ ~ b~=~ (9~7~)9~3-~~=~ 12/14/07 Dear Pitkin County Commissioners, I am writing this letter to you on behalf of my neighboring ranch owner, Connie Harvey. Connie Harvey purchased her 1820 acre ranch in 1962. She has been a good caretaker of the land and has kept it a true working ranch with her cattle operation. In the early years, the Christensen brothers ran sheep in our country, and then laid claim to parts of our valley through the Homestead Act. David Christensen ended up with the valley floor, and Jan Christensen owned the hillside, now known as Shield-O Terrace. The Shield-O subdivision was ill conceived at the outset. With today's laws, there is no way that development would be allowed. Because of the density and lack of planning, the Shield-O Terrace subdivision is probably one of the major reasons for such strict planning and zoning codes today. Connie Harvey purchased two Shield-O lots, which are at the very top of the subdivision and overlook her ranch. My understanding is that she did this to protect her privacy. She is willing to relinquish her right to develop these lots, and is only asking for the right to have TDRs from these undeveloped properties. It is astounding to me that the county would penalize a person who is trying to do the right thing, by not developing land they own. Connie has already jumped through Pitkin County hoops and spent a great deal of money on her quest to donate her ranch to open space. She has six children. In this day and age, no matter how secure your circumstances seem, times are hard, and it is difficult to secure and protect assets for the future. Thankfully she was able to give each child a building site on her property. All six building sites amount to a total of twelve acres. This leaves a total of 1808 acres for open space. It seems to me that Pitkin County should applaud a person like Connie Harvey, who has the values to preserve our open space. Why, wouldn't, the Pitkin County Commissioners be pleased to help an individual who decided to sterilize the development potential of two Shield-O lots. It is apparent that our valley is being invaded by those who worship the all mighty dollar, and want to squeeze out every last buck from development. That is the reason you have such strict development criteria. To me, it makes no sense to deny Connie Harvey the TDRs she is asking for. It makes more sense to save your' big hammer for the bad guys. I wish that there were more people like Connie Harvey, in our valley and in Pitkin County. Please do the right thing and reward good principles by giving Connie the TDRs. Most Sincerely, Holly McLain MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting -October 24, 2007 THRU: Cindy Hot~n~ munity Development Director FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner* RE: Harvey Request for Constrained Site TDRs REQUEST: The Applicant submitted a request pursuant to Sec. 6-70-40.a.7 and 8 of the new Land Use Code for the BOCC to make a determination as to whether the lots are "undevelopable or severely restricted" andlor visually constrained in order to obtain TDRs in exchange for preservation of the lots. APPLICANT: Connie, Mark and Ann Harvey REPRESENTATIVE: Ken Ransford LOCATION: Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces (see Attachment A for aerial photo) Harvey - Shield O Terrace Lots Pf ~Jl ~ i 1 I + ` Fk ~ ~~ / l /~ ~ // ~.~ /,+: ~ ~1 _ ! ~...t ~~~ .. ( j 1-+ a . '~ 'aa.ti 7.....~ ~ f: t " p ?l: i / ~r ;-, w9 ~, ~ ~~. ~% , j r ~~ ~4~~ .I l /j `~ ~' , , _.... , j -~~,~ i ,f_ ! Sued parcels , '~ + J, ~`( ` ,_~ ! ',jl'~i ~ , ~t ~' Air J t 1 y. ,}_ ~ . /J / r ? { ~ ~ ! ZONING/LOT AREA: Lot 25 contains 2.12 acres and Lot 49 contains 2.099 acres; both lots are non- conforming in size in the RS-30 zone district. BACKGROUND: The lots were created in 1969 and 1972, respectively, prior to the County's adoption of subdivision regulations. The Applicants purchased Lot 25 in 1993 for $45,000 and Lot 49 in 1997 for $133,000. REFERRALS: Comments from the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus and the Shield O Terraces Homeowners Association (SOTHA) are attached for reference. The Caucus Board unanimously supported the application. SOTHA also supports the application. Dale Will with Open Space and Trails stated, "Open Space would like to see this land preserved, which would enhance our protection of the Ranch." PROCESS: The BOCC shall make a determination whether the proposed preservation sites are undevelopable or severely restricted under the Pitkin County Land Use Code. If there is a determination that that the lots are not developable, the Board shall determine that principles of equitable mitigation merit the issuance of a TDR(s}. CRITERIA FOR CONSTRAINED SITE TDRS: Section 6-70-40.a.7 of the Code provides the following criteria: - The lot or parcel shall be located in a zone district other than the RR, TR-1, TR-2, VR, VC, SKI-REC, MHP, AH, AH-PUD, RS-G, B-1, B-2, P-I, T, PUB, I, U or AC-REC-2 zone districts; and shall be undevelopable or severely restricted pursuant to this Land Use Code. - The determination that a property is constrained pursuant to this section is merely a procedure to allow the Board to consider granting a TDR(s) at the request of a property owner, and shall not be considered a final decision as to the beneficial, productive, and/or economically viable uses that nzay be available to the property. CRITERIA FOR VISUALLY CONSTRAINED SITE TDRS: Section 6-70-40.a.8 of the Code provides the following criteria: - The lot or parcel shall be located in a zone district other than the RR, TR-1, TR-2, VR, VC, SKI-REC, MHP, AH, AH-PUD, RS' G, B-1, B-2, P-I, T, PUB, I, U or AC/REC-2 zone district, and shall be determined by the Community Development Department to be visually constrained because development would severely impact or destroy a Scenic View Protection Area, and the Board of County Commissioners shall confirm that determi~zation. The availability of a Visually Constrained Site TDR(s) is discretionary with the Board, and shall be considered pursuant to Sec. 6-70-20(a) (4). - The determination that property is visually constrained pursuant to this section is merely a procedure to allow the Board to consider granting a transferable development right at the request of a property owner, and shall not be considered a final decision as to the beneficial, productive, and/or economically viable uses that my be available to the property. The Lots are in the RS-30 zone district, which is not included in the list above. APPLICANT'S POSITION: The Applicant asserts that the lots are visually constrained, since they are within a mapped Scenic View Protection Area and the lots and driveways would be visible from the Snowmass Ski Area and the southern end of the Snowmass Creek Valley. The Applicant also notes that the lots are on a ridge overlooking the Harvey Ranch, and that preservation of the lots would enhance and protect the conservation easement on the ranch. The Applicant Odds that a substantial cut will be required 2 to improve the driveway to the lots to comply with County standards, and that the cut will be highly visible. The Applicant also asserts that the lots are undevelopable or severely restricted pursuant to the Code since development of the lots would impact slopes in excess of 30% and the lots are "beneath slopes with grades of 30% to 45%, prime avalanche terrain." The Applicant suggests that the steep south-facing slopes where the lots are located could "present some land subsidence hazards" and are vulnerable to wildfire due to the location on the top of the ridge. STAFF COMIVIENTS: Staff fords that the site is developable pursuant to the Land Use Code, based on the following: - Avalanche.• The CSU maps indicate that there is a potential avalanche hazard area above the lots. The Applicant has not provided any information to suggest that the lots are within a red avalanche hazard area where development would be prohibited by the Code. - Slopes: Both lots contain slopes in excess of 30%. Based on the slope analysis provided by the Applicant (attachment to Exhibit 15 - CTL Thompson letter}, it appears that approximately half of each lot contains slopes of less than 30%. The areas of slopes of less than 30% on Lot 25 are separated by a band of steeper slopes, but it appeazs that the lower area could accommodate a residence and associated improvements within the area of slopes of less than 30%, based on the footprint of the adjacent development. There is a draw on Lot 49 with steep slopes on either side - an activity envelope could be established on the slopes of less than 30%. Lot 25 could be accessed from the existing driveway to the Hansen residence with no or limited impact on slopes in excess of 30%. The driveway to Lot 49 would have to be improved to a 16' width; the Applicant has not demonstrated that these improvements could not comply with the Code. The improvements would impact slopes in excess of 30%, but the Code permits "short driveway encroachments" (100' linear feet per lot). - Scenic View Protection: The development on the lots will be visible from Snowmass Creek Road upvalley from Shield O Road, but will not break a ridgeline. Staff would note that the Applicant mentions the visual impact as seen from the ski area and from the adjacent Harvey Ranch, but the Code only regulates the visual impact as seen from the County Road. Staff does not agree that development of the lots "would severely impact or destroy a Scenic View Protection Area." - Wildfire: Given the slope and vegetation on the lots, staff assumes that the wildfire hazard would be rated severe. The Code permits development in severe wildfire hazard areas, subject to mitigation. - Wildlife: There is no mapped mule deer or elk habitat on the lots. It is staffls opinion that the lots are developable, pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code. There are constraints on the lots, but none of those constraints are unusual for development in the Shield O Terrace or Mesa areas. Therefore, staff asserts that the lots should not be eligible for TDRs. CONSTRAINED SITE TDR TALLY: As of December 1, 2006, the BOCC had issued 18 constrained site TDRs (including 3 visually constrained site TDRs). Since December 1, 2006, the BOCC has issued an additional 19 constrained site TDRs for a total of 37. STAFF RECOA'Il1~NDATION: Staff recommends that the BOCC find that the lots are developable and, therefore, not eligible for TDRs, pursuant to the attached Resolution. 