LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE + LAND PLANNING
Mailing: 435 N 8th Street | Carbondale, CO 81623 Basalt: 350 Market Street, Unit 307 | Basalt, CO 81621
October 12, 2020
Suzanne Wolff Assistant Director Pitkin County Community Development 530 E. Main Street, Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Pandora’s Rezoning and Aspen Mountain Master Plan
Dear Ms. Wolff,
Please find enclosed and/or attached the following package of materials submitted by Aspen Skiing Company, the “Applicant,” for consideration by the Pitkin County Planning & Zoning Commission. In conjunction with this submission, the Applicant requests a hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”) as remanded by the Board of County Commissioners for further review of the Pandora’s ski terrain rezoning and incorporation into the Aspen Mountain Amended and Restated Master Plan.
This package includes the following materials:
I. SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
II. PANDORA’S AND ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS CALENDAR SUMMARY
III. SUMMARY OF P&Z’S PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
IV. BOCC CONSIDERATION, ACTION AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
V. NEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: 1. Skier and Rider Use Data 2. Rural & Remote Zone District Background Research and Legislative History 3. Relationship of proposed development to Richmond Ridge, including The Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan 4. Revised and Reduced Timbering Plans
VI. PROPOSED PLAN: The Applicant restates and resubmits for further review the Ski Area Master Plan and Pandora’s Rezoning utilizing the physical plan and design originally described, depicted and first submitted in July, 2018, including the proposed Aspen Mountain Master Plan and Rezoning of Pandora’s terrain to SKI‐REC, but with the additional requests to review supplemental data regarding changes in use and to clarify the Mountain Master Plan’s meaning and conformance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan by proposing amendments and additional language to the underlying East of Aspen / Independence Pass Master Plan concerning ski operations and recreational use in the Pandora’s area.
VII. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AND MATERIALS PRESENTED TO BOCC NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO P&Z A summary of information presented to the BOCC in multiple powerpoint slides has been included in this packet for review by the P&Z.
LIVING SPACES | FUN SPACES | PUBLIC SPACES | HUGE TRACTS OF LAND | ISLANDS IN THE SKY
We look forward to discussing these materials with the P&Z with the intent of confirming the Commission’s previous support for the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan and Pandora’s rezoning which, if subsequently approved by the BOCC, would enable development and improvement of Pandora’s ski terrain as separately approved by the Forest Service. We further welcome guidance and input from P&Z regarding the BOCC’s comments, questions and concerns raised during the Applicant’s BOCC hearings in 2019.
Thank you and we look forward to discussing this with the Commission as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Connect One Design Heather Henry Owner, Principal cc: David Corbin, Aspen Skiing Company Rana Dershowitz, Aspen Skiing Company John Ely, Pitkin County Attorney
2
I. SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Pandora’s ski terrain includes slightly more than 150 acres of developed trails and glades (initially proposed as 82 acres of developed trails and 71 acres of glades) on the upper, east aspects of Aspen Mountain and as proposed will provide 1,220 feet of vertical skiing from top to bottom. This terrain, described as part of the Upgrade Plan in the initial Application, was referenced in the Pitkin County 1997 Aspen Mountain Master plan and depicted on that plan’s map, has long been within ASC’s federal Special Use Permit, and was described in the 2002 White River National Forest Plan as an area for use as existing and potential ski areas. Approximately 40% of this area exists on NFS lands and the remaining 60% exists on private lands.
The topography is similar to that of nearby existing east‐side trails with the upper third largely consisting of very steep, expert terrain. The lower two‐thirds of the area contain moderate intermediate grades. An existing topographic feature near the top of Walsh’s run, with a graded entry, will allow intermediate skiers access to the area’s lower slopes providing excellent developed intermediate runs and numerous intermediate level glades, a category of terrain not currently offered on Aspen Mountain.
Extensions of existing trails such as Walsh’s, Hyrup’s and Kristi’s are also planned as the Pandora lift bottom terminal is directly below these trails. Currently, skiing Walsh’s and Hyrup’s requires an uphill hike on the Lud’s Lane exit in order to return to the mountain’s lift and trail system. The planned lift location and trail extension would eliminate the hike out and provide repeat skiing of Pandora’s terrain for guests and visitors with a wider range of ability levels.
In addition, with a traversing trail to Pandora’s lift, links planned with Northstar, Gent’s Ridge, Copper and Lazy Boy trails will enable repeat skiing of these trails currently accessed by the Gent’s Ridge lift, connecting and integrating Pandora’s with current terrain and allowing for the potential removal of the Gent’s Ridge lift. The Pandora’s lift, a modern, high speed detachable quad, approximately 4,200 feet in length, will enhance and improve skiers’ and riders’ circulation on Aspen Mountain, integrating the new trails and gladed terrain planned in this area. The Pandora lift top terminal as first proposed will be approximately 950 feet south, and slightly east, of the Silver Queen Gondola’s top terminal, just below the ridgeline on Richmond Ridge. The Pandora lift bottom terminal will be approximately 1,500 feet downslope of the existing Walsh’s trail lower boundary.
The planned trail and lift configuration is depicted in Exhibit 1.
3
II. PANDORA’S AND ASPEN MOUNTAIN MASTER PLAN APPROVALS CALENDAR SUMMARY
US Forest Service Regulatory Review Process: 1. Apr., 2002 – White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan– Pandora’s terrain designated Mgt. Area 8.25 ‐ ski area / developed winter sports recreation 2. Sept, 2017 ‐ Aspen Mtn. Master Plan drafting, submission and review with USFS 3. Jan., 2018 ‐ Aspen Mtn. Master Plan acceptance, including Pandora’s terrain and lift 4. May, 2018 – Pandora’s Project Proposal, Public Scoping and NEPA review 5. Nov., 2018 ‐ Environmental Assessment issued 6. March, 2019 – Final Decision Notice approving Pandora’s lift and terrain
Pitkin County Zoning and Master Plan Review Process: 1. 2/22/2018: Pre‐Application meeting with County staff 2. 7/23/2018: Application submission 3. 10/31/2018: Application accepted for completeness and sent out for referral comments 4. 12/4/2018: Planning and Zoning Meeting #1 5. 1/15/2019: Planning and Zoning Meeting #2 6. 2/5/2019: Planning and Zoning Meeting #3 7. 3/19/2019: Planning and Zoning Meeting #4 and vote to approve the Aspen Mountain Master Plan and Pandora’s Rezoning 8. 4/2/2019: Planning and Zoning Resolution #PZ‐03‐2019 recordation date 9. 4/10/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #1 10. 4/24/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #2 11. 5/8/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #3 12. 5/22/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #4 13. 6/26/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #5 14. 8/21/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #6 15. 8/28/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #7 Motion to deny the rezoning was tabled at request of the applicant. Commissioner Kury made the request to remand the rezoning back to the Planning & Zoning Commission 16. 9/11/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #8 Vote to bifurcate the Aspen Mountain Master Plan Resolution and Rezoning Ordinance Process. Vote to approve the Master Plan. 17. 10/9/2019: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #9 Continuance of the Rezoning 18. 11/4/2019: Recordation of Resolution #070‐2019 19. 1/8/2020: Board of County Commissioners Meeting #10 Update and Rezoning Continuance 20. 4/8/2020: Board Update and Rezoning Continuance 21. 7/8/2020: Board Update and Rezoning Continuance
4
III. SUMMARY OF P&Z PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 19, 2019 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the recommendation to the BOCC to approve the rezoning of 35.28 acres from AR‐10 to SKI‐REC and 131.83 acres from Rural & Remote to SKI‐REC and further recommended that the BOCC approve the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Amended and Restated SKI‐REC Master Plan. These recommendations were based upon a number of findings, including the following specific findings stated in Resolution #PZ‐03‐2019:
Paragraph 9. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed citizen‐initiated rezoning is consistent with Sections 2‐30‐40(i) and 2‐40‐10(c) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (“Code”), the Land Use Policies in the Code, and the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan and the Maroon‐Castle Creek Master Plan, as follows: A. The land to be rezoned is adjacent to the existing ski area. Expansion of an existing ski area is preferred to establishment of new ski areas. B. The land will remain rural in character although the intensity of use will change due to the introduction of developed recreation with new ski runs, service road, and lift. The area currently experiences consistent human activity with backcountry use, snowmobiles and snowcats for Powder Tours. No other development is proposed in the area to be rezoned. C. Other than electricity to run the lift, there is no expansion of municipal water and sewer lines proposed for the area to be rezoned. D. The rezoning of the Pandora area is compatible with the adjacent ski area and the surrounding USFS land. The top terminal of the lift will be located approximately 950 feet south and slightly east of the gondola building on Richmond Ridge. The skier use will occur on the east side of the ridge, where it will have limited impact on surrounding privately owned properties. E. The rezoning will not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment. F. The proposed rezoning is not anticipated to generate additional traffic.
