Also Identified As an Amendment to the Zoning Plan

MEMORANDUM

TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission

FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner

RE: AR-2 Zone District Land Use Text Code Amendment

DATE: September 5th, 2017

SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A “Special Events Venue” is a use that is currently prohibited in the Residential – 2 Acre (AR-2) Zone District. The Applicant has proposed to amend the Land Use Code to establish a “Special Events Venue” as a Special Review Use within the AR-2 Zone District. Since Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) review of the request, there has been a “substantial change” to the proposal that is required to be reviewed again by the P&Z prior to final decision by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).

Additionally, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S) Section 30-28-116, the requested amendment is also identified as an Amendment to the Zoning Plan.

APPLICANT: Redstone Castle, LLC – Steve and April Carver

REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn

BACKGROUND: The P&Z heard this request at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 28th, 2017 (Staff memo to P&Z, Attachment A). At this meeting, the P&Z adopted a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Land Use Code Text Amendment to establish a Special Events Venue as a Special Review Use in the AR-2 Zone District with the Staff recommended change to establish a 10 acre minimum lot size for a property to be eligible to request this designation. The purpose of establishing a 10 acre minimum lot size was based on the concept that larger acreage properties would have an advantage over smaller acreage properties to absorb potential impacts created by the Special Events Venue use. Potential impacts that have been discussed include but are not limited to noise, traffic, and parking.

REQUESTED CHANGE: Since the March 28th, 2017 P&Z meeting, the Applicant has proposed to increase the 10 acre minimum lot size requirement to a 20 acre minimum lot size. The Applicant has stated that the purpose of increasing the minimum lot size to 20 acres is twofold:

(1) A 20 acre minimum lot size will further the notion that a larger acreage property has an advantage over a smaller acreage property to absorb the potential impacts of a Special Events Venue use. Therefore, a 20 acre minimum lot is size is more appropriate than a 10 acre minimum lot size.

(2) There was a concern expressed by Crystal River Caucus neighbors that, the proposed Land Use Code Amendment was too broad in scope and had the potential for widespread use by too many AR-2 zoned properties. Increasing the 10 acre minimum lot size to a 20 acre minimum lot size will reduce the number of

Page 1 of 2

AR-2 zoned properties eligible to apply to be Special Events Venues to 8, of which 3 are owned by the Applicant (the Redstone Castle parcels).

The following underlined language would potentially be added as a subsection in Chapter 4 and would be identified as Land Use Code Section 4-30-50(k)(1)(e):

“Specific Standards for the Residential-Acre (AR-2) Zone District: Within the AR-2 Zone District, a property shall have a minimum lot size of 20 acres to be eligible for a Special Events Venue designation.”

The Applicant’s requested change can be viewed in Attachment B.

STAFF COMMENTS: On August 23rd, 2017, the BOCC heard the Applicant’s requested change to establish a 20 acre minimum lot size in the AR-2 Zone District for a Special Events Venue use. At this meeting, Staff was provided with direction that a majority of the BOCC supported the requested change. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2-40-10(b), any “substantial change” to a Land Use Code Text Amendment recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires that the change be resubmitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its approval, disapproval, or suggestions, prior to an action by the BOCC. The P&Z is charged with providing a recommendation on this amended request.

LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a finding that the request to change the 10 acre minimum lot size requirement for a property to be eligible for a Special Events Venue designation in the AR-2 Zone District to a 20 acre minimum lot size is consistent with adopted County Master Plans as outlined in the Staff memo to the P&Z dated March 28th, 2017.

Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt a motion to recommend approval to the BOCC for the requested change from a 10 acre minimum lot size to a 20 acre minimum lot size.

ATTACHMENT: A. Staff P&Z memo dated March 28th, 2017 B. Applicant’s requested change

Page 2 of 2

COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC Ecological Research, Management & Consulting

August 9, 2017

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

Glenn Horn Davis Horn, Inc. 215 S Monarch St # 104 Aspen, CO 81611

RE: Redstone Castle Elk Production

Dear Glenn;

It is my understanding that the issue of elk calving on the grounds of the Redstone Castle was raised by some neighbors at the Crystal Caucus meeting on May 11, 2017. As I stated in my March 31, 2017 letter to you, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Species Activity Mapping (SAM) data indicates elk production habitat is located “…on the far eastern sides of the parcels on the steep slopes and high bench above the valley floor.” I also stated that the “…production area, winter range, and upper (or northern) winter concentration area mapped by CPW are more or less accurate. The production habitat [however] could be substantially refined based on vegetation type.” In addition, CPW District Wildlife Manager John Groves and I “…discussed the [elk] production area on the benches above the steep slopes and cliffs to the east. Mr. Groves informed me that although he had not observed recent production in that area, he believed that habitat appropriate for elk production did indeed occur in that area.”

