PURPOSE AND CONTENTS

There has been a long standing tradition of comprehensive planning in Pitkin County. The earliest planning efforts in Pitkin County can be traced back to the preparation of the Aspen Area General Plan, the first plan for the Aspen Area, adopted in 1966. The second major signpost in the history of planning in Pitkin County was the adoption of the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan in 1977, while the third such major accomplishment was the 1987 adoption of the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan (DVCP), the first land use plan for the unincorporated area from Brush Creek to Basalt.

More recently, in the 1990's there was another upsurge in planning activity in Pitkin County and adjacent communities in the . The Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan (WCCMP) was prepared in 1991 and was adopted as an amendment to the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. The Redstone Master Plan was adopted in 1993. The Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted by Aspen and Pitkin County in 1993, and this plan was comprehensively updated in 2000. Village (1999), Carbondale (2000), and Basalt (2000) each adopted plans during this period that included recommendations for the unincorporated areas beyond their municipal boundaries. And the Fryingpan Caucus prepared a plan in 1999 that represented the first plan for that portion of Pitkin County.

Following this round of planning, the State Legislature made changes to the Revised Statutes with respect to adoption of master plans by cities and counties. C.R.S. 30-28-106 (4)(a) requires cities and counties that meet certain population or growth rate criteria to adopt a master plan no later than January 8, 2004. C.R.S. 30-28-106 (4)(b) specifically lists Pitkin County as one of several counties required to adopt a master plan, regardless of whether the County meets the specified population and growth rate criteria.

In response to this State mandate, in 2003 the County and several neighborhood caucuses have undertaken planning efforts to address certain areas of the County that are either not addressed in the DVCP, or where current needs dictate that the DVCP should be updated. This has led to the preparation of plans for the Crystal River Valley, Owl Creek, Brush Creek, Castle-Maroon Creek Valleys, East of Aspen/Independence Pass, and Snowmass- Capitol Creek Valleys. The location of all of the planning areas in Pitkin County is shown on the “Planning Areas” map, (Figure 2).A complete listing of the master plans adopted by Pitkin County and by the municipalities in and adjacent to Pitkin County is provided on Table 1. This table only lists master plans that address land use and other planning issues in a comprehensive manner; it does not include functional or topic-specific plans adopted by the County, such as transportation plans, open space plans, or affordable housing plans.

This table also provides a statement of the current status of all of these plans, by listing which of the adopted County master plans remain in effect following adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and which have been superseded by more recent planning efforts. With all of this prior and recent planning activity, the County recognized the importance of producing one document that would integrate all of the plans for the unincorporated area and provide an overview of planning policy and recommended planning actions in Pitkin

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 1 County. The purpose of this document is to provide that overview, by integrating the County's land use goals, policies, and recommended actions into a single document that can help the reader to understand how all of the currently adopted County plans fit together into a coherent County plan that will guide Pitkin County into the future.

The contents of this Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan are as follows:

First, a description of the process followed to prepare the current plans is provided.

This is followed by a brief summary of the key concepts, policies, and actions contained in each of the plans that have been adopted by Pitkin County and that remain in effect today, beginning with the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan and ending with the caucus and neighborhood plans that have been adopted in 2003.

Finally, a concise summary of the common themes among the plans and the distinct differences between the plans is furnished, focusing on the recommended goals, policies, action items, and land use designations in these plans. Based on this summary, an overall policy direction for the County is stated.

It is anticipated that this Comprehensive Plan will be considered as a guide by County staff, the County Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Board of the County Commissioners when formulating implementation strategies, including amendments to the Pitkin County Land Use Code, new capital investments (such as road improvements, new public facilities, and future affordable housing projects), and other public actions. This Plan will also be used by County staff and County review bodies in reviewing proposed land development applications. If an earlier plan adopted by the County is listed in Table 1 as having been superseded by a more recent plan, then that superseded document will no longer be used by the County, and should not be used by applicants, in determining whether a particular project is consistent with the County's adopted plans.