3 Attachments A. Aerial photo B. Snowmass Capitol Creek Caucus Application provided separately ` Ms. Wolff is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the American Lutitute of Certified Planners. Ms. Wolff has worked for the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development Department for 15 years, and as a PlannedSenior Planner within that department for ] 1'/a years, In her planning position, Ms. Wolff has reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pitkin County band Use Code. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, DENYING A REQUEST BY CONNIE, MARK AND ANN HARVEY TO OBTAIN TWO CONSTRAINED SITE TDRS FOR LOTS 25 AND 49, SHIELD O TERRACES Resolution No. -2007 RECITALS 1. Connie, Mark and Ann Harvey ("Applicant") have applied to the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") for a constrained site determination and issuance of Transferable Development Rights ("TDRS") pursuant to Sec. 6-70-40.a.7 and 6-70-40.a.8 of the Land Use Code ("Code"). 2. The lots are located on Shield O Road, are referred to as Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces, and are more specifically described in Exhibits A and B. The lots were created in 1969 and 1972, respectively, which was prior to the County's adoption of subdivision regulations, and, therefore, are legally created and exempt from growth management. Lot 25 contains 2.12 acres and Lot 49 contains 2.099 acres; both lots are non-conforming in size in the RS-30 zone district. 4. The BOCC reviewed the request for a determination as to whether the lots are "undevelopable or severely restricted" and/or visually constrained and, therefore, whether it would be appropriate to grant two constrained site TDRS at a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2007, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to this application. 5. The BOCC finds that the lots are developable pursuant to the Code, based on the following: A. While the lots contain slopes in excess of 30%, there are areas on the lots comprised of slopes of less than 30%. Development could occur in those areas and/or it is possible to develop on slopes in excess of 30%, if the proposed development complies with one of the exceptions in the Code (i.e. parcels with some areas of less than 30% slopes, minor slope anomaly, short driveway encroachments), pursuant to Sec. 7-20-20.c of the Code. B. The lots are not within a mapped avalanche hazard area; therefore, Sec. 7-20-SO.a of the Code would permit development on the lot. C. Development on the lots will be visible from Snowmass Creek Road upvalley from Shield O Road, but will not break a ridgeline and would not "severely impact or destroy a Scenic View Protection Area." D. The wildfire hazard on the lots is presumed to be severe; Sec. 7-20-60 of the Code permits development in severe wildfire hazard areas, subject to mitigation. E. There is no mapped mule deer or elk habitat on the lots. 6. The BOCC finds that the lots are not eligible for issuance of TDRS for constrained sites. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it hereby denies the Harvey request for two constrained site TDRS for Lots 25 and 49, Shield O Terraces. Resolution No. _-2007 Page 2 DENIED ON THE 24`h DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Jeanette Jones Deputy Clerk and Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely County Attorney By Michael Owsley, Chair Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cin y ouben Community Development Director PID #264527201006 & 264527201007 Case P 112-07 SNOWMASS CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS Box 507 Snowmass, Colorado 81654 September 20, 2007 Suzanne Wolff Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Harvey Request We understand that the County intends to consider an application from Connie Harvey and members of her family for two visually constrained lot transferable development rights. The lots in question are Lots 25 and 49 in the Shield-O Terraces subdivision and are directly north of and visible from the Snowmass Ski Area on ridgelines that would make them highly visible from other houses in the vicinity and from the ski area, as well as the Snowmass Creek Road. The applicant is proposing to relinquish development rights on the two lots in return for a transferable development right for each lot. At its meeting on September 17, 2007, the board of the Snowmass/Capitol Creek Caucus considered Mrs. Harvey's request to support her family's application to the County for the TDRs. After discussion, the board unanimously voted to support the application. Maintaining these lots as undeveloped land will provide a visual and wildlife buffer and will help maintain the rural setting and feeling of open space that characterize the area. The board also noted that immediate neighbors of the property in Shield-O Terraces strongly support the application. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendation to support the Harvey application. SNOWMASS-CAPITOL CREEK CAUCUS / ' l ~f Michael Kinsley, President cc: Caucus Board Bonnie Waechtler From: Suzanne Wolff Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:55 AM To: Lance Clarke Cc: Bonnie Waechtler Subject: FW: Harvey Application for TDRs Attachments: HARVEY LOT APPLICATION 9-17-07 (2).doc; harvey constrained TDR bocc memo.doc Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Categories: Red Category Of course it finally came! I revised my memo to incorporate and reference this email as Attachment C. SO you need to reprint the memo and print the email from SOTHA. You don't need the other attachment -the application - he sent it back to me and I couldn't figure out how to delete it from the attachments. Call if you have questions. If you don't get met at 927-9480, try 618-2110 - I may take Jared for a stroll to get him to nap. From: SOTHA [mailto:sotha@comcast.net] Sent: Wed 10/17/2007 8:46 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: Harvey Application for TDRs 10/17/07 Dear Ms. Wolff: I apologize for the delayed response although I have been travelling for the past several days. I have reviewed the revised Harvey application letter that you have emailed to me and confirm that this is the letter I was instrumental in revising for Connie. Shield-O Terraces Homeowners' Association Board of Directors unanimously supports the Harvey family's application as you have confirmed by email. Unfortunately, the copy you mailed to me will not be accessible for many more days, so I must rely on the copy you emailed. Please understand that SOT did not object to the basic precept of the original Harvey application; we strenuously objected to the manner in which her attorney denigrated Shield-O Terraces with many incorrect statements. The revision has corrected the prior errors and SOT whole-heartedly supports the application. Sincerely, Shield-O Terraces Homeowners' Association Tom DiCecco Counsel to the Board Just wanted to check in to see if your comments would be available today - I'm trying to finish my memo for the BOCC packet. If they are not yet ready, we can forward them to the BOCC separate from the packet, but best to get the comments to them prior to the meeting (they hate it when we hand out additional information at the meetings). If you email, then I can easily forward to them. Thanks. From: "Suzanne Wolff` <suzannew@co.pitkin.co.us> To: "SOTHA" <sotha@comcast.net> I have not received new paper copies of the application for distribution, but this is the revised application that was emailed to me. From: SOTHA fmailto:sothaCa~comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October O1, 2007 2:38 PM To: Suzanne Wolff Subject: Harvey Application for TDRs Importance: High 10/1/07 Shield-O Terraces Homeowners' Association intends to support Connie Harvey's revised application, although we would like to diligently learn if the revised application is actually as we had agreed. In this regard, will there be another distribution for review of the revised application? Sincerely, Shield-O Terraces Homeowners' Association Tom DiCecco Phone: 922-0505 Counsel to the Board AUTOMATIC RECEIPT NOTIFICATION has been relayed to the sender. AUTOMATIC RECEIPT NOTIFICATION has been relayed to the sender. restricted" in order to obtain one TDR in exchange for preservation of the parcel. The applicant original requested three TDRs, but revised tha# _request to one TDR. Suza'`` Wolff proceeded with her presentation as mirrored in her staff memos um. Tom Newt ". ,representing the applicant, gave his presentation to the board based upo' { ~' application request for TDRs for a