Characteristics of Elk Production Habitat

Elk calving grounds or production areas are carefully selected by cows and are generally in locations where cover, forage, and water are in close proximity (Seidel 1977a, Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011, Rearden et al. 2011). Calving sites occur in the lower to middle portions of summer range and often occur in the same general area each year. Although selected sites are used for a brief period in the spring or early summer, elk production habitat is often a limiting factor for a given population. Sites must provide security from harassment and be within or adjacent to high quality summer range. Elk are considered a hider species because the calf remains bedded at a location and responds to threats by remaining prone while the female moves away to forage, returning periodically to nurse (Altmann 1963, Phillips 1974, Boyce and Sauer 1978, Toweill et al. 2002, Barbknecht et al. 2011) . Seidel (1977b, 1977a) studied elk calving habitat at various sites in the White River National Forest. He found that cow elk prepare a distinct birthing bed and, for the most part, return to that bed each year. All birthing beds examined were in mature aspens with a thick understory of shrubs such as chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), serviceberry (Amalanchier alnifolia), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.). All beds were located on southeast-facing slopes within 183 m (200 yd) of a water source. Personal observation by CWS of calving behavior in Pitkin County has largely confirmed Seidel’s assessment with the following additions: (1) The aspect variable described by

100 Elk Run Drive, Suite 128  Basalt, CO 81621  970.927.4549  info@ coloradowildlifescience.com  www.coloradowildlifescience.com Davis Horn, Inc. ‒ Redstone Castle Elk Production August 9, 2017 Page 2

Seidel seems to be less important than the understory variable. Active elk calving habitat in Pitkin County is known to occur on variable aspects, but there is always significant woody understory vegetation which provides calves with hiding cover. (2) Very young spotted calves and probable birthing beds have been observed in narrowleaf cottonwood riparian habitat that has a dense willow, alder, and/or chokecherry understory. This suggests that this habitat type is also used for production in the Roaring Fork Watershed. Recent research supports Seidel’s conclusions (See Phillips and Alldredge 2000, Barbknecht et al. 2011) Webb et. al (2011) found that female elk show high levels of site fidelity even in the presence of increasing annual land development. Females did not appear to abandon previously established areas, but used ranges in a manner that minimized interaction with development within these areas based on reductions in range use size and fidelity as land development increased. Phillips and Alldredge (2000), however, found that reproductive success and calf survival decreased during years of disturbance suggesting a significant impact on population growth. In Colorado, habitat fragmentation as a result of housing developments and associated road and infrastructure construction may cause elk to avoid patches of habitat less than 0.04 km2 (9.88 ac). Elk prefer habitat patches greater than 0.24 km2 (59.3 ac) with available hiding cover (Wait and McNally 2004). Rearden (2005), in his study of elk calving behavior, concluded that nutritional considerations were more important than cover when selecting parturition sites. In Arizona, Wallace and Krausman (1985) found 94.4% of calf bed sites were in forests and Thomas et al. (1979) found that larger forest stands with at least 70% canopy closure provided satisfactory cover for elk. Odell and Knight (2001) found that houses and areas of frequent human activity in Pitkin County have a zone of influence (ZOI) that extends approximately 180 m in all directions into adjacent habitat. Their study showed that human-sensitive species were less common up to 180 m from human disturbance. Bird and medium sized mammal population densities were affected by the arrangement and density of exurban housing developments, with both species groups avoiding seemingly intact habitat up to 180 m from residential development (Odell and Knight 2001). Smith et al. (1989) suggest that mule deer habitat use is influenced up to 82.3 m from houses during the winter but Vogel (1989) reported mule deer use declined significantly within 400 m of existing residential development. In other words, looks can be deceiving – apparently intact areas that are proximal to areas of human activity (e.g., residential development, recreational trails) are less effective and less desirable as habitat than similar areas outside zones of human influence. For mapping purposes, CPW defines elk production areas as follows: PRODUCTION AREA: That part of the overall range of elk occupied by females from May 15 to June 15 for calving. (Only known areas are mapped and this does not include all production areas for the DAU.)