Paragraph 10. The Planning Commission further finds that the proposed SKI‐REC Master Plan is consistent with the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Policies stated in the Code.
Paragraph 11. The Planning Commission further finds that the SKI‐REC Master Plan complies with the standards in Sec. 2‐40‐100 of the Land Use Code (“Code”) for master plans.
Paragraph 14. The Planning Commission further finds that the ski area is within the mapped Scenic View Protection Area, as seen from Highway 82 and Castle Creek Road. The Pandora lift top and bottom terminals and the patrol cabin will not be visible from Highway 82 or Castle Creek Road and/or will be substantially screened from view from those roads by existing vegetation. In addition, the Pandora lift corridor and new trail development in the Pandora area will have minimal additional visual impact as seen from Highway 82. The overall character and appearance of the area will be substantially similar to the existing condition. New ski trails will be designed to minimize visual impacts, and much of the new terrain will be gladed, so will be less visible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the Board of County Commissioner[s] approve the rezoning of 35.28 acres zoned AR‐lO to SKI‐REC and 131.83 acres zoned Rural/Remote to SKI‐REC in the Pandora area; and does hereby certify the zoning plan to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration.”
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Amended and Restate SKI‐REC Master Plan, Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review, subject to the conditions set forth herein… 5
IV. BOCC CONSIDERATION, ACTIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER REVIEW
In the course of BOCC’s review of the Application, at Applicant’s request, the County Commissioners ultimately bifurcated the proposed Pandora’s rezoning and the Mountain Master Plan. The Commissioners approved the Revised and Restated Aspen Mountain Master Plan excluding the proposed Pandora’s terrain improvements. BOCC continued its consideration of Pandora’s rezoning and potential inclusion within the Master Plan, returning those matters and issues to P&Z for further review and recommendations. Applicant understands that BOCC desires P&Z to undertake further review, consideration, recommendation and/or revision particularly of the following issues:
The proposed rezoning’s conformance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan and specifically: (i) Its consistency with the underlying East of Aspen / Independence Pass Master Plan, including land uses and activities referenced in the Aspen Mountain/Richmond Ridge Neighborhood Plan Area (“NPA”), as well as the Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan; (ii) Language that might be added to or amend the East of Aspen Master Plan to clarify recreational uses in the NPA and Pandora’s specifically; and (iii) The extent and nature of changed conditions of use and increased recreational activity in the Pandora’s area proposed to be rezoned.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES AND REQUESTS: The Planning and Zoning Commission review, reaffirm, expand upon and restate its opinions on these issues, and specifically (a) once again recommend to BOCC rezoning Pandora’s terrain to SKI‐REC and incorporating the terrain and proposed improvements in the Aspen Mountain Master Plan, (b) add, revise and amend language in the East of Aspen / Independence Pass Master Plan clarifying Pandora’s rezoning as conforming to the area plan and the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and (c) issue findings and confirm the changed conditions and increased recreational use of the area justifying the rezoning.1
V. NEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION In response to questions or issues raised by BOCC, the applicant team has compiled additional information regarding various issues brought up by the public and BOCC during the hearing process. This information includes the following: Skier and Rider Use Data probative of changed conditions and increased recreational uses within the plan area. Rural & Remote Zone District Background Research Relationship of proposed development to Richmond Ridge, specifically The Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan Revised Timbering Plans and phasing
A. Skier and Rider Use Data in Pandora’s
During the BOCC hearings, ASC presented background information along with anecdotal reports and personal observations from Aspen Mountain Ski Patrol regarding the changed conditions and increased recreational use in the area. However, one or more County Commissioners called for more information. In response, the Applicant undertook efforts to ascertain current recreational use in Pandora’s terrain and further researched historic records to quantify baseline use twenty or more years ago.
1 BOCC also explored whether there could be alternative approaches that P&Z would find to be consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, but which might not require the rezoning of land from R&R to SKI‐REC. While the Applicant is not submitting alternative approaches addressing with this application, it has studied these issues and is prepared to discuss them at P&Z’s request.
6
One measure of ski activity in Pandora’s and Richmond Ridge is daily usage and skier counts. Through its additional research into the history of the Pandora’s area and Richmond Ridge generally, Applicant reviewed USFS data regarding daily usage of the Richmond Ridge area during the 1997/1998 season. During this season, surveys were conducted on 33 different days for the area of Richmond Ridge roughly equivalent to the 1,600 Acres comprising the Powder Tours permit area. That study logged 498 people accessing this area of Richmond Ridge via 316 snowmobiles and another 16 people cross country skiing in the area on those 33 days studied.
While this data does not specifically confirm whether all individuals using snowmobiles were skiers, as both the snowmobile users and cross country skiers are considered together, nor does it specifically guarantee that each identified individual would access the Pandora’s area, comparative estimates can be derived from the data. If every single person using snowmobiles for transport was also assumed to be skiing, on average 16 skiers per day were accessing the much larger backcountry study area of Richmond Ridge according to a Forest Service records. Alternatively, if and perhaps more realistically, only half of the snowmobile riders were assumed to be skiing via snowmobile, then approximately 8 skiers per day were skiing the Richmond Ridge backcountry terrain during the 1997/1998 season.
In order to observe, document, and quantify current recreational use of the Pandora’s area this winter season (unfortunately truncated by March’s early closure), a game camera was placed at the intersection of Loushin’s Road and the existing SUP boundary. The camera began recording data on December 5th, 2019. Weekly numerical counts were taken of the skiers and riders who passed the camera.
CAMERA LOCATION
A total of 2,610 skiers/boarders passed by this camera from December 5th, 2019 to March 6, 2020 (a 93 day period). The monthly breakdown of this total is as follows: 7
December 2019 ‐ 646 People January 2020 ‐ 824 People February 2020 ‐ 980 People March, 2020, thru 3/6 only – 160 People
Cumulative Skier Use December‐February 2019/2020 3000 2610 2450 2500 2224 2010 2000 1769
1470 1500 1162 957 1000 775 646
500 380 169 97
0
The skier counts documented above amount to 28 skiers per day on average using the roughly 110 ‐ 150 Acres of Pandora’s terrain this year.
Accordingly, using the actual user counts from today and the estimates of the percentage of snowmobilers skiing in the 1998/1999 season, skier activity within Pandora’s today is roughly two to three and a half times the backcountry use observed across the entire area of Richmond Ridge twenty‐two years ago.
A related measure of winter recreational activity is the number of private, third party snowmobiles observed in the Richmond Ridge and “Marina” area at the top of Aspen Mountain. In the 1997/1998 Richmond Ridge study, the heaviest observed snowmobile use on Richmond Ridge occurred on March 5, 1998 and totaled 24 snow machines and approximately 45 riders. Average daily snowmobile use was 9.6 per day. During this past ski season, 2019/2020, typically 50 or more private snowmobiles were commonly observed by mountain managers in use or parked at the “Marina” just south of the Gondola Building on a daily basis. Aerial drone surveys likewise confirm this volume of snowmobile use. On March 6, 2020, 60 private snow machines were counted in the Marina, again roughly three times the heaviest observed use twenty‐two years prior.