constrained site which is in the meeting pact' material. A question fro~';4 ~ e board on the actual zoning for this property was cleared up by Ms. Wolff. S'~ xplained that it was AFR-10 and is now zoned AR-'10. Mr. Newland adde" .at although not in staff's memorandum, he did want the board to know that~~~. ~" .was unanimously approved by the Caucus. Chairman Owsley oa ~" ed the hearing to public comment. There being no comment, he closed ; '` ublic hearing. Commissioner Kay-Clapp ~-"ytated that she thinks that there's opportunity for development on this parcel;='' . it small, but be it probably in character with the neighboring structures. ~;~~ ; Therefore, Commissioner Ka" ~ ~ xlapper moved to uphold staff s position to deny the eligibility for a TDR. ~,lnmissioner Richards seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 to 0 w Commissioner Hatfield not present. A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK WAS TAF,AT THIS TIME. ~~~- READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST BY CONNIE MARK AND ANN HARVEY TO OBTAIN TWO CONSTRAINED SITE TDRs FOR LOTS 25 AND 49, SHIELD O__T_ERRACES -MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 19, 2007 STAFF - SUZANNE WOLFF -SENIOR PLANNER • Applicants: • Applicants' Representative: Connie, Mark and Ann Harvey Ken Ransford Summary of Request: Applicant submitted a request pursuant to Section 6-7Q-40.a.7 and 8 of the new Land Use Code for the BOCC to make a determination as to whether the lots are "undevelopable or severely restricted" and/or visually constrained in order to obtain TDRs in exchange for preservation of the lots. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2007 Suzanne Wolff received an email from Martha Cochran after her packet material was submitted for the meeting. She read it aloud. It read " Connie Harvey gave her own short presentation on the history of this property starting with her family's purchase of the land in 1962. Ken Ransford, representing the Harvey family members, proceeded with his presentation based upon information supplied in the Harvey application in the meeting packet material. Discussion ensued on whether this property could go another route such as being purchased by Open Space rather than getting constrained fot TDRs. Dale Will, Director of Open Space and Trails, said that he has spoken to individual trustees by not yet to the entire board on this item. He said that the Open Space board might be interested in purchasing this land. Chairman Owsley asked Connie Harvey if she would consider going to the Open Space board and looking into this option. Ms. Harvey responded by saying yes. Chairman Owsley opened the hearing to public comment. Tirn McFlynn is a resident of Old Snowmass and Chairman of the Open Space Board. He addressed this item and also agreed that it could be put on the Open Space board's agenda for November 1, 2007. Chairman Ows(ey closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kay-Clapper and Commissioner Richards agree with the preservation but think the applicants should Took into other alternatives. Commissioner Farris agrees with the TDR request, while Chairman Owsley agrees with staff and believes that the lots are developable although he is nat against the applicants looking into other options. Mr. McFlynn did state that there may be a few Open Space members who might want to go on a site visit. This may not be accomplished in time far the next BOCC meeting. Various dates were discussed among the board, staff and applicants. December 19, 2007 was finally agreed upon. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2007 Therefore, Commissioner Richards moved to continue this request to December 19, 2007. Commissioner Kay-Clapper seconded the motion. M. passed 4 to 0 with Commissioner Hatfield not present. ~~~EADING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE NES MAJOR '.PROVE AN , DMENTI SENT TO A DEVELOPMENT f )F THE GARAGE FOR UP TO N UPON THAT APPROVAL iS TI !T, RECORDED AGAINST THE P FURTHER DEVELOPMENT STAFFS EZRA LOUTHIS, PLANN ~~: • Applicant: • Appl%~ant's Representative: Michael Mines Francis Krizmanich 11 1 - lYl V I I V 1~1 I V T TO ALLOW FOF SQUARE FEET. A ~ r~r ~ P • Summ.?y of Request: Applicant is requesting a major amendm `~' t to build out the lower level of an existing residence, as well as to build a,~ ~0 square foot garage. Ezra Louthis gave ` r''s presentation to the board as mirrored in his staff memorandum. ;. Francis Krizmanich, r" ~ esenting the applicant proceeded with his presentation based upon the applica_,`' n he prepared that is a part of the September 26, 2407 regular meeting packet. Mr. Krizmanich added that a applicant has agreed to set back, below the house, to the delineated w~-,.lands. That may decrease the 800 square foot floor area to 650 or fi00. He said~~. ;,at the applicant would respect, in ali cases, the 25- foot setback from what are e~ESting wetlands. Supposedly there were wetlan 'ion this property where the pylons are at one time. They are no longer. It is rfi~ `„ just dried dirt. Aside from the area that was to be replanted under the house, th ~vuetlands and riparian habitat remain intact. It is unclear however, whether the a ; a below the second story of the house was ever planted with wetland species,',`ut at this time there is no vegetation to be found there. More discussion ensued on this issu Chairman Farris moved to support t request for a garage to a size of 700 square feet, subject to conditions of a Resolution and with no finishing out under the house where the pylons e. Commissioner Kay-Clapper seconded the motion with the following .quest for amendment. She BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 7 REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 24, 2007 ^ 132 Midland Avenue Suite 3 Basalt Colorado 81621 Ken Ransford, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW Ken Ransford, CPA LICENSED [N COLORADO December 10, 2007 Phone: 970-927-1200 Fax: 970-927-1300 kenransfordCcomcast.net Pitkin County Board of Commissioners 520 East Main Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Phone 970-920-5204 Fax 970-920-5198 Re ardin December 10, 2007, Site Visit Harve~pplication for TDRs on Shield O Lots 25 and 49 To the Commissioners of Pitkin County Attached are the following documents: 1. Letter dated December 5, 2007, from Bill Harding, Fire Marshal of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, attesting to the extreme fire danger on Lots 25 and 49. 2. Summary of specific fire risks identified with the Shield O Mesa and Shield O Terraces subdivision. 3. Summary of 1999 Monument Creek Fire which according to Bill Harding presents similar terrain to Shield O Lots 25 and 49; summary was prepared by David A. Blair, District Fire Chief, Grand Valley Fire Protection District. 4. Map indicating topographic lines and slope steepness. Sincerely yours, Ken Ransford C:\kbr\dbase\lettempl.doc 6. Photograph of region from Krabloonik Kennels. r ~. Basalt & ~:ural Fire Protection District "Protecting Our Community Since 1.970" 12-OS-07 Ken Ransford Attorney at Law, CPA 132 Midland Avenue, Suite 3 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Connie Harvey Property, Shield O Subdivision Dear Ken, After observing the site and discussing the issues involved with your client Connie Harvey, I wish to offer the following comments that you can pass on to representatives of Pitkin County for their subsequent review and evaluations. It's my understanding that Ms. Harvey desires to provide 2 lots that are adjacent to her present ranch property, as well as the adjacent residence of 1817 Shield O, as conservation easements of her property. In the process of doing this, she wishes to transfer her rights to development through the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) process. Her request of the fire district was to look at the property and make a determination regarding fire hazards associated with those 2 lots. The fire code in its configuration is not denying the rights of property owners the right to build on their property rather it provides guidance on a case by case basis to evaluate risk to life safety, health, and welfare. The fue code determines safety features as applicable to mitigate concerns. That being said and evaluating these properties, especially in light of the fact Ms. Harvey chooses to voluntarily give up rights of development, it would be in the best interest of life safety not to develop the properties because of the extreme wildfire hazards associated. I enc]ose an exhibit that serves as a guide to describe road conditions, water supply, specific terrain and vegetation issues in regards to these properties. Due to the steepness of the terrain with natural chimneys and dense gambrel oak, places these properties in the extreme wild fire zone (i.e.: In 1999, a fire in Parachute with very similar terrain and fuel conditions, under extreme wind conditions burned 9 homes and damaged 24 others. Seven of those homes burned inside and out because of the radiant heat going through the windows even though vegetation was at a distance). The other concern is access to the properties, which is through very steep and narrow road situations, especially at the far end of Shield O Road. This makes maneuvering our fire department vehicles and key operational procedures such as water shuttle very difncuit and impractical. 