To ensure that this Plan remains current and useful to decision makers, it is recommended that regular updates of the Comprehensive Plan be accomplished, at approximately five year intervals. It is also expected that the neighborhood and caucus plans that are components of this Comprehensive Plan will be updated as necessary, to ensure that all of these components address the current issues of general concern.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 2 PROCESS

The process of preparing this Comprehensive Plan involved four basic tasks. These tasks were initiated shortly after the adoption of new plans by the municipalities in and adjacent to Pitkin County in 2000, well before the State mandate for planning by counties was enacted. The process has culminated with the preparation and adoption of this Overview Plan near the end of 2003. Specifically, the four tasks completed by Pitkin County are as follows:

Task 1: Preparation of Background Documents

To provide a foundation for the planning process, the County had two analytic documents prepared. These two background documents are as follows:

¨ A Review and Analysis of Comprehensive and Master Plans in Snowmass Village, Carbondale, and Basalt, September, 2000.

¨ Pitkin County Comprehensive Plans - An Overview and Comparison, March, 2001.

These documents provide an analysis of the key policies and recommendations contained in the plans previously adopted by the County and by the municipalities in and adjacent to the County. As such, they describe the history of recent planning in Pitkin County, and provide a context for comparing and evaluating the types of planning policies and recommendations that have been adopted in this community.

Task 2: Create Land Use Policy Guidelines

The County created a document known as the Pitkin County Land Use Policy Guidelines in September, 2002. The document was prepared by County staff and was reviewed with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners at several public work sessions. Staff also coordinated its work with municipalities located within and adjacent to the County where these policies affected those jurisdictions.

The stated purpose of the document is to: "Serve as a foundation upon which the Planning and Zoning Commission, Caucuses, and other neighborhood groups may develop Master Plans, Caucus Plans, or other documents meant to set parameters for development of a specific geographical area of the County". It provides a comprehensive statement of current County policy with respect to land use patterns, environmental quality, recreation, agricultural preservation, wildlife, water resources, citizen housing, general government, federal and state lands, solid waste management, the airport, cultural/historic resources, telecommunications, other services and facilities, economic sustainability, transportation/transit/roads, and public health and safety/natural hazards.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 3 The Land Use Policy Guidelines have not been formally adopted. However, much of this document's content and directions is reflected in the comprehensive plans prepared by neighborhood groups and caucuses.

Task 3: Caucus and Neighborhood Planning

In 2002 and 2003, County staff worked closely with citizens in several planning areas to create a new master plan, or to update an existing master plan for that area. Where a caucus existed, the Caucus became the leader of the planning effort. Where no Caucus existed, the staff either worked with citizens to establish a Caucus, or organized a neighborhood group to work on the formulation of the plan.

During this period, plans were formulated for the following areas:

¨ Crystal River Valley; ¨ Owl Creek; ¨ Brush Creek; ¨ Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys; ¨ East of Aspen/Independence Pass; and ¨ Maroon/Castle Creeks.

Each of these plans was presented to the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission and was adopted by the Commission prior to the adoption of this Overview Plan.

Task 4: Preparation of Overview Plan

As the caucuses and neighborhoods neared completion of their work, the County initiated work on this Overview Plan, to integrate these plans into a single coherent County Plan. The Overview Plan was presented to and adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 18, 2003.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 4 SUMMARY OF ADOPTED COUNTY PLANS

This section provides a summary of the key concepts, policies, and actions contained in the plans that have been adopted by Pitkin County and that remain in effect today. (The following paragraphs provide plan summaries only. Individual Plans may be reviewed for more detailed information.)

Down Valley Comprehensive Plan (1987)

The Down Valley Comprehensive Plan (DVCP) represents the most comprehensive and traditional community planning effort undertaken in Pitkin County. The planning area for the DVCP includes all lands between Brush Creek Road and Basalt, including tributary valleys, but excluding the Fryingpan and Crystal River valleys.

The plan provides a detailed analysis of environmental, land use, and transportation (roads and mass transit) issues. Based on this analysis, six overall plan goals are identified:

¨ Manage the rate of growth; ¨ Preserve agricultural lands; ¨ Preserve environmental quality; ¨ Simplify the Land Use Code; ¨ Direct the future location of growth; and ¨ Improve County roads.