Another way to look at this data and compare current recreational ski activity in Pandora’s against historic backcountry use is to examine skier densities. Skier density analysis takes into account not merely the raw number of skiers, but the size of the area being skied. As noted above, the Powder Tours Permit Area along Richmond Ridge contains approximately 1,600 Acres, including both public and private terrain. In contrast, the Pandora’s area above Loushin’s Road contains approximately 110 skiable acres. Both areas are depicted in Exhibit 2. 8
When average daily skier activity counts per acre of terrain are compared, the differences in skier density between Richmond Ridge’s historic baseline data and Pandora’s current use are significant:
1997/1998 RICHMOND RIDGE AVG. DAILY SKIER DENSITY = .01 SKIERS/ACRE/DAY (assuming every snowmobile rider was also skiing); .005 SKIERS/ACRE/DAY (assuming 50% of snowmobile riders were also skiing) 2019/2020 PANDORA’S AVG. DAILY SKIER DENSITY = .025 SKIERS/ACRE/DAY
Consequently, viewed through the combined lens of skier volume and acreage, skier densities in Pandora’s today are at least two and half times the Richmond Ridge backcountry skier densities observed twenty‐two years ago.
Pandora’s skier density is simply nothing at all like historic or current backcountry skier density. The terrain in Pandora’s is skied regularly, even heavily now. It is not analogous to back country skiing; it is lift accessed terrain without benefit of a properly located lift or avalanche, emergency and other terrain management.
Anecdotal accounts and observations made by ASC’s ski patrol, instructors, and managers support this data. Scott Scharin of Aspen Ski Patrol commented at one BOCC hearing that the Patrol has witnessed an increasingly steady stream of users into Pandora’s, such that “on a good powder day, 15 to 20 people [entering the terrain] may pass you when stationary in one place for 10 minutes.” Moreover, third party commercial guides have been seen routinely leading clients into Pandora’s.
Visual evidence of the scope and extent of Pandora’s current ski terrain use is readily apparent when photo records taken in February of this year are examined. The following photos depict gladed and open areas of Pandora’s terrain this past winter. Tracks through the terrain clearly show heavy skier use.
9
Photo #1 February 21, 2020
Photo #2 February 21, 2020
10
Photo #3 February 21, 2020
Backcountry skiing is commonly thought of as an experience devoid of chairlifts and developed terrain, with few people, typically widely dispersed and accessing lightly used, natural terrain through their own efforts, most commonly by skinning uphill. The data and visual evidence regarding Pandora’s clearly demonstrates that Pandora’s terrain is not now or is certainly no longer “backcountry” terrain.
In contrast, Pandora’s terrain lies inside of ASC’s Forest Service Special Use Permit, adjacent to other developed trails. Today, skiers commonly enter the area from lift served, developed terrain and then return to lift served, developed terrain, lapping through Pandora’s. The volume and pattern of use is increasingly analogous to in bounds terrain, not backcountry terrain. Moguls—a terrain feature whose very existence indicates skier volume—are now seen in Pandora’s main chutes, constituting direct, physical evidence that recreational skier use, activities and densities have changed and increased to levels comparable to Aspen Mountain’s expert terrain.
Conclusion: Twenty years ago public recreational use and activity pressure on Pandora’s was very light. Today, skier counts, camera data, visual evidence of use, increased presence of private snowmobiles and observations of our Ski Patrol all serve to confirm that the recreational land use and conditions have significantly and materially changed in the past two decades, justifying the rezoning of Pandora’s to SKI‐REC. A rezoning of this type conforms to the intent of the Pitkin County Code, SKI‐REC zone district, Sec. 3‐40‐120, which states, “The SKI‐REC…zone district is intended for lands that are used for downhill and cross country skiing and other uses permitted by a Federal or other public agency…” Whatever Pandora’s was twenty or fifty years ago, today it is used for downhill skiing adjacent to the existing SKI‐REC operating terrain and inside ASC’s federal permit area. It should be recognized, treated and operated as such and rezoned SKI‐REC.
11
B. Holland & Hart Memorandum – Rural and Remote Zone District Background Research and Legislative History
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Holland & Hart LLP, Attorneys for Aspen Skiing Company
RE: Rural and Remote Zone District‐‐Some Historical Background from Planning and Zoning Commission and BOCC Records
DATE: July 22, 2020
I. Introduction
This memo contains an overview of the legislative history for the creation and evolution of Pitkin County’s Rural & Remote Zone District regulations.
It’s important for current P&Z members to understand the conditions and intentions which led to the Rural & Remote Zone District and to consider that information as you re‐review the Aspen Skiing Company’s request for County approval of the plan for the expansion of lift‐served ski uses into the Pandora’s area (“Pandora’s”), in the Rural & Remote Zone District located near the top of Aspen Mountain, east of Richmond Hill Road.
The history of the Rural & Remote Zoning is interwoven with the Aspen Mountain Master Plan, SKI REC zoning, the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Caucus Plan and the Little Annie’s Basin/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan.
Accompanying this memo is an index sheet listing all the Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) and the Planning & Zoning Commission (“P&Z”) resolutions and ordinances on this subject, along with links to the relevant meeting minutes and presentation materials associated with the adoption of these resolutions and ordinances.
The BOCC adopted Rural & Remote District Zoning under BOCC Ordinance No. 94‐10 as well as Ordinance No. 94‐16, which was adopted a few weeks later, adding some technical amendments to the Pitkin County Land Use Code (the “Code”) to accommodate the new zone district. The Rural & Remote Zone District regulations went through subsequent amendments in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2005 to accommodate changes and re‐writes in the Code language as well as to add new areas to the Rural & Remote Zone District. Originally, only the Little Annie’s Basin and Richmond Hill areas were included within the 1994 Rural & Remote Zone District ordinances; amendments later added considerably more acreage to the Rural & Remote Zone District areas.
II. Rural & Remote Zoning Beginnings.
12
Prior to the adoption of the Rural & Remote Zone District legislation, there were intense development pressures on “off‐the‐grid” forest service inholdings and mining claims on the backside of Aspen Mountain that were not located in any County‐approved subdivisions. These sites were being bought, sold and developed for backcountry homes and cabins. Most of these sites lacked power, running water or proper septic systems. Nearly all sites lacked safe access for emergency vehicles. Community Development office staff estimated that if every parcel were to develop to the maximum density of the underlying zone district, a total of 227 dwelling units could eventually exist. Rampant development of these sites was viewed as a community threat and dangerous to the sub‐alpine ecosystem where many of these sites were located.
The proposal to adopt Rural & Remote Zoning legislation was at first strongly opposed by many citizens, especially the owners of the parcels on or near the backside of Aspen Mountain who viewed the rezoning efforts as a threat to their property rights and an unreasonable government intrusion into their recreational activities as well as the use and enjoyment of their properties. The meeting minutes of both the P & Z and the BOCC are informative in this regard. ASC was mostly absent from these meetings, as the focus of the legislation was on limiting residential development, not limiting skiing. In fact, one key point both the P&Z and BOCC stressed during these meetings was that the development of ski uses should not be precluded. In this regard, in the first recital paragraph of the 1994 Ordinances creating the Rural & Remote Zone District, it is stated:
…the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) directed the Planning and Zoning Commission (“Commission”) to develop a new zone district and regulations for the Little Annie Basin/Richmond Hill Ridge planning area (hereafter “Planning Area”); guidance from the Board requested that the Commission initially address the following:
a. Historic public access and rights‐of‐way should be established and maintained;
b. Decentralized recreational uses should be allowed by right;
c. 300 square foot cabins may be allowed by special review when proposed as recreational/restricted use type cabins, as opposed to full residential uses which require high levels of infrastructure, including roads, full septic and waste water needs utility extensions, etc.;
d. No new roadways should be allowed;
e. minimizing the development of driveways should be considered in association with addressing central parking issues/locations;
f. Development of ski uses should not be precluded; (emphasis added)
g. Development of new area and bulk requirements should be established, including a larger minimum acreage size;
h. Uses and structures which may become nonconforming as a result of these new regulations shall be subject to the nonconforming use regulations of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
To address the intent contained in the above quoted language, the actual Rural & Remote Zone District provisions incorporated into the Code in 1994 provided that commercial recreational uses would be the subject of special review.