1089 JW Drive, Carbondale, Co 81623 Pltone:(970) 704-0675 • Fax: (970) 704-0625 www.basaltfire.org In summary, I hope that in providing this correspondence and review by representatives of Pitkin County at the site, that they would agree it to be beneficial to honor the conservation easement that your client would like to propose. If I can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me at any time. Sincerely, ,> /` Bill Harding, Fire Marshal// Cc: Scott Thompson, Fire Chief Connie Harvey, Property Owner Exhibit 1 Shield-O as a subdivision lacks many of the amenities needed toward adequate fire protection service. As a referral agency I have often expressed the access difficulties and hazard considerations for this area. The following are common comments that I copied from referrals of contiguous properties to the Harvey properties that illustrate the issues: "My observations are consistent with statements made within Pitkin County Ordinance 96-19n with respect to road conditions and water supply. The home site is approximately 8 miles from the Old Snowmass Fire Station. Driving time to the home site during clear weather is around 40 minutes. Response to this station is by local firefighters who would respond in an Engine and/or ambulance based on varying emergency response scenario. The next available emergency apparatus with crews is from the town of Basalt having an estimated driving time 45 minutes during good weather. The more negotiable access to the site is off of Snowmass Creek Road, onto Mesa Road then toward upper Shield-O road. A sign at the beginning of Mesa Road states the following: 'MESA ROAD - Very steep grades, (14°s for Mesa Road), narrow with sharp turns; Travel at your own risk, 4WD drive and chains required especially for heavy trucks and/or trailers." The road surface especially Shield-0 and the driveway is impacted by water during the wet season creating difficult rutted driving conditions. The average road width on Shield-O of 19 feet is less than the prescribed 20 feet stipulated within the International Fire Code and Pitkin County Asset Management Plan for roads servicing more than five premises. There are two water storage tanks located at the opposite side of the subdivision on lower Shield -0 road. These tanks primarily service the nearby homes within those areas. The tightness of a switchback located at Shield-0 and Slue Sage Lane renders tender shuttle operations, (water hauling operation), unsafe and ineffective from the top of the mesa between the home site and the tank location especially during inclement weather. (In 2005 during a fire event in the area, a fire department water tender attempting to access these tanks for water supply became stuck at this location and required towing services.) The lower tank at the intersection of Shield-O and Snowmass CreeY, Road can be of use during an emergency event by driving up and down Mesa Road. The owners of 1301 Shield-O road are in the process of having a 20,000 gallon tank be available as a public water supply for the upper mesa area. This should be on line within the next few months The fire department however could not effectively and safely manage sustained water-hauling operations to the Harvey site in the event of fire. The fire department does currently have and will acquire other engines with four-wheel drive capabilities that carry 500 gallons of water. These engines would require onsite supplemental water to initiate structural fire attack and exposure protection from a wildfire event. The properties themselves are categorized in an extreme wildfire hazard zone for the following reasons: Steep terrain having natural chimneys that are prone to eddy currents during high wind weather conditions. Fire travels faster and more intensely in the vertical direction. Significant vegetation, principally gambrel oak that can stay readily dry for a long period of time and burns with a lot of heat. Southern aspect, which has major solar exposure. Insurance companies in determining the level of fire protection toward coverage and premiums often query the fire department about this subdivision. One of these companies requests us to conduct preplans and determine fire protection upgrades of existing properties toward their coverage policies. These upgrades can be in er.cess of what has been presently required. Future property owners may want to Contact their insurance agent regarding policies in wildfire areas." 1/07/2007 10:40 F.9.Ii GRAND VALLEY F'I RE PRUTECTIUN DISTRICT 1777 F. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY PO BOX 295 YA1tACHUTE, CO 81635 (970) 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748 Monument Creek Fire, June 27, 1999 Battlement Mesa, Corrado X002 Activity/Cause: '1'hc Mo~tume~rt Creek Fire occurred at I3attletncnt Mcsa, North of Parachute, Colorado on June 27`h, 1999. Suzanne Corey, 50 Smokcy Hill Circle, called in the fire. It wa_s originally paged out as a brush fire in Monument Gulch. It quickly spread down into Monument Gulch and up the north side into the Monument Creek Subdivision. "I~e lire activity and behavior was extreme at this time and was supported with winds of upwards of 40 mph, according to residence in the area with anemometers. The fire split into two fingers, making runs up Monument Gulch and north around Monument Creek Subdivision. '1'hc fire department's initial response was to evacuate citizens and provide for the safety of firefighters. once the initial evacuation was made and equipment was mobilized to the scene, crews formed, fire control was begun. The fire department was supplemented with fire departments (rum Snowmass to Clillon, as well as 4 inter-agency engines, hclitack crew and air attack and air tanker support. 'lac fire in Monument (:mulch raced up the gulch to the youth and east and was stopped when it ran nut ~f fuels due to the fire in 1998. "The fire front running to the north of Monument Creek Subdivision made runs up three drainage's and was stopped with the assistance v(' an air lanke,r drop al the Stoneridge Subdivision. The fire burned through the open spaces in' Stoneridge and into the fields to the north, northeast. 'There were 9 houses, which were burned to the foundation or considered to be a total loss due to possible structural failure as a result of the lire. There were an additional 24 homes damaged as a result of this fire. Subsequent investigations by the C;arficld County Sheriff's Uepartmenl has resulted in the release of information which indicates it was an arson fire, started by a 14 year old male .juvenile. 1'hc ignition source is allegedly a "lighter". 'l~he District Attonicy's ()fficc and the Garfield County Sheriffs T)epartment are handling the investigation and the release of information. Origin: Prom burn patterns and witnesses, the fire was started in the vicinity of the ridge to the ~~uthwest of Monument Gulch and north of 5mokey Hill Circle. It is believed to have been started in grasses. David A. Blair District Fire Chief, Grand Valley Fire Protection District ~~`.'~~ .~. ~' . ,~ ~ . arw, r ~\` ~ C'a / G ~. _, ,° `.. ~1 ` 1, # `. q ~ i ~ ~1 t 1 ) ~i ~j~j I t{ ~ ~ r ~ ~- 1 • ' y. r'R ~ ~.w ~ e ~~ ¢r y'~. `~,~~ ~ ~~ os V tcS ~ ~ Q ~: - ~ ~ i ~ p ~ a~ o ~~ V ~~~r ~ ~ o 0 ~ V ~, ~, - ~ cu ~ ~ ¢+ td :~ ~t .Q ~i~ ' ~ ~ F~ R J~~ t ~^ ~~~~ ~ ~ '~1 `' a ~ ~ ,~ ~ ' ~ { j ~ i~, ~ ,J, , ~~I ~,~,//~r ~~/i %/~ f ~~ ff / / ~. iJ N r" , J ~ / ~ 1~;~ ,, `"_ ` ~ n ~ , - ~ c„ ~ ~~ ~~ ,y ""~ ~ 5 N M1 w ~ x x ..~ f r ~ r'~ NOTE TO BOCC: Mancos Shale is a very unstable formation that underlies the slope on which the Harvey lots are located. The description of Mancos Shale below come from the Colorado Geological Survey. OPEN-FILE REPORT 99-7 File Format: Microsoft Word -View as HTML Geologic Map of the Basalt Quadrangle, Eagle, Garfield and Pitkin .... Recent landslide initiated on a steep face of Mancos Shale (Km) in the W ]1L SW Y4 Sec., ... geosurvey.state.co.us/pubs/gis_data/mapping/Basalt_legen.doc - Similar pages -Note this Mancos Shale (Upper Cretaceous)-Predominantly medium- to dark- gray, carbonaceous, silty to sandy shale with minor bentonite beds, dark-gray limestone, and medium-gray, grayish-yellow-weathering, clayey sandstone. May include the Fort Hays Limestone Member (unit Kmf of Freeman, 1972), adark-gray, thickly bedded limestone which occurs about 300 ft above the base, and upper and lower sandstone members (units Kms & Kmsl of Freeman, 1972) mapped in the Woody Creek quadrangle to the east. The main body of the Mancos Shale is medium- to dark-gray, marine shale. Isolated outcrops of the unit occur north and northeast of Mount Sopris but are mostly covered by surficial deposits. Unit is highly faulted and broken and probably has been displaced vertically or tilted north into the Carbondale collapse center. Slopes underlain by Mancos Shale are frequently mantled with landslides. Total thickness of the Mancos Shale in the Woody Creek quadrangle to the east is 5,200 ft (Freeman, 1972). The Mancos Shale is very prone to landsliding. Unit is susceptible to shrink-swell problems where it contains expansive clay. RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST BY CONNIE, MARK AND ANN HARVEY TO OBTAIN TWO CONSTRAINED SITE TDRS FOR LOTS 25 AND 49, SHIELD O TERRACES FIFTEEN PAGES OF EXHIBITS SUBMITTED_FOR THE RECORD AT THE FEBRUARY 13. 2008 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOCC FAX N0. :9709253272 Feb. 13 200^0 11:02AM P1 Gmail -Harvey Shield-0 Lot Ti)Rs http://mail.gcwgle.eom/mail/'.>ui=2&ik=a7142c5fS0&view-pt8csearc._. ,~ , .,, ~~~ Pat Humphry <topah4dr@gmail.com> ~~~ 1^+'+'...~Mp`N'WNP0.1lMRnnfnTtwn'rtmrc::n'rpe.nawv~w..Hrrcwe-.ir.na•rv+.rwwM.v~ mnmmnenrme~~'r.MVwwm...r.+nlY~MwFT...me~.~rr. vrtr.