The fundamental objective of the DVCP is to identify the highest priority lands in the County for preservation while recommending the most suitable locations for development. There are a number of policies recommended to accomplish this objective. About 40% of the lands in the planning area are designated on the Future Land Use Map as "Agricultural/Wildlife Reserve (AWR), a designation which strongly discourages residential development. Most of the rest of the lands in the planning area are designated "Rural Residential", which calls for low density residential uses that avoid environmental resources and constraints. Several limited "Cluster Residential" areas are also designated. Commercial and retail uses are encouraged only within the municipal boundaries and highway retail and neighborhood commercial uses are discouraged. The DVCP also calls for the preservation of rural areas to separate Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Basalt from one another. Establishment of a funding mechanism for the County to purchase development rights and creation of a transfer of development rights program are recommended.

Another plan goal is to maintain pleasing scenic views in the County. The DVCP recommends that a scenic foreground be established for the lands that are highly visible from Highway 82 and Brush Creek Road. Several scenic viewplanes are also designated, to preserve highly valued views to Pyramid Peak, Mount Daly and other notable features.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 5 Environmental issues receiving support in the DVCP include protection of minimum stream flows, maintenance of air quality, protection of sensitive lands (including riparian areas and wildlife habitat), and control of noxious weeds.

Finally, the Plan promoted improvements to local roads, including the 4-laning of Highway 82 and improving County roads where required by growth. Transit improvements were also suggested, including higher frequency bus service, use of feeder routes from tributary valleys, development of park-and-ride lots, and preservation of the Rio Grande right-of-way for potential use as rail transportation.

Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan (1991)

The Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan (WCCMP) enacted amendments to the DVCP as it affects the Woody Creek area. The vision expressed in the WCCMP is to "keep Woody Creek as it is". Key policies and actions to accomplish this vision are as follows:

¨ No changes in zoning that increase maximum population potential or density in Woody Creek should be permitted. Mechanisms that lower population potential (such as 35 acre zoning) may be considered.

¨ Woody Creek is proud to devote an exceptionally high percentage of its housing stock to affordable housing. No additional high density or high rate employee housing developments should be permitted. Further employee housing will be provided in scattered, low density patterns.

¨ The Woody Creek Mobile Home Park trailer park should continue in its present location. Improvements to the living environment and transfer of land ownership to the tenants are supported.

¨ Delete the "Cluster Residential" designation for Pitkin Iron property; replace it with a "Rural Residential" designation. Delete the reference to a train station as an appropriate use of the Pitkin Iron property.

¨ TDR's should not be used to increase density in Woody Creek. TDR's may be used to move density out of Woody Creek.

¨ Existing commercial zoning should not be enlarged and no additional commercial zoning should be permitted.

¨ Roads should be maintained as they currently exist, except for required safety improvements and the addition of bicycle/pedestrian lanes.

¨ Support installation of the Rio Grande recreational trail, but do not support use of the Rio Grande right-of-way for rail.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 6

¨ Support airport restrictions, including curfews, limited operating hours, and noise abatement.

Redstone Master Plan (1993)

The overriding objective of the Redstone Master Plan is "to maintain the existing village character of Redstone". The Plan states that new commercial, residential, and tourist accommodations facilities should be consistent with the mass and scale of existing development in the area. New commercial development should be designed to serve the residents of and visitors to Redstone, not to make Redstone a commercial service center for the Crystal River Valley.

The key action recommended to implement these objectives is the creation of three new zone districts, these being a Village Commercial zone district, a Village Residential zone district, and a Village Lodge Preservation zone district. Other rezoning actions are also recommended to implement the Future Land Use Map. Finally, the Plan recommends that the County prepare a master plan for the remainder of the Crystal River Valley.