III. Development of Ski Uses in Rural & Remote Zone Should Not be Precluded.
13
A Master Plan for the Aspen Mountain Ski Area (the “Aspen Mountain Master Plan”) has been in existence for the past 35 years. The first version of the Aspen Mountain Master Plan was approved on May 6, 1985 via BOCC Resolution No. 87‐124. The 1985 version of the Aspen Mountain Master Plan was developed following the rezoning of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area and Buttermilk Mountain Ski Areas to AF‐ SKI Zoning (predecessor to SKI‐REC Zoning) on December 20, 1984 via BOCC Resolution No. 84‐138.
In 1997, three years after the 1994 adoption of the Rural & Remote Zone District regulations, ASC submitted an application to update the 1985 Aspen Mountain Master Plan.
The BOOC approved the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan on September 24, 1998 in BOCC Resolution No. 98‐80. The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan contains considerable detail on the expansion into the Pandora’s area. The 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan expressly provided that expansion of lift‐ served skiing into the Pandora’s area would be subject to “further special review” following the County’s development, in a joint effort with the US Forest Service, of a Richmond Hill Management Plan which was then in its initial stages. Resolution No. 98‐80 contemplated that the future Richmond Hill Management Plan would provide additional information required to assess the appropriateness of the proposed uses in the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan located within the Rural and Remote Zone District adjacent to the Aspen Mountain Ski Area Boundaries.
The Code provisions for AF‐SKI master plans at the time of the adoption of BOCC Resolution No. 98‐ 80 contained review criteria for activities which were allowed by “further review.” These criteria were described in the Code as follows:
Activities which are allowed by “further review” are those uses which support the operation of the ski area and have significant environmental and service‐related impacts which can be mitigated, including activities which are found by the USFS to increase the overall capacity of the recreation area. This “further review” category shall generally also be limited to items on which the applicant cannot supply or has not supplied sufficient detail at the master plan stage to enable the County to check off on them...
It took nearly three years to craft a Richmond Hill Management Plan. P & Z Resolution No. PZ 2000‐5, adopted on April 18, 2000, forwarded to the BOCC the P & Z’s comments and recommendations regarding what was then described as the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan.
The Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan was somewhat limited and P & Z described it as a recreation management plan rather than a land use master plan. It introduced the concept of a long‐range, three‐phased plan intended to balance the recreational uses of the area with the residential uses and the Rural & Remote zoning for the area. This three‐phased plan emphasizing data collection and education of users and encouraged recreational users to work collaboratively in making efficient use of existing facilities (especially the existing roads) to ensure a quality experience in the study area.
The Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan did not contain any specific comments on the appropriateness of the proposed uses for the Pandora’s area contemplated in the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan but it did state as one of its overall policies that “The only commercial recreational uses which should be operating at this time in the study area are those for which permits from the County or Forest Service have been obtained.”(emphasis added) We view this language as not constraining ASC from pursuing further US Forest Service permitting for Pandora’s, which of course has now been received through a comprehensive public process, with referrals to and comments received from Pitkin County as well as from the general public. Many of the conditions of approval in the current US Forest Service permit for lift‐served skiing in Pandora’s specifically address and respect the policies articulated in the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan. It is ASC’s position that it has been and continues to be in full compliance with the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan. 14
After P & Z resolution No. PZ 2000‐5, no further action was taken by the BOCC on Pandora’s nor was any new or further special review criteria ever adopted for Pandora’s.
The next piece of legislation involving Rural & Remote Zone District was adopted April 8, 2000 under Ordinance No. 13‐2000, which repealed and re‐enacted all of the Rural & Remote Zone District Regulations. The re‐enacted version of the Rural & Remote Zone District specifically recognized that “Commercial recreational uses [are] to be allowed only through special review and, where appropriate, in conjunction with and coordination with the Forest Service permitting process.”
BOCC Ordinance 2005‐15, adopted September 20, 2005, is noteworthy in that the BOCC expressly acknowledged the work of the P & Z in developing the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan as well as the Castle/Maroon Master Plan, with various recommendations for rezoning the areas on the west flank of Aspen Mountain from AF‐SKI to Rural & Remote. As described in more detail in Part IV of this memo, the work of the P & Z in adopting these two master plans did not include any discussion or desire to modify Rural & Remote Zone District regulations to eliminate commercial recreational uses from the list of uses allowed by special review.
The current version of the Code was adopted in 2006 via BOCC Ordinance 2006‐14‐D. The new Code repealed the previous land use code. The new Code inexplicably eliminated special review uses in the Rural & Remote Zone District from the Permitted Use Table. (See Table 4‐1 of Section 4 of the new Code.) From our review of the BOCC and P & Z meeting minutes which led to the adoption of the new Code, there was no comment or discussion as to why uses allowed by special or further review within the Rural & Remote Zone District were eliminated.
IV. East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan.
The East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan was adopted in October of 2003. At the time of its adoption, there was nothing in this Master Plan that spoke to prohibiting commercial recreational uses on Aspen Mountain and in particular, within Pandora’s. Further, at the time of adoption of the Master Plan, no rezoning of the Pandora’s area would be required to implement commercial skiing, as it was already allowable under in the Rural & Remote Zone District with “further review”. Given this, any suggestion that the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan intended to preclude expansion into Pandora’s by virtue of barring rezoning of Rural & Remote zoned land on the ridge is simply erroneous. Consider the fact that the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, approved five years prior, expressly contemplated that Pandora’s would be going through further special review. If expanding lift served skiing to Pandora’s was of any concern to P & Z, then it stands to reason that this subject and the contents of the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan would have been an area of intense focus, with plenty of text in the Master Plan devoted to challenging the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan or articulating terms and conditions for further special review of Pandora’s. There wasn’t.
V. Acknowledging the Historic Special Review Criteria for Commercial Recreational Uses and Its Importance in Current Rezoning Discussions.
Today’s version of the Code does not expressly provide in the Permitted Use Table for commercial recreational uses to be the subject of special review. As explained in more detail above, the right to pursue further special review approval of commercial recreational uses was stripped from the Permitted Use Table as part of the BOCC’s adoption of the new Code in 2006.
The 2006 Code created a conflict that we are now addressing. The criteria for special review embodied in the prior versions of the Code was very clear and the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan provided a pathway for ASC to seek the necessary approvals for lift‐served skiing and commercial recreational uses in the Rural & Remote Zone District. Since the adoption of the 1997 Aspen Mountain 15
Master Plan, ASC has worked on a variety of tasks relative to Pandora’s, including resolving land ownership issues, conducting environmental impact studies, identifying mitigation requirements and processing an amendment to its US Forest Service Permit to allow for lift served ski activities within Pandora’s.
Because the 2006 version of the Code dropped special review for commercial recreational uses in the Rural & Remote Zone District as a permitted use in Table 4‐1, as part of ASC’s application to amend the Aspen Mountain Master Plan, Community Development staff directed ASC to apply for the rezoning of those portions of the Pandora’s areas located in the Rural & Remote Zone District, changing the zoning of those areas from Rural & Remote to SKI‐REC.
Consequently, during ASC’s presentations last year to the BOCC on amendments to the Aspen Mountain Master Plan, we addressed the fact that skiing in the Pandora’s area was part of the public conversation at the time of creation of the Rural & Remote Zone District, so lift‐served skiing in the Pandora’s area should not be characterized now as some sort of drastic “up‐zoning” or as an end‐run around the original intent of the Rural & Remote Zone District.
After considerable discussion on the elements of re‐zoning and the conditions for rezoning, BOCC directed ASC to bring these matters back to P&Z for further review and recommendations, and to address how a rezoning of Pandora’s should dovetail with applicable East of Aspen/Independence Pass caucus plans. ASC is happy to have this opportunity to do so, but we do want P & Z to understand that there is a long legislative history in support of commercial recreational uses within the Rural & Remote Zone District.
VI. Conclusions.
As stated above, ASC is of the position that the application for expanding lift‐served skiing into Pandora’s complies with the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan. ASC is committed to working with County staff and the general public in reviewing and updating the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan and the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Caucus Plan to more clearly define the scope, location and operating conditions for skiing and all forms of recreational use in this area.