-wnv.w.. Harvey Shield-O Lot TDRs 2 messages Pat Humphry <topah4dr@gmaif.com> Wed, F®b 13, 2008 at 9:38, AM To: jackh@co,pitkin.co.us Cc: pattic@co.pitkin.co.us, rachelr@co.pitkin.co.us, michaelo@co.pitkin.co.us, dorothef@co.piktin,co.us, dfarris cGOsopris.net, suzannew. cr co,pitkin.co.us, cmharve@gmail.com 1 have known Connie Harvey for nearly 25 years. She has worked long and hard for several years in environmental causes, saving many acres of open space for all of us to enjoy, including much of her own ranch at Snowmass with a conservation easement. Her proposal for TDRs on her two Shield-O lots makes complete sense in that it will enhance the beauty and open space of the adjoining ranch, leaving two lots that are unsuitable for development in the first place as open space bordering her ranch and adding to its beauty. She is yet again willing to give up a considerable source of income if these lots were ever sold for development as a contribution to open space. I heartily agree with her proposal to the 13OCC for TDRs on these two lots. Pat Humphry 925-3272 ,.,....,~..~-,..,...,..-...... ~rM--..,,- .-,.,.~.., .~.~.n...~~.. Mali Delivery Subsystem <mail®r-daemon@googlemail.com> Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 9:38 AM To: topah4dr@gmail.com This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification Delivery to the following recipient fai{ed permanently: dorothef(c~co,piktin.co.us Technical details of permanent failure: PERM FAILURE: DNS Error: Domain name not found ----- Original message ----- Received: by 10.142.213.9 with SMTP id 19mr91448wfg.104.1202920694537; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:38:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.158,16 with HTTP; Wed, 13-Feb 2008 08;38:14 -0800 (PST) Message-I D: <4e028770802130838o2f49f5b3of6538431d757e04ca(~mail.amail.cam> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:38:14 -0700 From: "Pat Humphry" <tooah4drCa~gmail.com> To: jackhCa~ca.r~itkin.co.us Subject: Harvey Shield-O Lot TDRs Cc: pattic(c(c7~co.nitkn,co.us, rachelr(r~co.oifkin.co.us, michaelo(c~co.pitkin,co.us, dorothef(cr~co.piktin.co.us, dfarris~sonris.net, suzannew.t'a'?co.oitkin..co.us, cmharveCcaomail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multiparUalternative; boundary="----=_Part_40419_9575019,1202920694525" = Part 40419_9575019.1202920694525 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 i ~~' 1 of 2 2/13/08 9:40 AM ~~ ~ /1/2008 11:22 FAX I~ ~A I~ ~/ I: ~~ Sue Helm 11000 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, Colorado 81.654 phone - (97U) 923-3131 e-mail -sue@helmgroup.com I^ebruary 12, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Pitkin County 53U E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado Subject: Harvey TDR's Dear Commissioners, This is the second issue with the Shield O 7'e,-race subdivision that has corns before the Caucus in the past couple months. This is a personal letter and has nothing to do with the Caucus Board; but 1 bring this ttp to point out that this was an early subdivision and has mistakes that would not be allowed today. Therefore, I feel that this application should be viewed in tight of this poorly conceived development. The Harvey family has been a good steward of the land and preserved over 1,000 acres in this valley. They aie now asking to sterilize 2 more home sites that if developed would negatively impact the valley and the Snowmass Maroon Bells Wilderness Area. It would not cost the County or anyone else anything to get these two questionable Lots taken off the books. That sure seems to be a win-win situation. I only wish that the other problems presented by the lay out of this subdivision could be as easily solved. I am very familiar with the area, the beautiful Harvey land that has been preserved, and this subdivision with its questionable lot placement. We have one example of a house on the ridge across from this that is one of the first things you see as you are coming out of the Wilderness Area. Any more of these that can be this easily prevented would be a real benefit for everyone enjoying the hack country. Many of us are quite concerned about the visual and crowding impacts from build out in this subdivision. Anything that can be done to alleviate it would be greatly apprec;iatc;cl by all of the c•esidenes in this valley and would be positive for the County. Granting these two TDR's would be the easiest way to start help solving this problem, Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sue He1an Sc~.2. f~ 0 01 h~~~~ ~~ Page 1 of 1 ~ ^ IL ^ ^^^^ i`^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ February 12, 2008 Jack Hatfield Patti Clapper Rachel Richards Michael Owsley Dorothea Farris Suzanne Wolff RE: TDRs for Shield-O Lots Greetings; 2008-02-13 17:36:53 (GMT) UO`J-LU I- IU4G ri ~ni. Maui ci vai~cu LAUREL GARRETT 835 W. MAIN STREET ASPEN, CO 8161 1 1 support the Harvey Family's application for two TDRs in exchange for the development rights on their two Shield-O Terrace lots. 1 a>n fa>niliar with the Harvey Ranch property and the two Shield-O lots that adjoin the ranch on the North boundary, Approving this request ~~vill: o Remove from the county's building lot inventory two lots that would never be approved today; ^ Preserve the scenic value of the Harvey Ranch, an 1,800 acre property under conservation easement acquired by Pitlcin County Open Space and others in 2006; ^ Eliminate the prospect of two ridge-slope houses in the viewshed of both the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area and. Snowmass Ski Area This is a highly appropriate use of the Commission's discretion to grant constrained. lot TDRs and 1 urge you. to use that discretion in favor of this application. Sincerely yours, ,, ~~2t.ric.c'~i Laurel Garrett ~~S ^ ^ ~~~~M HARUEY PHONE N0. 970 920 3306 Feb. 12 2002 03:24PM P1 ^ Cam.. ~,~. ~, ~~~ ~~~~~ ~earuary ~ ~ ~ 2oas To the Members of the hoard of County Cornmisia-+ers, ~ Cam, Colorado Dear Baald Members: != rrsi of atl may !introduce rnys~t` fo yoa. to ~ ~ic~t+a v~hy I hsv® an in f~ Harv~a~- l=am~y`s request iar TDRs for EAe l~io lobs~tlhrey own wf~tt~ove~notic ~r rte. I have done m2~irfienance woflc ort the rar~ch...Qria'~fY carpetitry'~ rr~ch buitdmgs and houses. i'hec~efore, l kno~r of t#te beauty artd serasilly Of @~ beaart~7rit rare! setta~g and, having lived in this $~ many years atn ~~ ire ~ rtoY fry up ~++~ the lsoiaied mountain veggys arid: @~eit surrout+dir'tg hi~tl~oountry v.witl~ housirvg_ l also hire great respect for and convert for one of tfie gnu ~ artd moms this natior- affartjs lfis citzenship. TtrBtt is ttte pritiaffi .~ of ply arrd fhe ir~hecerct rights that accompany Drat airship. t believe ~ the mss Prtldn Cotstty has in pleas to grant TDRs with preservat[on of Det~~t+l tr~sisarbed saecietr a~ open spaces as an importer ©arrrpotserrt of that tends itst~f w+a# !+~ favot~te rarksideration of t7'te Flarvey Far~y request: ?'fiey ol~tousty ham ~e ~ Za beald an the k~ in :auestian w seN tt~am ~ anther part~r vvF~ wt3tctd also !~e able ~ ~ ~ righ>_ Then~re, !want to lam crry supportta their re~~es4 vshv~, ~ grarrb~d, wt~! add t4 a goal of cortsarving our mutual her§lage of op®n spare artd undis~ttbecf vi~as_ 'T'Ftank you for the time you give m my aamrrwnication to you acrd for arty assistance you can give to make the iiacve~'s fequest coa-sidared fav~abiy. Yours , Ed Tesler 46129 U. S. Htghv~ray g 8 24 Glenwood Springs, Cotorado St6fl'! 970-gob-9241 il,I~ Ordinance Requirements Ap lication of ordinance to Lots 25 and 49 Visually Constrained. Pitkin County • Lots are in a Scenic View Protection Area. Land Use Code Section 6-70-40(8)(a) states that a lot is "visually constrained • Lots are highly visible from the Snowmass Maroon Bells because development would severely Wilderness Area. impact or destroy a Scenic View Protection Area ..." • Lots dominate the view from most of the Harvey Ranch which is under permanent conservation easement. I • Houses constructed on Lots 25 and 49 will be visible from I Snowmass Creek Road, and Snowmass Ski Area. i • House on Lot 25 ma be constructed on a rid e line. Constrained lot. Section 6-70-40(7)(a) The extreme fire danger, unstable slopes, need for extensive states, "The lot or parcel ... shall be road construction and impact to wildlife warrant a finding undevelopable or severely restricted ... that the lots are severely restricted. Both the availability of Constrained Site TDRs and the amount of TDRs to be awarded, if any, are discretionary with the Board ..." Fire danger Lots 25 and 49 are in an extreme fire danger area. Bill Harding, Fire Marshal of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, believes there is a high chance that houses on lots 25 and 49 would not survive a fire. He states in his December 5, 20071etter, "It would be in the best interest of life safety not to develop the properties because of the extreme wildfire hazards associated. Due to the steepness of the terrain with natural chimneys and dense gambrel oak, places these properties in the extreme wild fire zone (i.e.: In 1999, a fire in Parachute with very similar terrain and fuel conditions, under extreme wind conditions burned 9 homes and damaged 24 others. Seven of those homes burned inside and out because of the radiant heat going through the windows even though vegetation was at a distance)." Wildlife habitat • Property has sage brush and Gambel Oak flora which is important habitat for songbirds, sage grouse, birds, deer and elk. This type of habitat is rapidly disappearing in Colorado. • Property abuts the Harvey Ranch