Upper Fryingpan Valley Master Plan (1999)

The Upper Fryingpan Valley Master Plan was prepared by the residents of the valley, based upon a survey that was conducted and an analysis of growth potential under zoning. The unifying theme of the Master Plan is to "preserve the rural and recreational nature of the area while at the same time sustaining the viability of its unique community". Adopted goals are to "limit residential development in the Upper Fryingpan Valley to the maximum extent possible", and to "preserve the land in the Upper Fryingpan Valley and its watersheds primarily for agricultural and recreational purposes". Actions recommended in the Master Plan include the following:

¨ Limit single-family residences to no more than 4,000 sq. ft. of floor area.

¨ Create a new RS-35 zone district.

¨ Rezone large portions of the planning area from AFR-10 to either RS-30 or RS-35; maintain the current AFR-2 zoning in Thomasville and Meredith.

¨ Limit future commercial development to areas of Thomasville and Meredith that are already zoned commercial. Prohibit development of new multi-family housing.

¨ Require buildings and roads to avoid meadows, hillside view sheds, ridgelines, slopes in excess of 30%, wetlands/riparian areas, and key wildlife habitat. Cluster development near the Road and maintain appropriate minimum setbacks from water sources.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 7

¨ Cap the number and capacity of campgrounds at their current levels. Preserve historically established access to public lands.

¨ Do not pave currently unpaved roads. Do not widen roads to accommodate increased traffic.

Aspen Area Community Plan (2000)

The Aspen Area Community Plan (2000 AACP) is an update of the 1993 AACP. Many of the key concepts found in the 1993 AACP are carried forward to the 2000 AACP, including the concepts of providing housing for a critical mass of the employees of the upper valley, managing the impacts of automobile traffic upon the Aspen area, and preserving the key open space parcels and natural features that help to establish the character of the Aspen area.

A critical new concept embodied in the 2000 AACP is the establishment of a Community Growth Boundary, which "is intended to help preserve open space, discourage urban sprawl, and manage the transportation impacts of new developments". The Plan suggests that in order to make the boundary effective, the County may need to maintain or lower allowable zoning density in areas outside of the boundary, while the City takes actions to encourage infill development in existing neighborhoods.

Another important aspect of the 2000 AACP is a series of changes to the way the community measures growth. The intent of these changes is to better capture the impacts of activities such as change in use, remodel of existing structures, and job growth. The 2000 AACP calls for limiting the growth rate to less than 2% per year.

The transportation section of the 2000 AACP focuses on limiting traffic levels to 1993 volumes. It recommends transit-oriented development (which can be achieved through compact forms of growth and mixed use development patterns) to promote travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, or by using public transportation.

The housing section recommends that 800 to 1,300 additional affordable housing units be provided within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary (UGB), as a preference to locating housing outside of the UGB. The key criteria for evaluating new housing proposals are: (1) location within the Community Growth Boundary; (2) proximity to available public mass transit; and (3) whether the project is a containable development that does not promote sprawl.

There are many other sections in the 2000 AACP with important recommendations. However, the above are the elements that have the most relevance to this Countywide Comprehensive Plan.

Crystal River Valley Master Plan (2003)

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 8

The Crystal River Valley Master Plan (CRVMP) was formulated jointly by the County, residents, and the Caucus of the Crystal River Valley. It addresses all of the Crystal River Valley within Pitkin County, except for the area covered by the Redstone Master Plan.

The CRVMP sets out a series of "core values" that guided the planning process, as follows:

¨ The Crystal River Valley is first and foremost a place where preservation of the natural environment and protection of rural character are valued.

¨ Value is placed on preserving open space, wildlife habitat, water quality, and the Highway 133 viewplane. Agriculture is recognized as an irreplaceable treasure.

¨ Support is given to limiting growth in the valley, to ensure that it is consistent with the rural character of the valley, is sensitive to the natural and built environment, and is sustainable with respect to physical carrying capacity.

The CRVMP establishes goals, objectives, and implementation measures under seven topics. Following are some of the highlights of these sections.

Growth: Growth should be limited to no more than the historic rate of 2% per year. To ensure that zoning promotes rural character, it is recommended that the County develop rural low-density zoning or overlays that include provision for rural clustering of single-family residences and incentives to protect agricultural and resource lands. The CRVMP also specifically recommends that development be directed away from areas with environmental constraints, such as steep slopes. floodplains, and wildlife habitat.