In addition, ASC is ready, willing and able to continue the process of pursuing the rezoning of Pandora’s under current rezoning criteria. There is ample evidence on the record to support the rezoning, and we continue to gather more information that we will be sharing with P & Z during the upcoming presentation. We are proceeding with the knowledge that the BOCC may have inadvertently and/or unknowingly made this more challenging when it adopted the new Land Use Code in 2006, dropping commercial recreational uses as an allowed special review use under the Rural & Remote Zone District. Moving forward, we respectfully request that the original intent and articulation of purposes and the permissible uses dating back to the original creation of the Rural & Remote Zone District be kept in mind.
VII. Summary.
Understanding the complete history and evolution of the Rural and Remote Zoning District provisions in our Land Use Code is essential for the task of reviewing ASC’s current submission to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Skiing was not originally intended to be precluded in this zone district, and as far as we could determine, the absence of an express code provision allowing for skiing to be a special use in this zone district seems to have been overlooked. With a fuller understanding of the history and background of ski uses in the Pandora’s area, we believe that the Planning & Zoning Commission will be better able to weigh all the evidence and fully resolve the remaining open issues on this submission.
14301467_v5
16
PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
(This list accompanies the History of Rural & Remote Zoning Memo of July 22, 2020)
TAB DATE CONTENTS 1 09/07/1993 BOCC Ordinance 93-121 – Directing the PZ Commission to Develop a New Zone District and Regulations for the Little Annie Basin/Richmond Hill Ridge Planning Area
2 11/18/1993 PZ Ordinance 93-33 – Recommending an Amendment to PCLUC to Include a New Zone District Entitle the Rural and Remote Zone District (R/R); to Create the Ability to Transfer Development Rights from the R/R Zone District; and to Rezone the Little Annie Basin/Richmond Hill Ridge Planning Area to Rural/Remote
3 05/06/1994 BOCC Ordinance 94-01 – Adopting a New, Reorganized and Amended Land Use Code and Repealing the Existing Land Use Code
4 05/20/1994 BOCC Ordinance 94-10 – Amending PCLUC to Include New Zone District Entitle the Rural and Remote Zone District (R/R); to Create the Ability to Transfer Development Rights from the R/R Zone District; to Rezone the Little Annie Basin/Richmond Hill Ridge Planning Are to R/R, and to Add the Definition of Non-Commercial Recreational Uses to Section 20 of the PCLUC
5 07/15/1994 BOCC Ordinance 94-16 – Amending the PCLUC to Include a New Zone District Entitle the Rural and Remote Zone District (R/R); to Create the Ability to Transfer Development Rights from the R/R Zone District; to Rezone the Little Annie Basin/ Richmond Hill Ridge Planning Are to R/R, to Add the Definition of Non- Commercial Recreational Uses to Section 20 of the PCLUC and to Repeal and Replace Ordinance No. 94-10
PZ Minutes 08.17.1993 PZ Minutes 09.21.1993 PZ Minutes 10.05.93 PZ Minutes 10.19.1993 PZ Minutes 10.26.1993 PZ Minutes 11.02.1993 BOCC Minutes 11.23.1993 BOCC Minutes 12.06.1993 BOCC Minutes 12.14.1993 BOCC Minutes 12.21.1993 BOCC Minutes 01.04.1994 BOCC Minutes 01.11.1994 BOCC Minutes 01.25.1994 17
BOCC Minutes 04.26.1994 BOCC Minutes 05.10.1994
6 01/04/1996 BOCC Ordinance 95-24 – Rezoning Outlying Sites within Pitkin County from AFR-10 Agricultural/Forestry/Residential Zone District, RS-20 and RS-30 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Resource Zone Districts to the Rural/Remote Zone District (R/R) and as Provided herein and Amending the Pitkin County Zoning District Map and Land Use Code Sections 3-40.115, 3-150.160, 3- 200.95, 4-60.95, 4-70.25, and 4-80.25 and Article 8
BOCC Resolution 95-23 BOCC Minutes 04.05.1995 BOCC Resolution 95-97
7 10/31/1996 BOCC Ordinance 96-37 – First Amendment to Ordinance 95-24
BOCC Minutes 06.26.1996 BOCC Minutes 07.10.1996
8 09/05/1998 BOCC Ordinance 98-35 – Amending LUC Section 3-40.115, Rural/Remote Zone District, Section 3-150.30, Metro and Non- Metro GMQS Exemption, and Article 8 Definitions
PZ Minutes 08.05.1997 PZ Minutes 11.11.1997 PZ Minutes 11.25.1997 PZ Minutes 02.03.1998 BOCC Minutes 06.10.1998 BOCC Minutes 07.22.1998
9 04/08/2000 BOCC Ordinance 2000-13 – Adopting Amendments to the PCLUC: Section 3-40-115, Rural/Remote Zone District
BOCC Minutes 03.08.2000 PZ Minutes 03.14.2000 PZ Minutes 03.28.2000
10 04/18/2000 P&Z Resolution forwarding comments and recommendations regarding the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan 11 10/13/2003 P&Z East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan
12 09/20/2005 BOCC Ordinance 2005-15 – Rezoning Certain Properties on Aspen Mountain and along Castle Creek within Pitkin County, to the Rural and Remote (R/R) Zone District
PZ Minutes 08.31.2004 18
BOCC Minutes 09.22.2004 BOCC Minutes 11.09.2004 PZ Minutes 02.22.2005
13 12/28/2006 Ordinance 2006-14-D – Adopting on Fifth Reading a New Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, the 2006 Revised Pitkin County Land Use Code, and Repealing Title 8, Pitkin County Code, Land Use Code
Joint Minutes 01.24.2006 Joint Minutes 01.25.2006 Joint Minutes 01.26.2006 Joint Minutes 02.07.2006 Joint Minutes 02.15.2006 Joint Minutes 02.21.2006 BOCC Minutes 02.22.2006 PZ Minutes 02.23.2006 Joint Minutes 02.23.2006 BOCC Minutes 02.28.2006 Joint Minutes 04.11.2006 Joint Minutes 04.12.2006 Joint Minutes 04.13.2006 Power Point Presentation PZ Minutes 05.16.2006 BOCC Minutes 05.24.2006 PZ Minutes 06.06.2006 BOCC Minutes 06.13.2006
14 Permitted Use Table 4.1 Pitkin County Land Use Code July 2006
14309976_v1
Holland & Hart LLP Attorneys at Law
Phone (970) 925-3476 Fax (970) 925-9367 www.hollandhart.com
600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen CO 81611-1991 Alaska Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Washington, D.C. Wyoming.
19
C. Relationship of Proposed Development to Richmond Ridge and the Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan
The Holland & Hart Memorandum describes in detail the history of the 1994 adoption of Rural and Remote Zoning, the approval of the 1997/98 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, the deferral of consideration of Pandora’s terrain in that Master Plan subject to further special review, and the Planning Commission’s Resolution in 2000 concerning the Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan [“the Richmond Ridge Recreation Management Plan” or “Management Plan”].
As described in the Memorandum and stated elsewhere in these materials, ASC sees no conflict between the recreational uses and improvements proposed in Pandora’s and the activities, land uses and rural character of Richmond Ridge. In terms of the Pitkin County Land Use Code, SKI‐REC zoning is explicitly and legally designated a rural land use per Chapter 3 and Table 3.1 of the Code. Physically, it is typified by grassy meadows, large open tracts, glades and stands of timber, and comparatively few buildings and structures. In Pandora’s case, apart from lift and related ski infrastructure, ASC has committed to forego building any employee housing, resort cabins, restaurants or similar permissible structures on the terrain to be rezoned, reinforcing the rural character and uses of the land.
None the less, the question has been raised whether developing Pandora’s lift and terrain and including it in the new and restated Aspen Mountain Master Plan conflicts with the Richmond Ridge Recreation Management Plan.
20
Contextually, it bears noting that, as depicted on the following map, Pandora’s terrain, sitting on the fringe of the study area, represents a tiny portion of lands zoned Rural and Remote and the Little Annie/Richmond Ridge/Pearl Pass Management Plan area which stretches from the top of Aspen Mountain to Pearl Pass. Physically, Pandora’s lies north/north east of the main Ridge itself, pocketed on the top eastern flank of Aspen Mountain, isolated from the recreational activities, public roads, and rural residential uses on the Ridge.