which is preserved as wildlife habitat by a conservation easement. ~5 J'I Geology • Land is in unstable Mancos Shale which is prone to sliding. Similar south facing Mancos Shale slopes on the Harvey Ranch less than a mile south of Lots 25 and 49 have slid in the past. • John Mechling, an engineer with CTL Thompson engineering firm, wrote July 23, 2007, "The existing access roads and driveways will need to be widened, graded and surfaced. Widening the roads will likely result in additional cuts into the slopes which will decrease the stability of the slopes. Increased erosion from cut slopes will result. Fill slopes will likely require Mechanically Stabilized Earth or concrete retaining wall systems." Avalanche risk •Mechling continues, "Constructing a residence on Lot 25 is not possible without impacting slopes that are greater than 30 percent. An avalanche fence or other diversion structure would likely be required." Road construction • Building a road to access the properties will dramatically alter the hillside. • Combination of steep hillsides and road widening needed for fire trucks means that extensive cut and fill will be required for road construction. Mechling states, "Cut and Fill Slopes and associated site retainage would likely be large enough to be visible from the Snowmass Ski Area." • Bill Harding notes, "The other concern (we have) is access to the properties, which is through very steep and narrow road situations, especially at the far end of Shield O Road. This makes maneuvering our fire department vehicles and key operational procedures such as water shuttle very difficult and impractical. • Eric Hansen in an email January 24, 2008, states that the road to his house is closed at least 3 days a year during normal winters, and that "I don't believe that given the current road condition that the fire dept. can provide timely support in the winter unless conditions are perfect." Water • The only water source is a well, and wells in the past have been drilled up to 600 feet deep in this area. • If the water table drops in drought conditions below the well depth, water maybe unavailable for domestic and fire protection purposes. i, i is `~f¢ / . ; I ~ Y C REVOCABLE TRUST ~% ~~+ ~ 284522202001AR • - {~. ~ f: - '~~ JONNSTON ~pARY C REVOCABLE TRUST 50% f -,r,; o° ~ , a f:- J,, ,~, fl r- -~ ~r -~-.~; ~'~" '~~ 1 Ins I~f. Ci2ptN (ESTER 1 { • ~223o1oa2 ! ~. ~l ~ ~ jj}jf + !t ' 4Z ' /+ ! :~, ` 'N P Ot1~ RESIOEN~ T~~ ~...}-.-~; , 'ADO .._--, ~ ~'_ -' ~ ~J ~ J ~ s GpU v~ ~ ~5 ~~ Casey L- ~ ~ ~ CR N J LESTER JR ~~NN M ` ~. . 5 t y NON M{6HAEtrE 27'100~2~R7ER t~ Y G~~~2 ~`""`,.. ~ S~ ,.~ TptGDO \ ~Z'a24 '.- ~ x dowN N s~rsAN c t , . ~ his a . ~~ N R ~ ~,•, ~ '~ 1 ~ ` ~"Cq~SBACHER SANDRA }t t ~.Es /` 2 27100001 . ~ .,crrntlGE < ~ti r. ~- K.tx r ~ NAL.D B & t D ;' V • 26452720 ; `l 1~~ ~ , i ~~ i { • _~yR1LPATRLCKJRy& ~S'CEN I 4527300003 ua'ti7 7 5fl fey 1 inch eq r ~ ~-__.._ _~_____r--.~ ~}% ~' ~- 0 U _ a ,~ , ~ N _ `~ ~1 ~, ~ ~i ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -, ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : , } ~ j r 'r :~~ Y~ ~ o"~S ' ~ ,' 11 ~ ~ r l ,' ~ t ~ r~ t1 ~J j,f ~ r+~ f~ i q ~ ,, ~~ r l l'~'l ~ ~~ ~~ .i~; % , r -_ ~1```\ ~1'~ s I~i ~~ il~fl ~, ~~~~~ 1i 1 ,~ .. _ ors _ ~ , ``~--`'~ "°°~\ ~~ ~~ ~- ,k ~, o, ~ ~, ,. ``i. .\ ~ ~ ~ V o ~' ~ Q~ ~ H ~ ~ ~ °' .~ • ~ o ~ ~, . CI~ V ~ ~ s ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O t~- - i I h ~~f -;~ ~~ ~~011 i ~ ~ ~/ /%// / / ~~;jJ ,;'~1/~ u'~`~- p o ~_ i~ ~• _ ~. Ken Ransford From: Eric Hansen [ekl2hansen@earthlink.net] Sent: 01/24/2008 2:27 PM To: kenransford@comcast.net Subject: Safety of Shield O Rd. Dear Ken, I'm not sure that I will be able to attend the next Co. hearing to voice my concerns about the Harvey properties and access on Shield 0 Rd. due to my day time job as ski patrol. So below are my concerns about winter access to these properties. First, about myself, I've been in the rescue business as a fireman/paramedic /ski patrol most of my adult life and I've personally maintained this 0.8 mile section of road since moving here in 1/1989. I can testify that this road has been closed for a minimum of 3 days to all ski season every year since then. The closures have occurred at various locations from 1120- 1817 Shield 0 Rd. due to the narrowness of the road combined with heavy drifting of snow and not having adequate equipment available to do timely push backs. I have buried every plow truck and car that I own many times each season in the pursuit of getting home. One year I hired a professional to do push backs with a very large chained front end loader and blade. He had never been stuck in 20 years of plowing but needed 2 cranes to lift him back onto the road that week. Since then I have purchased a Thiokol grooming machine to maintain the drifts and push backs. I have driven fire trucks and ambulances in all conditions and would only attempt bringing a fire truck up to my house on a freshly plowed road with good visibility. They prefer to have a minimum bed surface of 16' visible for this section which is often not the case. So far this winter most of it has been at 12'. There is little wiggle room even for an ambulance. I have equipped my home with medical gear to provide for my family and have taken many safety precautions to avoid a fire inside or outside the house. I don't believe that given the current road condition that the fire dept. can provide timely support in the winter unless conditions are perfect. To build homes on ~-he Harvey lots for the average home buyer would need 3 pages of warnings to prepare them for what is in store for them to live up here. I am on the Board of Directors for Shield 0 and have listened to access complaints to many other home sites in our subdivision that have never been closed due to conditions. Most of our invited guests call before driving up to check road conditions and to have us watch for their successful arrival. I have pulled many of them back on the road over the years. I'm not saying the right tenants can't be found for this section but I'm emphasizing the Fire Departments concerns for protecting this ridge. Eric Hansen J I~ ~~ Shield-O Hearing Feb. 13, 2008 ~, ~l.c~ ~~'e~ ~ My name is Ann Harvey. I'm co-owner of Lot 25 of the Shield-O Subdivision. We appreciate your considering our request to eliminate development from these two lots. I just have 3 or 4 points I want to make. First, we wouldri t have brought this request to you if we didn't sincerely believe that this location deserves protection, and that our request meets the criteria for physically and visually constrained site TDRs in the Land Use Code. You're already familiar with the basic features of the site, ~ '~ }'~ '' p ~ uc'~~, so I won't take your time describing them. We understand that the code has to provide the essential authority and framework for your decisions. In our opinion, your approval of this request is entirely in keeping with the intent and the specific language of the Land Use Code. We're not here trying to stretch the interpretation of the code or get special treatment. We're simply asking you to use the tools the code provides. The code is very explicit in leaving the final determination of what constitutes physically or visually constrained sites up to the discretion of the County Commissioners, and we hope you'd see fit to help us eliminate development from these lots. It seems to me that that wise decision-making involves not just interpreting the language of the code, but also considering the context of each request. By context I mean '' factors like nearby land ownership and zoning, community safety, terrain and geography around the site, scenic or other impacts on view planes and protected areas, compatibility with the surroundings, previous public investments in conservation in the area, and support from regional advisory groups and neighbors. In this case, all these factors add further support for a decision to deed restrict these lots. Surrounding zoning is primarily RS-30 and Rural /Remote, zoning which encourages open space protection. As you've heard, the fire marshal has doubts abo}}~~t the wisdom and safety of developing the lots, given the difficult access, the ~iegetaho~°and slope of the lots, and the severe wildfire hazard rating. The lots are near the top of the ridge, the terrain is steep, and the soils are unstable. All these factors argue against development in this location. As commissioners, you are guardians of Pitkin County's natural features and protected areas, and approving this request helps protect the scenic views from the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness and the Snowmass ski area, as well as from the Snowmass Creek Road and the whole upper Snowmass Creek Valley. The lots are within a mapped Scenic View Protection Area. Eliminating development from these lots will make them far more compatible with the surroundings, including the adjacent conservation easements on our family's and the Childs' ranches. The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus board unanimously supports our request, S ~.a+sdoes the Shield-O Terraces Homeowners Association. e most immediate Ceti:-r s `~ e~ ~~ ~~ ~ neighbor Eric Hansen supports it. The monks of Saint Benedict's Monastery support it, as do the Childs, owners of the neighboring ranch. So do many other members of the community, as you'll hear. Basically, the point I want to make is that these conditions and factors are not irrelevant to your decision, and they all should be taken into account. Second, I want to ask