Production Habitat at the Redstone Castle Parcels

Given the above, it is possible that elk parturition (i.e., birth) occurs occasionally on the Redstone Castle parcels and adjacent properties outside of the mapped production area. The riparian habitat on and adjacent to the Castle parcels are relatively small, and, for the most part, unlikely to provide the requisite security cover and nutritional resources for calving. The quaking aspen- mixed conifer habitat on the Castle parcels east of the Castle and the riparian habitat on the Castle

Davis Horn, Inc. ‒ Redstone Castle Elk Production August 9, 2017 Page 3

parcels and adjacent properties are, for the most part, within the zones of influence where human activity associated with the Castle and its support buildings as well as residences on the Harper, Harris Trust, and McCormick properties diminishes habitat effectiveness and reduces wildlife security (Figure 1). The quaking aspen-mixed conifer forest on the west side of the Barn Parcel and southwest end of the Castle Parcel could provide adequate microhabitat conditions for very limited parturition. There is understory cover and areas of a somewhat closed canopy but human disturbance is substantial. The west side of the Barn Parcel, however, is heavily influenced by the residences west of the parcel and the two roads that bisect it and although the southwestern area of the Castle Parcel lies outside of the Castle’s direct zone of influence, there is a service road through it and a well-used recreational trail along the river.

Conclusion

In my opinion, observation of calves on the Redstone Castle parcels in the vicinity of the Castle itself, the lower meadows and within quaking aspen-mixed conifer and riparian habitat on the Castle Parcels and adjacent properties west of the steep slopes and cliffs is likely misleading observers to the conclusion that these calves were born in those areas. It is far more likely that elk, with rare exception, are using those areas as neonatal rather than parturition (i.e., calving) habitat. It is quite possible (and perhaps probable) that observed calves were born in the mapped production area above (east of) the Castle and outbuildings and their associated zones of influence, then moved down toward the river or the meadows for forage and access to water1. Both professional and amateur observers of elk often confuse neonatal habitat use for production areas because it is assumed that where the calf was first observed was also the parturition site (Seward 2003). Typically, observed calves are several days old and are more mobile thus making them more “observable” and have likely dispersed from the calving site. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely, COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE, LLC

Jonathan Lowsky, MS Principal Wildlife Ecologist

1 Lactating female elk are thought to be seasonally dependent on surface water (Delgiudice and Rodiek 1984, Skovlin et al. 2002).

Davis Horn, Inc. ‒ Redstone Castle Elk Production August 9, 2017 Page 4

Literature Cited

Altmann, M. 1963. Naturalistic studies of maternal care in moose and elk. Pages 233-253 in H. L. Rheingolded, editor. Maternal Behavior in Mammals. John Wiley, New York. 849pp.

Barbknecht, A. E., W. S. Fairbanks, J. D. Rogerson, E. J. Maichak, B. M. Scurlock, and L. L. Meadows. 2011. Elk parturition site selection at local and landscape scales. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:646-654.

Boyce, M. S., and J. R. Sauer. 1978. Elk Distribution and Behavior in Calving Areas. University of Wyoming National Park Service Research Center Annual Report. Available at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/uwnpsrc_reports/vol2/iss1/4 2:15-18.

Delgiudice, G. D., and J. E. Rodiek. 1984. Do elk need free water in Arizona? Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:142-146.

Odell, E. A., and R. L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium-sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County, Colorado. Conservation Biology 15:0-0.

Phillips, G. E., and A. W. Alldredge. 2000. Reproductive success of elk following disturbance by humans during calving season. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:521-530.

Phillips, T. A. 1974. Characteristics of elk calving habitt on the Sawtooth National Forest, Idaho. USDA Forest Service Range Improvement Notes 19:1-5.

Rearden, S. N. 2005. Juvenile survival and birth-site selection of Rocky Mountain elk in northeastern Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Rearden, S. N., R. G. Anthony, and B. K. Johnson. 2011. Birth-site selection and predation risk of Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Mammalogy 92:1118-1126.

Seidel, J. W. 1977a. Elk calving behavior in west central Colorado. Pages 38-40 in Colorado Division of Wildlife, editor. Proceedings of the Western States Elk Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver.

Seidel, J. W. 1977b. Elk calving habitat. USDA Forest Service Handbook 2509.25 – Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, zero code, Ch. 10, and Ch.20. Region 2 Amendment No. 2509.25 – 99 – 1. Effective March 22, 1999. Colorado Division of Wildlife and USDA Forest Service, Grand Junction, CO.

Seward, N. W. 2003. Nathan W. SewardElk Calf Survival, Mortality, and Neonatal Habitat Use in Eastern Kentucky. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Skovlin, J. M., P. Zager, and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Elk habitat selection and evaluation. Pages 531-555 in D. E. Toweill and J. W. Thomas, editors. North American elk: ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Smith, D. O., M. Conner, and E. R. Loft. 1989. The distribution of winter mule deer use around home sites. Transactions of the Western States Section of the Wildlife Society 25:77-80.