From initiation, the Richmond Ridge Recreation Management Plan was three years in the making, formally adopted by the Planning Commission in Resolution PZ 2000‐5. The 6 ½ page plan [Exhibit 3] was limited in its purpose, scope, substance and authority, stating on its face, “…this is a recreation activity management plan rather than a land use master plan...” The plan primarily spoke to public access issues and impacts, especially those associated with vehicles, roads, parking, snowmobile use and un‐permitted commercial uses. Phase I of the plan focused on education and data gathering to define the levels of use and better regulate and manage motorized uses in areas south of Aspen Mountain. Several action items were adopted, largely addressing vehicular use, parking and informational signage. Phases II and III, never implemented, contemplated a Self‐Enforcing Permit System for motorized and non‐motorized uses on Richmond Ridge (Ph II), and should a self‐enforcing permit system fail to “maintain a ‘quality experience’ in the Study area, considered initiating a mandatory fee to monitor and regulate use.”(Ph III)
The Richmond Ridge Recreation Management Plan, focused as it was on motorized uses, off‐road snowmobile use and un‐permitted commercial activities south of Aspen Mountain, did not contain any comments, references or objections what so ever with respect to the proposed uses for the Pandora’s area contemplated in the 1997 Aspen Mountain Master Plan. The recreation plan noted only that, “The only commercial recreational uses which should be operating at this time in the study area are those for which permits from the County or Forest Service have been obtained.” It must be emphasized: ASC’s recreational activities then, now, and as proposed for Pandora’s have been approved and permitted by the Forest Service through long and comprehensive public processes. Our activities and operations are well known and closely regulated.
As for other policies and action items of the Little Annie / Richmond Ridge / Pearl Pass Management Plan, ASC’s recently adopted Amended and Restated Aspen Mountain Master Plan includes provisions which reduce our vehicular use of Little Annie and Midnight Mine Roads and shifts routine service and delivery access to the front side Summer Road in accord with the intent and purposes of that Plan. ASC supports and complies with the Management Plan and nothing related to Pandora’s rezoning and use would change or challenge that compliance.
D. Revised Timbering Plans
In response to BOCC concerns or reservations raised about the scope, extent and impacts of timbering Pandora’s terrain for ski trails, ASC has revisited the site plan and potential timbering program associated with trail development. ASC provides an alternative, Option B, in this submission which increases glading and reduces clear cutting trails, correspondingly reducing acreage cut and truck trips removing timber by approximately 21%. [Exhibit 4]
VI. PROPOSED PLAN
A. Pandora’s Plan as Proposed:
21
See previously submitted Application materials inc. Resort Upgrade Plan – Aspen Mountain MDP – SE Group map, Figure II.5 [copy attached ‐ Exhibit 5]
B. Proposed Amendments to the East of Aspen Master Plan
During the BOCC’s review, a Commissioner raised a concern regarding one particular sentence, the Goal or Objective 1C 3. (addressed and quoted below) and questioned whether or not the proposed rezoning conformed to the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Researching the history of Rural and Remote zoning, the adoption of the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan, and the 1997/1998 Aspen Mountain Master Plan, it is clear that when drafted and adopted, neither the Rural and Remote zone district nor the East of Aspen Plan precluded ski area development, nor did they intend to. Indeed, the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan is primarily focused on curbing and managing residential development in the wider area and speaks virtually not at all to the ski area or developed recreational uses on Aspen Mountain. And, with respect to ski area development, as noted in the Holland & Hart Memorandum, when creating the original Rural and Remote zone district on the backside of Aspen Mountain and Richmond Ridge, the BOCC explicitly directed Planning and Zoning in 1994 that “Development of ski uses should not be precluded.”
To clarify and conform the language of the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) dated October 8, 2003 more closely to the legislative intent, history and BOCC directives creating the Rural and Remote zone district which preceded it, ASC proposes the following amendments and additions to the Master Plan. (Proposed revisions and additions are underlined or strikethrough):
Generally, all references to “AF‐SKI” zoning should be replaced with “SKI‐REC” and all references to “AFR 10” zoning should be replaced with “AR‐10.”
Introduction, Planning Area Boundary, Paragraph C, Aspen Mountain/Richmond Ridge NPA, (which appears on page 4 of the Master Plan)
With the exception of ski area improvements and structures there is very little residential development on the mining claims off of the Aspen Mountain and Richmond Ridge Roads on the Independence Pass side of Richmond Ridge. These areas do contain Rural and Remote (R/R) residential cabins or have utilized TDRs to preclude the property from further development. The Aspen Mountain Ski Area contains ski area improvements and structures and consists of private mining claims and public lands subject to Aspen Skiing Company’s Special Use Permit issued and administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The 1998 Aspen Mountain Ski Area Master Plan, as accepted by the U.S. Forest Service and adopted by the County and amended periodically, generally directs development within the ski area. The base of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area is located within the City of Aspen and not included with this Master Plan. However, several private parcels on the face of Aspen Mountain, not within the ski area boundary, are within the NPA.
Section 1, Zoning, Part C., Aspen Mountain/Richmond Ridge NPA (which appears on Pages 14‐15 of the Master Plan).
Goals / Objectives
22
1C 3. Maintain R/R or other similar rural zoning on the privately held parcels (i.e. mining claims) along Richmond Hill Ridge and to the east of the AF SKI SKI‐REC zoned Ski Area boundary. 1C 4. Preserve the open space, recreational values, uses and activities on the face of Aspen Mountain, including downhill and cross country skiing, the development of which should not be precluded.
Action Items
1C 3.1 Rezone AFR 10 parcels on the face of Aspen Mountain to Low Density/ Low Intensity/ Open Space / Recreational, and/or Rural and Remote, and/or SKI‐REC zone districts based on location and use as it they relates to the respective zone district criteria Rural and Remote zoning and relevant master plans, including the Aspen Mountain Master Plan.
Section 7, Open Space/Trails/Recreation/Tourism, (which appears on pages 35‐37). See, specifically, Part D of Section 7, Commercial Recreational Uses. Part D of Section 7 notes that the U.S. Forest Service and / or the County have issued several recreational special use permits within the planning area for paragliding, climbing, kayak tours, snowmobile tours and cycling events, but omits and fails to note that the Forest Service has issued a Special Use Permit to ASC for the operation of the Aspen Mountain Ski Area on federal lands in the planning area. In fact, Section 7, dealing with recreation and tourism, describes the Aspen Mountain Ski Area in only one sentence: “The Aspen Mountain AF SKI Master Plan, as approved by the County, governs Aspen Mountain Ski Area.” Section 7 should be revised to further note and state:
1. Aspen Skiing Company operates Aspen Mountain Ski Area subject to a Special Use Permit issued and administered by the U.S. Forest Service; and 2. The Aspen Mountain Master Plan is intended as the controlling master plan and land use tool for County review and oversight of ski related land uses in the Aspen Mountain / Richmond Ridge NPA.
23
VII. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION AND MATERIALS PRESENTED TO BOCC NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO P&Z – POWER POINT SLIDES INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
24
RE‐ZONING PANDORA LIFT AREA REZONING •Rezoning Area AR‐10 to SKI‐REC ~ 35.28 RR to SKI‐REC ~ 131.83 Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance • Rezoning Area AR‐10 to SKI‐REC ~ 35.28 RR to SKI‐REC ~ 131.83 Acreage of Rezone vs. Acreage of Terrain Amended and Restated Master Plan • Pandora Rezoning… Criteria for Approval Changing conditions • Recent land acquisitions • Changing ski industry… focus on quality Effects of the rezoning • Conserving lands for recreation, not building development • De facto downzoning – no uses allowed by right in the SKI‐REC Zone • Extinguishing approx. 3,700 sf of residential development in RR and 20,125 sf of development in AR‐ 10 (approx. 7 units) Consistency • Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan – 1) expand within existing ski areas rather than develop new ski areas; 2) encourage recreation tourism and support local economy while preserving the rural character • East of Aspen/ Independence Pass Plan – 1) Preclude residential development with zone district that supports existing resource conservation; 2) conserve lands on the face of Aspen Mountain to preserve open space/ recreational uses • Allowable uses are identified by the USFS and Pitkin County Code
Amended and Restated Master Plan • Pandora Rezoning… Criteria for Approval (Cont’d) Within the capacity of public facilities • No net increase in employees • Limited increase to carrying capacity of the mountain Compatibility • Rezone area is immediately adjacent to the existing ski area boundary • Skier use from the expansion on east side of the ridge will have limited impact on surrounding privately owned property In the public interest • Support of recreational land uses • Continued success of Aspen Mountain is to the benefit of the entire community
Amended and Restated Master Plan SKI‐REC supports the characteristics of rural lands.