you to step back for a minute and take a longer term view of this decision you're making today. What I want you to think about is the fact that Pitkin County, the Aspen Valley Land Trust, and the state of Colorado have partnered with our family and the Child family to protect thousands of adjacent acres, in perpetuity. That means they'll be protected 50 years from now or 100 years from now or 200 years from now. Whether or not our families still own the ranches, they will remain open and undeveloped. I suspect large open spaces will become more and mare scarce and valuable as time goes by. Essentially, by protecting these lands, you have made a tremendous gift to the future. If you can take this long-term view, I think the idea of building two large homes in such an obtrusive spot on the adjacent hillside becomes even more questionable. Approving out request today will help us complete the protection-in perpetuity-of this beautiful landscape, by extending protection to the top of the slope. Third, I think the bottom line question you should be thinking about is: what's the desirable outcome for that site, and for the County? Imagine for a minute that those two lots don't exist. A developer comes before you today wanting to subdivide two 2-acre lots in that location. His consultants tell you the slopes are steep and unstable, the wildfire hazard is severe, access will be very difficult, especially in winter, road cuts and retaining walls will be needed to develop the Lots, and emergency vehicles will have a hard time reaching the lots. There will be noway to site the houses that won't be visible for miles around, and they will loom over a neighboring conservation easement that both the landowner and the County worked hard to put into place. If such a request came before you, would you approve it? I think the answer is no--or at least I would hope it would be no. As conscientious commissioners, you would look at the constraints of the site, and the impacts on scenic values, and the surrounding zoning, and you would send him packing. It would obviously be a bad idea to approve two lots in that location. So, the rational and desired outcome, if you were starting from scratch, would be to keep that untrammeled hillside just as it is. What we're trying to do today is meet you more than halfway in reaching that exact outcome. Even though two lots were platted in a place they would never be allowed under current rules, this is a chance to get rid of them. It's true you can t just make the development rights disappear, but with the constrained lot TDRs, you have the perfect tool at your disposal to accomplish the right outcome. Ideally, in the future, what we'd like to ~~ ~ 1 do is roll those lots into the existing conservation easement and place the same protection on that hillside as exists on the rest of the ranch. If we were standing before you and asking you for the right to create two new building lots in this location and apply TDRs from elsewhere to build houses, we would expect opposition, because it would so clearly be a bad idea. But what we're asking for the opposite. If you would turn down a developer wanting to create these two new lots, why turn us down when we're trying to eliminate them? Finally, and very briefly, I want to address the question of whether determining these lots are severely restricted and / or visually constrained would set a bad precedent for the County. It seems to me that you have discretion to decide this case on its merits, and you'll have discretion to decide future cases on their merits. You can interpret the code in the narrowest possible way, and end up with an outcome that's bad for the site, for the surroundings, and for the County-or you can use ' common sense and your discretion and make the right decision, without in any way violating the Land Use Code. I find it hard to imagine that this will open the floodgates to landowners wanting to give up valuable and scenic building sites in exchange for TDRs of much lesser value. And if a landowner were to come to you with a case as compelling as ours, I'd applaud your approval of their request. Thank you for considering our application. ,~~ ~1, - s ,~. ;.:,_. ~ ~. r ~~ ~~ i j _ ._ . i ~',t, a a.' ..,ti ±r. ~ '~'~'1'. ".:~ t`~L ~: .' --~..~.;.: ' ,ire ~ ~ r_ ..~.., . is -W _ .. - ... '~ -. !::tS~~Y ~~ ~~ ~1 ~~ __1 - -- z;...~..:. . ~' ~ - ivy ~; ~~yAw.+C+-~bv..:~`_. it ~~ ~.zr. t ~ f ~i ~~~ ` 'l ! ~ ~ ' ~. a. -- _, .. .. .. ~ _ ~ . . Mic.Fraet Craig S Lisa Tacker „ ~P ~~ Carbondale, CO $1623 I,(,a `` Pitlcin County Board of County Commissioners Courthouse Plaza 530 E. Main Street 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Commissioners, We are writing on behalf of the Harvey family to ask that you support their request to sterilize two lots tha# they awn in the 8d D 8ubdivisjon in return far twa TDRs. We believe this approval is in the best interest of Pitlcin County for sewxal reasons. Using the rKrticxt ttrat the whole is of greater value than the sum of ita parts we believe these two Iota YYiM add aigr~ent buffering and thsneby eoobgir~l value to an already incred~kr pea d pr~ected lwrd. Land ilret is rxrrdapred in one paroel without fragmentation is fac~ugiNy pr~orwt tQ be ores viable in aupportlrg vril~tfa. ThMa two parcels comprise a smaN arrrourrt of laird tart 1Ma r0ua nalu~ ofttraaa par~aaM to adjacasnt txitial wee lralptat alavataa Mtair irtrp6r11M1aa by adtwrp adl brrlfsr zone to the edge of an ooraervation eaaemsnt. This approval wig coat Ptltidrr Cararrty rtatlting. 1'tria is tn~r a win win siluadon fox the county and its rssidsrrts. /ls the sly far this oorrxrwrrity you trove tiw discxe4orr to add vacua t9o art irnaabnarR a1r~Mdy erMMrMad by tha- berpaya~.lMa do rat think this in any way jaopardiaas MIe 1'OR pq'p'am ainaa the airc~a Ot this proposal are uMikely to occur again. We truly ~ brat you wiM apprvMe this r+rquaat and thereby add value m your investment and support a farrritir clot tetrly lies prrwied oarMarvation of open laird ti the valley in a way that few hrrcNowrreea has bean witirg b do. Sincerely Michael Craig Lisa Tacker Page 1 of 1 Dorothea Parris From: "Delia Mabne" <deliamatorre~earfhlinknet~ To: <jaddu#jZoo.pitldn.oo.us> Cc: <patttirr.oo.ua>; <ra~lr~pitldn.oo.us>; <michaelo~pitldn.oo.ru~; "DorotFrea Farris'" <dtartis~sopris.rreb; <suzanrrew~pitldn.co.us> Bent: Monday, February 11,200810:38 AM Subject: Traatsierrabie Devebpment Rights for the Harvey Properties Dear Commissioners, I am writing reganiirrg the issues d assigning Transbrable DernNoprrrerrt RigtNs ('1'pR) b eeia prjparWS ilr pw Cld Snotivrrraas Shield-O-Mesa subdirraion than exe arwrred by rrrertr0era d tlw M~vay Fbrrriy. In ny gikripn This is hndaoape w urrhlb ~iapeciaMy a~aaiorr wMn diahxbaantlrrop~dewbprnt Visually, ~ aartalnaldlar pt hontas and pre ~ tigit wadd be to atabitlae the building and roadwts would sawrrty rarer the vlarn pNns. Y1Atlt regard b correarvaYa- values, tl» saga aMablaenia prat dominala press hlNaiq»a provtda arw rrMlw nrartrnala wl/1 Naat-rN. high quaMgr t~aa MAA rrrarrlg lltlirilbt trcr vulnerabb bid tpattrls. Nwuavar press NMIbiIAls Mail baoowtrla Olra of pre tvrpat ~ p11At ~ b this waterelred due b dawlopmsnt. I whoNhaariadly enonrnga pau to gr~art pre tiarv~ey's TDR's t>crr press ProP• Delia G. Malone deliamalone[~earthlin k. net "And Lenin has Ihoed and Jehovah has died; while the mother-eagle Hunts her same hitla, crying the name beautiful and bnely cry and is never tired; dreams the same dreams And hears at night the rook-slides rattle and thunder in the throats of these living mountains.' -Robinson Jetlers - 3/8/2408 Page 1 of 2 Dorothest Farris From: "Connie Harvey" <cmharva®gmail.corn> To: <dfanis~sopris.neb; <haNieldQsopris.neb; <michaelo~.pitldn.oo.us>; <patti~sopris.net>; "Suzanne Wblff" <suzanrbw~c~o.pitldn.oo.us> Bent: Monday, Fetxuary 11, 2008 3:08 PM Sut~ect: Fwd: Harvey Building Unit Transfer ---- Forwarded message --- From: Jean C. Glidden <jeancg50ncomcast.net> Date: Feb 10, 200812:12 PM Subject: Harvey Building Unit Transfer To: Connie Harvey <cmharve(cr~,gmail.com> CONNIE - I have tried to send this e-mail to Jack H and Suzanne W @co.pitkin.co.us and it will not send. I do not know how to get this to them Perhaps you can. Thanks. Jean I am a Realtor in DE, a very long time friend of Connie Harvey and her family. Our friendship goes back to high school in NJ where her family was so instrumental in preserving lands in a fast growing area there, lands that are now surrounded by one development aver another. Her family was very progressive in their insight into the need for this preservation in that area and in this country. Connie Harvey and her family are hard working in the area of conservation for all of you, and I support her locally and nationally through my own work as a Realtor in DE. The exchange of building units here has preserved much of our open space as well as an important aspect of our State, the Amish fanning and carpentry community which is so important to the character of this area. The unit exchange stopped the flow of the Amish to other areas of the US by allowing them to allocate their construction units to developers and affording them the oppordmity to keep their old family lands and our open spaces. The Amish bring a peace and quiet sensibility here in a fast growing state, something we all need. The transfer of these building units per acre has been the key ingredient in the success of preservation of lands, the Amish culture, and wildlife habitat here in DE. My husband and I have visited Aspen a