Thomas, J. W., J. H. Black, R. J. Scherzinger, and R. J. Pederson. 1979. Deer and elk. Pages 104-127 in J. W. Thomas, editor. Wildlife habitats in managed forests - the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, Handbook No. 533. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Toweill, D. E., J. W. Thomas, and D. P. Metz. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 1st edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington [D.C.].

Vogel, W. O. 1989. Response of deer to density and distribution of housing in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:406- 413.

Davis Horn, Inc. ‒ Redstone Castle Elk Production August 9, 2017 Page 5

Wait, S., and H. McNally. 2004. Selection of habitats by wintering elk in a rapidly subdividing area of La Plata County, Colorado. Pages 200–209 in W. W. Shaw, L. K. Harris, and L. VanDruff, editors. Fourth international symposium on urban wildlife conservation, , Tucson, AZ.

Wallace, M. C., and P. R. Krausman. 1985. Neonatal elk habitat in central Arizona. Pages 69-75 in R. D. Brown, editor. The biology of deer. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Webb, S. L., M. R. Dzialak, S. M. Harju, L. D. Hayden-Wing, and J. B. Winstead. 2011. Influence of land development on home range use dynamics of female elk. Wildlife Research 38:163-167.

Davis Horn, Inc. ‒ Redstone Castle Elk Production August 9, 2017 Page 6

BACKGROUND & QUALIFICATIONS

Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC (CWS) is a small wildlife and ecological consulting firm based in Basalt, Colorado, specializing in wildlife research, management, and monitoring, ecological assessments, wetland & riparian delineations, conservation easement baseline inventories, ecological planning, habitat management, and ecological restoration. CWS applies a scientifically sound approach to biological resource studies and management. Our work combines professional integrity and strong academic training with extensive experience working for government, private, and non-profit clients. With an extensive network of professional collaborators that includes plant ecologists, foresters, hydrologists, and soil scientists, CWS leverages the collective knowledge of experienced professionals working toward practical, effective and cost saving solutions. CWS provides expert services to a diverse array of clients. Since we are a small company, personal attention is ensured. We combine full in-house GIS (ArcGIS) with real time, sub- meter GPS to provide state-of-the-art spatial data, analyses, maps, and presentations. We have prepared Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations, and contributed to EAs and EISs. CWS has worked with large private firms such as Jacobs, Carter and Burgess, Parsons, CH2MHILL, and SAIC as well as city and county agencies and governments such as City of Aspen, City of Glenwood Springs, Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, and Roaring Fork Transportation Agency. CWS is currently collaborating on the Pitkin County Airport Wildlife Hazard Assessment. CWS has prepared over 60 conservation easement baseline and Present condition reports for 8 different conservation organizations in 5 western Colorado counties. Owner and Wildlife Biologist Jonathan Lowsky, M.S. Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, has a broad range of knowledge. With more than 24 years of professional experience with federal (US Forest Service), state (Colorado Division of Wildlife), and county agencies as well as two major universities (Colorado State University and University of Washington), Jonathan’s career has focused on a diverse array of wildlife from bighorn sheep, elk, and songbirds to northern goshawks, flying squirrels, small mammals, and spotted bats. Mr. Lowsky’s experience includes biological assessments and evaluations for NEPA compliance, conservation planning, GIS mapping and modeling, wildlife research, and ecological monitoring design and implementation, as well as wetland and riparian delineations, evaluations, and restoration. He has authored management plans and conservation easement baseline inventory reports and published scientific papers. An expert birder, experienced tracker, certified wetlands delineator, trained fluvial geomorphologist, and passionate observer of wildlife, Jonathan has spent countless hours studying and appreciating Colorado’s diverse ecological communities. A detailed description of Mr. Lowsky’s professional experience and references are available. For additional information, please visit our website at www.coloradowildlifescience.com.

RedstoneRedstone CastleCastle SpecialSpecial EventsEvents ApplicationApplication Pitkin County, CO

Barn Parcel Figure 1. CPW Species Activity Mapping - Rocky Mountain Elk Production Area

Carriage House Parcel

Area of Detail

[

Castle Parcel Legend Existing Residence or Castle Parcels Outbuilding

Elk Production Area Zone of Human Influence

0 250 500 1,000 Feet

1 inch equals 515 feet

Basemap(s): NOTE: Boundaries are approximate. Aspen Pitkin GIS For planning purposes only. 2014 Orthophotos

COLORADO WILDLIFE SCIENCE LLC 0100 Elk Run Dr, Ste 128, Basalt, CO 81621 970.927.4549 [email protected] http://coloradowildlifescience.com