•USFS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum designates these lands as Rural: “Predominantly a culturally modified setting where the natural environment has been substantially modified, i.e., structures are readily apparent, pastoral or agricultural or intensively managed, wildland landscapes predominate as viewed from visually sensitive roads and trails. Access is primarily via conventional motorized use on roads. Contact frequency with other users may be moderate to high in developed sites and moderate away from developed sites.” AMMDP Page 18
•Final Environmental Assessment confirms that the summer and winter recreational use of the Aspen SkiCo Ski Areas complies with the USFS ROS Class of ‘Rural’.
•SKI‐REC Zone District Intent: The SKI‐REC (SKI‐RECreation) zone district is intended for lands that are used for downhill and cross‐country skiing and other uses permitted by a Federal or other public agency, such as grazing, hunting, and passive and other recreational uses. The district also accommodates affordable housing. It is considered a Rural Zone District (Pitkin County Code Table 3‐1: Zone Districts)
•An approved SKI‐REC master plan is required for any development in the SKI‐REC zone district. The master plan shall address all existing facilities and all proposed development, and shall be consistent with Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan. All standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and adoption of master plans are found in Sec. 2‐40‐100, and lists of permitted uses that may be included in SKI‐REC master plans are found in Chapter 4. TDRs may not be severed and sold.
•RR Zone District Intent: The RR (Rural/Remote) zone district is intended to: (i) conserve and protect the natural environment and its resources, while allowing for limited recreational uses and limited residential development, (ii) preserve the small scale, low‐ density backcountry character and lifestyle, (iii) retain undeveloped areas, and (iv) allow for the transfer of development rights to areas that are more appropriate for development. 3‐40‐20 Pitkin County Land Use Code Amended and Restated Master Plan “The BOCC finds that a zoning amendment must be either in conformance with an existing Master Plan or justified by some change in the conditions of the neighborhood since the adoption of an existing Master Plan.” Conformance with existing East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan dated October 2003: • Preserve open lands • Preserve recreational values • Preserve wildlife habitat • Preserve environmental quality • Maintain RR zoning on the privately held parcels (i.e., mining claims) along Richmond Hill Ridge and to the east of the AF‐SKI zone ski area boundary… the basis of the Master Plan’s statement of maintaining Rural/Remote zoning is a reflection of the greater amount of uses that are permitted within the SKI‐REC zone.
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance APRIL 12th, 2019 “The BOCC finds that a zoning amendment must be either in conformance with an existing Master Plan or justified by some change in the conditions of the neighborhood since the adoption of an existing Master Plan.” • Increasingly steady stream of users – “on a good powder day, 15 to 20 people may pass you when stationary in one place for 10 minutes” Scott Scharin, Aspen Mountain Patrol • Substantial commercial use of the area – “Third party professional guide services are known to commercially guide clients into this terrain regularly” • Pandora’s terrain is already part of the ski area – “it can be said that the vast majority of the typical Pandora’s terrain users seem to consider, as stated above, the Pandora’s terrain already a ‘part of the ski area’” • Considerable snow compaction – “the increased level of snow compaction that now exists in this area almost all season long… further demonstrates that the current level of regular recreational use has become so common that it already could be considered ‘part of the ski area’” • Visual Evidence – April 12th Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance Rezoning June 26th BOCC mtg. – some concerns voiced about rezoning: • Not in conformance with Pitkin Co. Comprehensive Plan or East of Aspen / Independence Pass Master Plan • “Up zoning” • “Spot zoning” to benefit of one land owner Comprehensive Plan conformance • Combination of sub‐area master plans integrated in Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan, adopted Nov., 2003 (“Overview of…”) • Focus – preserve rural character of the County; manage residential density “In areas closer to Aspen…the value of rural character as part of the resort economy is recognized through support of the policy by which ‘Pitkin County seeks to preserve its natural, rural scenery and natural landmarks for the benefit of its residents and the continued viability of its resort economy.’” (Overview of… p. 19) – ski areas compatible > 60 yrs. Only one neighborhood plan addressed skiing – “…no new ski areas be established. …consistent with County…Growth Management Policy Plan, which prefers expansion to existing ski areas over the establishment of new areas.” (Overview of… p. 29)
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan conformance • Plan adopted Oct., 2003 (“East of…”); now, part of Comp. Plan Section 1 – Zoning ‐ “New development should be compatible with and not fundamentally change the character of any neighborhood or area.” (East of… p. 10) SKI‐REC zoning, skiing and developed recreation abuts the proposed expansion – not a new use or change of character. The NPA (Neighborhood Planning Area) includes both Aspen Mt. [SKI‐REC zoning] and Richmond Ridge [RR Zoning]. Skiing & developed recreational uses are every bit as legitimate as remote residences in the NPA for planning and zoning purposes. AF‐SKI [now SKI‐REC] “should be applied to lands, which are used for downhill and cross‐country skiing and a variety of other uses permitted or approved by a Federal or similar public agency. (East of… p. 11) The area is used for skiing now…increasingly so; the uses and expansion of developed skiing have been approved by the Forest Service in its 2019 Decision Notice • Aspen Mountain / Richmond Ridge NPA – Goals and Objectives To preserve rural character, one stated goal is to restrict residential build out by “Maintain[ing] R/R zoning on the privately held parcels (i.e. mining claims) along Richmond Hill Ridge…” – Rezoning, with conditions, restricts / eliminates private residential build out “Public Lands zoned AFR‐10 [now AR‐10]…should preclude residential development…” (East of… p. 14) – Rezoning 35+ Acres of AR‐10 to SKI‐REC sterilizes residential development “Preserve the open space and recreational values on the face of Aspen Mountain.” (East of… p. 15) ‐ ski terrain provides open space and recreation, while actively managing forest health Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance East of Aspen/Independence Pass Master Plan conformance cont. “Maintain Richmond Ridge Road as a recreational, rural, scenic road.” (East of… p. 28) – plan preserves winter and summer use & connectivity Natural Environment – Wildlife – “Maintain and enhance the quality wildlife habitat within the East of Aspen/Independence Planning Area.” (East of… p. 32) – Winter skiing does not disturb summer range. Expanded terrain does not impinge upon or impair elk calving areas, winter range, transition corridors, or critical winter range. Cover and browsing habitats are sufficiently maintained or enhanced for elk herd viability. Open Space – “In addition to extensive federal public lands which function as open space… Maintain and manage the locally owned open space.” (East of… p. 34) – Public and private ski terrain, including timber stands, glades and trails devoid of residential development also serves as open space functionally and visually. Scenic Quality – “Preserve and enhance the scenic quality of the Roaring Fork East Area for the benefit of residents and the continued viability of Pitkin County’s resort economy…” (East of… p. 38) – “Maintain a primitive and remote visual sensitivity within the Aspen Mountain/ Richmond Ridge NPA…” (East of… p. 39) – View studies depict careful placement of trails and lift to hide ski improvements and retain visual character.