number of times. Aspen and the surrounding area is one of the most beautiful we have ever visited, and we have been in every state in the US and all across Canada. I am asking you to be supportive of the work of Connie Harvey and family because I know how importa~ Aspen and that area is to all of them. 3/8/2008 Page 2 of 2 People who have promoted the land preservation and acquired what we have not had the ability or good sense to do for ourselves and our commuaity need our support. Thank you for considering this request for your approval of the transferring of these land units that is being requested by Connie Harvey. Jean Glidden, Reattor Dover, DE 302-632-0972 jeancg50 o,comcast.net 3/8/2008 Page 1 of 3 Dorotlrea Farm From: "Connie Harvey" <cmharve~gmail.oom> 70: <hattield®sopris.neb; <~,p~tlcin,oo.us>; <opr~,neb; <palfic~sopris.net>; <dfanis~aopris.neb t:c: "Cindy Reuben" <cindyhQci.aspen.oo.us>; "Suzanne WoIiP <suzannew~co.pitldn.oo.us> t3snt: Friday, February 08, 2008 2:59 PM Attach: CH to BOCC 2-7-08.doc SubJact: Letter re Harvey appNcativn on February 13th agenda - /1o text and attachment 1100 Stage Road Aspen, CO 81611 February 7, 2008 Dear Commissioners, I'm writing you to ask your help -again - in keeping the upper Snowmass Creek Valley the special place it is. You helped enormously to make that happen, and I think you did a wonderful thing. On February 13th, we'll be on the BOCC agenda again, and I hope you won't make your decision lightly. We bought our 1820-acre cattle ranch in 1962. We have kept it as a working ranch ever since, Pasturing cattle there every summer from about June 15th to early October. Access to the ranch is from the Snowmass Crcelc Road. It borders The Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness Area to the south, the 1500-acre Clrild Ranch to the west, and ~. Bonediet's Mom~ety (over 3000 acres} to the north. The latter two properties are accessed fi+om the Capitol Creek Road. Our ranch and the Child ranch are both Protected by conservation easements, and the Monasteq+ land is used tot agrlculiur~e and as a rCtreat center, with very low development det>sity. All these properties have amazing scenery, critical wildlife Habitat, and are a ~urce of clean air and water. Together they make a wonderful whole. Just north of the ranch, and accessed from the Snowmass Creek Road, is the Skaield-Q Ten'aces Subdivision, ceosisting of 34 properties, most of which are of relatively small sizq l b 3 acres or so. This development was approved in the early 70s, acrd planners have told me that it could not be approved under today's land use code, because of steep slopes, unstable soil, and wildSne lmzar~ds. The only Shield-0 house visible fi+am our ranch belongs to Fait and Kelly Haman. It's a small house built on a ridge overlooking our biggest pasture. The mouth boundary of the Hansen lot is a fence that separates our ranch from the Shield-Q Subdivision. Some years ago we went able to aogrure two small Shield-O lab jmt west of the l~ian~n poperty. These lots are perched on a sheep hillside, with slopes as stoop as 30%. Thry loom over the meadow and much of the ranch in a very dominant location. Thera is no possible way any buibdng placed on that slope could be hidden from view, and building there would requite mas~ve mad cub and retaining walls. When we bought the lofts, we hoped to looep them firm being developed, as placing houses there would have a devastating impact on the ~pearanee and mnbiaace of the reach std snrmrmdiog area. My daughter Amr bought SS°Y~ of ooe lot, and mY sear MariE bought SS91; of tine oWet. The lots were costly to acquire, but have appirecisted Viably situx than. Property texas have risen oorrespondingky, and the Shield-O Tenacx,~s Hamoownd's Association assesses heavy dues for road tnsit~entmce and improveme»b, even though we do not use their toad. Owning the lots has become an expensive peoponition that gds harckr with each passing year. F.,stabe taxes will requite sn enormous outlay, and it's likely the lots will have to be sold to satisfy that expense. It is nat:e to think that my family will keep them nndevelaped forevtr wkss wee get score help front the ~'. Transferable development rights were imant®d fee the purpose of moving davsMpma~ from an undesirable site to a better one. Pitkin County's rules allow the BOCC to grant a TDR for a so-called constrai~d Ldt, which mums erne with physical oonstrainb, such as, for example, sheep slopes and unstable ground. The BDCC can also grant a TDR fora "visually cot~sitred lot," meaning one where development would negatively impact the scenery fi+am as impcetaM. viewpoint. 3/8/2008 Page 2 of 3 We believe both definitions apply to the lots in question. They are accessed by a steep, narrow road and located on a steep hillside. The soil beneath them is the notoriously unstable Mancos Shale, which is exceptionally prone to landslides. They are in a location that is extremely vulnerable to wildfire, and Basalt Fire Marshal Bill Hattiing has written a letter to the effect that in case of fire it is very unlikely that any buildings there could be saved. The scenic value of keeping the lots intact is unquestionable. If houses are built there, they will be highly visible, as will the necessary road cuts and a~ walls, not only from most parts of the Harvey Ranch but also from the S~wmass Creek Road and the 3nowmass Ski Area. This would severely damage the ambiance of the ranch, which is now completely rural and unspoiled. This fact is significant not only w my own family, but to the pecgsle of Firkin County anel oven the people of Colorado, who have all invested talc ma~ey through LiOCO to help put a conxrvatioa easement on tlu Harvey Ranch in order to preserve in perpetuity this exceptionally scenic working ranch, which boats amazing wildlife habitat within Its borders. while the ranch is not open to all comers every day, it is o8en visited by members of the public, both by individuals who ask permission to hike or ski thet+e, and bynun-profit who haves held retreat, seminars, Parties, and fund raisers there. Among these groups are the Aspen Valley Land Trub, the wilderness Worksbop, Ltadaxhip Aspen, the Aspen I~tihtte, and the Hewlert Fotm~dation. 3tabe leaders of We Nacre Cae~eervaacy ace Planning. a stmrmer event there this year. Weddings have been held at the ranch, and it has bees visited by well-known Colenaelans like Governer Ritter, State Senator Gall Schwartz, Wren Wirth (wife of former Senator Tim Wirth, and Mayor Jacob Smith of Golden The Aspen Valley Lead Trust and the Colorado Rocky Moumain School have both held raffles with a day spert moving cattle on our ranch as a prize. As time goes on, properties with attrilxrtes like these are growing very scaroe. The; Waal character and oubtanding natrasl setting of this place should trot be impaired wifhtmk good rte. Given these facts, we're asking the BOCC to grant us acre transferable development right for each lot, thereby taking them art of the pool of dovelopabk land in Pidrirt County. That would keep our ranch the scenic agricultural and wildlife haven that it is. As each lot now has a valid existing development right, doing this wattld Wert increase the nuaaber of buile~k labia P"hkia County. Tt would relocate development to a mare desirable setting, which is exactly what transferable development right (7'DRs) were intended to da. Asking prices for a Shield-0 lot have reached as much as $700,000, while TDRs now sell for around $250,000 >n 5300,000 eseh. Obviously eaachanging these lob for TDRs means giving up at least half their value, but we believe this is worth doing in protect the rural character of the reach. At the same time, granting us a TDR does not cost the taxpayeas a pemry, while enabling Ann and 1Naeic to recover their investmcat and gain a modest new egg is return for their good deeds. Our application matches the goals and desires of the Sno~r~es-Capitol Creak Cacaos, the Firkin County Open Spae~e and Trails Beuad, the Aspen Valley Land Trust, and Gnat Outdoors Colorado. It's also in hm'mm~y with the ~~a of the Firkin County Agricultural Commitbex, which studied these issues extensivoly, and has the support of the Shield-0 Hoaeoownets Association. The last point I want to make is that tlttre mta~, I suppobte, be a resaon why Pidcin Cewtoty would hesitate to approve this application. In this letter I`ve tried to address two remora I've heard mentioned, namely the idea that the ranch is not a public amenity, and the idea that mry east be eounroad on never to sell those lot. Neither of those ideas is true, the Srst not at all, and the secm-d certainly not long-teen The only long term way b assure preservation is by taking action while it still is possible. Another reason I've heard mentioned is a fear that Firkin County has approved or might approve "too many" TDRs. I'm not itt a position to judge all coiutty land use applic~ions, but if ever another application comes before you that has eelarlly good reasons far gtaodng a TDR, I will strartgly urge you to great it. I somehow doubt that you'll be swamped wilt applicartions finm peopls willing to give up half the value of their lead to pmmct sn adjacent conservation property of comparable size to our ranch, so I see this as an alarmist and unfounded fear. 3/8/2008 ^ ~ouldb~Y .r ounty ~° ~,~,~ and a~ eat C ~ a ~- ~ ~,•~~~~~ ~ ~,~ ~ ion ~ ~~~~, ~ ;g ~~ ~~ stei-~ ~~",,;n8~° ~° guy •~'~'~", ~ pnoth~ but fos reams la~~ s ~ '~ w~ ~~ek ~ Sns- co~F~~ ~nv~11~L~~~~ ~~ly ~yof+~ n~ ~~~~~ ~ ~fc~j~~~ Va11ey- ~~wh~s~~D 'T~y°ufoAr vat v~ qty, ~o~ ~ 31g12(N