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance APRIL 12th, 2019
Change in conditions also justifying rezoning: • Recreational use by the public is increasing in the Pandora’s terrain east and south of the current operational boundary • Number / volume of skiers • Frequency / repetition of use • Breadth or expanse of use across terrain • Substantial commercial / guided use of the area • In the past 20 years, Pandora’s terrain has become de facto ski area • Recreational use trends by the public seeking • More terrain variety • More natural and gladed terrain • Improved and faster lift service and skier circulation • Terrain, lift, and ski circulation improvements will benefit the public’s use and the community’s resort economy
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance APRIL 12th, 2019 Not Up‐Zoning: • Rural Character: SKI‐REC zone district is a “Rural District” per Code – See Pitkin Co. Land Use Code, Table 4‐1 and Sections 3‐ 40 Rural Zone Districts and 3‐40‐120 SKI‐REC. • Ski permit areas and Pandora’s, in particular, include mostly open terrain, meadows, and forests in very natural settings, not residences and other improvements associated with urban areas. • Permitted Uses: SKI‐REC – no uses are allowed by right (w/ bus stop exception); all uses subject to Master Plan review and specific approval by BOCC. Rezoning doesn’t permit or enable unfettered development. • Conditions to Rezoning: ASC has agreed to rezoning conditions which would eliminate cabins, residential development and other impactful buildings in the area rezoned, preserving rural character. • Rezoning to SKI‐REC extinguishes approx. 3,700 s.f. of residential development in RR and 20,125 s.f. of development in AR‐10 – equivalent of 7 dwelling units Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance APRIL 12th, 2019 Not Spot Zoning: • Spot Zoning is commonly understood to be zoning for a specific parcel of land, the proposed use of which would conflict with the applicable comprehensive plan and current zoning to the benefit of a single property owner and to the detriment of public goals and the general public. • Rezoning Pandora’s to SKI‐REC in this case: Conforms to the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the East of Aspen / Independence Pass Area Plan Conforms to the zoning and uses on immediately adjoining land, Special Use Permit and operating areas and boundaries of Aspen Mountain The properties to be rezoned are owned by two entities, ASC and the US Forest Service, in essence, the public…all of us… The uses to be pursued constitute and enable public recreation The new ski terrain and resort infrastructure benefit local residents and the broader public participating in the recreational use of the area, while supporting the local resort economy
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Re‐zoning Ordinance ◦ Rezoning supports public recreation and skiing
◦ The limited uses of the conditional rezoning are found in the adjacent SKI‐REC zone
◦ Skiing maintains and supports rural character
◦ Conditional rezoning – what is it? ◦ Not approved for all permissible uses within SKI‐REC, but rather only those uses described in the Ordinance ◦ In response to concerns raised by the Board and the public, conditional rezoning supports enhancements to skiing without additional development
◦ If you support skiing in this area, conditional rezoning achieves the best of both – preservation of rural character and ski area expansion
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Conditional Rezoning ◦ Baseline ‐ evidence in the record for rezoning ◦ Conforms to Comp Plan ◦ Changed conditions
◦ Process has been followed ◦ Conditional rezoning speaks to integrity of the process and goals of the Comp Plan
◦ No spot or upzoning
◦ Conditional rezoning respects interest of adjacent owners
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Conditional Rezoning Pandora’s – Site Plan and Activity Envelope 153 acres of new terrain
1 new lift Pandora’s
Color coded terrain gradients
Highlights the intermediate terrain
Intermediate glades
The reverse ski & lap skiing Amended and Restated Master Plan | Pandora Lift Location Amended and Restated Master Plan | Pandora Lift Location Amended and Restated Master Plan | Pandora Lift Location Amended and Restated Master Plan | Pandora Lift Location Bottom of Pandora Lift Terminal & Access Road
Amended and Restated Master Plan Amended and Restated Master Plan | Longshot & Pandora Ski Terrain Alternatives
◦Proposal is for 153 Acres of improved terrain
◦Alternative would remove 132 Acres from the proposal
◦No gladed skiing would remain in the alternative
◦Alternative would consist of 2 new runs top to bottom and extend 3 runs
◦Side country alternative (no lift alternative) fails to meet the purpose and need
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Pandora Alternative Proposal Pandora’s – Site Plan Review Visual Simulations Pandora’s – Site Plan Review Visual Simulations Pandora’s – Site Plan Review Visual Simulations Pages 57‐62 of the Environmental Assessment
“surveys conducted in early July 2018, shortly after the end of the elk calving period, did not reveal any evidence of recent (2018 calving period) occupancy of the project area by elk.” Pandora’s – Site Plan Review “However, at the scale of DAU E‐15, the impact to forage and cover Wildlife & Vegetative Cover for resources would not be detectable in terms of a decrease in elk survival Wildlife or fecundity. Vegetation changes would not impact the DAU‐15 elk population numbers. Furthermore, there was no evidence observed during the 2018 wildlife surveys that elk utilize the project area for calving and habitat features that typically characterize elk calving habitat (i.e., good cover and free water within a quarter‐mile are absent).”
“Since the reallocated lands possess similar ecological values, and the Proposed Action would allow for the area to provide adequate habitat cover, this portion of the action alternative would have no impact on elk.” • 2019 Dates of Construction: June 1st thru November 26th • CMP, as required by Pitkin County Code, submitted with every 2019 applicable permit • Construction Times 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday thru Saturday (working Construction times do not include driving) Management • No Plowing of the Little Annie’s or Midnight Mine Roads Plan • Dust mitigation on Little Annie’s • Communication Plan • Weekly communication with caucus members, backside residents, and others interested • Truck Trips (Estimated): ◦ Logging Total (may not all occur in 2019) – 169 trips ◦ Snowmaking – 150 trips ◦ Building Construction – 15 trips (front side will be utilized for workers / small material deliveries) ◦ Road Construction – 25 trips (dirt / rocks will be processed on site to reduce trips) • Gladed terrain ◦ Up to 40% of trees will be removed in gladed areas ◦ 1st pass will remove trees under 6” and turn them into mulch on location ◦ Remaining trees may already have glading properties thus no need to cut Timbering • Trees between 6” & 8” (non‐merchantable) Methodology ◦ Given away (firewood) ◦ Placed in burn piles to reduce truck trips • Over 8” will be limbed on‐site to allow for efficient loading of trucks • Timbering plan developed with USFS experts A dense forest ≠ A healthy forest • A healthy forest contains a diverse mix of tree species, ages, and densities. • Thinning the forest is a prescribed measure of improving forest health as prescribed in 2012 Forest Health Project Environmental Assessment, which further states: Timbering projects reduce the possibility for beetle infestation. Timbering projects allow for more water to reach the Roaring Fork Watershed. Timbering projects remove standing dead and other dead fuels from the forest; which reduce the risk of forest fires. Benefits of Gladed Terrain & Tree Islands: • Existing trees have more room & nutrients to grow. • Increase of wildlife habitat for foraging, grazing, and browsing. • Reduce the fuel load for wildfires. • Allows for more diverse vegetative undergrowth.
Tree islands will be selected and retained on most of the ski runs which will increase cover for wildlife and provide for a healthier forest. Amended and Restated Master Plan | Timbering & Tree Thinning Amended and Restated Master Plan | Timbering & Tree Thinning Amended and Restated Master Plan | Timbering & Tree Thinning Amended and Restated Master Plan | Timbering & Tree Thinning Amended and Restated Master Plan | Timbering & Tree Thinning TOP OF MOUNTAIN SUMMER | EXISTING
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Top of Mountain Access SUMMER | PROPOSED
Amended and Restated Master Plan | Top of Mountain Access WINTER | EXISTING Amended and Restated Master Plan | Top of Mountain Access WINTER | PROPOSED Amended and Restated Master Plan | Top of Mountain Access Amended and Restated Master Plan | Top of Mountain Access Amended and Restated Master Plan | Uphill Travel BACKGROUND • Contemplated use of this terrain for over 20 years • Over 2 ½ years of federal review, including environmental studies, resulting in a Notice of Decision approving this project. • Over a year in the County review process with unanimous recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. GOALS AND KEY POINTS • Enhance the skiing experience and improve accessibility for all skiers. • Develop the operational terrain within the existing SUP boundary. • Enhance snowmaking to ensure early season opening and consistency of conditions.
• Continue to lead the industry in the balance between visitor experience, economic generation, and environmental stewardship. • Preserving and improving forest health. • Operating within available resources and protecting stream flows. • Doing all of this compatibly with the goals and aspirations of our community, including the preservation of rural character. Being a good neighbor! Amended and Restated Master Plan | Closing Statement