Agriculture: The Plan recommends that the County consider adopting agricultural and ranch land overlay zone districts. The ranch land overlay would enable landowners to voluntarily submit a non-development agreement with the County in exchange for the preservation of the regulatory status quo. At the end of the agreement period, the owner could submit a master plan for development of the property, request renewal of the agreement, or allow the property to be subject to the then-existing zoning regulations.

The agricultural overlay district would also be voluntary. It would require the owner to develop at a density of less than 1 unit per 35 acres. It would include a sliding scale for house size, whereby the more land that is conserved, the larger the allowable house size of the parcel. TDR's or other zoning tools could be used to achieve further increases in house size, and, conversely TDR's or other zoning tools could be utilized as incentives to owners who choose to develop below the maximum allowable house size. Commercial uses would be allowed by right, provided the use is of a scale that is compatible with agriculture, the surrounding neighborhood, and the other aspects of the CRVMP. Other incentives that would be available in this district would be a growth management exemption for the planned new development and a density bonus in exchange for land conservation.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 9

The Plan also recommends the adoption of right to farm/right to ranch laws that protect agriculture from adjacent uses.

Housing: The CRVMP recommends that the County adopt house size limits based on the specific location, acreage of the property, and use of the parcel. A graduated house size limit should be established that employs TDR's as an incentive for lower density.

Commercial Uses and Recreation: The CRVMP supports extending the opportunity for home occupations, by providing for small scale, home based "cottage industries". It is recommended that cottage industry and small scale agriculturally-related commercial uses be exempted from mitigation requirements. Limited small scale commercial uses are also supported as a special review use. Strip commercial development is to be prohibited.

Commercial recreation activities should be limited to those that are small scale and low impact. The development of new, or expansion of existing, accommodations outside of Redstone should be limited to areas already zoned Tourist. The CRVMP recommends limiting the expansion of existing campgrounds or the development of new campgrounds in the Crystal River Valley. It also recommends preserving existing access to trails and waters, while respecting private property rights.

Environment and Open Space: The CRVMP expresses support for County efforts to protect open space, wildlife habitat, and air quality. A zoning overlay is recommended to protect viewsheds along Highway 133. A program is recommended to protect water quality and quantity and to control impacts from septic systems and other sources of pollution.

Transportation: The CRVMP supports pedestrian and automobile safety improvements to Highway 133. It also recommends working with CDOT and Pitkin County to create a paved bike path within the Highway 133 right-of-way; to provide paved shoulders along the Highway; and to pursue an off-road bicycle/pedestrian path paralleling Highway 133.

Owl Creek Land Use Master Plan (2003)

The Owl Creek Master Plan covers the valley situated between the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village. The Master Plan for this area was prepared by the County, in conjunction with the newly-formed Owl Creek Valley Caucus.

The Plan describes the Owl Creek Valley as a rural area, despite its proximity to the two resort communities, with large residential lots, undeveloped land, and irrigated hay meadows. However, the vast majority of the planning area is zoned AFR-10, which permits 1 residential unit per 10 acres of land. This allowable density is considerably higher than the current large lot development pattern that predominates in the area. Therefore, a

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 10 principal recommendation of the Master Plan is to rezone undeveloped land, and land which is subdivided into large lots within the planning area to a new resource protection type of zone district, with a minimum lot size of 35 acres or larger. Other related recommendations to preserve the rural character and environmental resources of the planning area are as follows:

¨ Formulate rural cluster guidelines, with incentives provided to encourage the preservation of larger tracts of critical wildlife habitat and agricultural land.

¨ Create a new Forest/Natural Resource zone district and apply it to public lands within the planning area (and throughout the County) to preclude the possibility that residential development could occur on U.S. Forest Service/BLM lands, and to reflect the resource conservation uses that presently exist on these lands.

¨ Identify lands within the planning area that should be (but are not currently) subject to scenic review and create new scenic/visual guidelines for review of development in this valley.

¨ Revise the Land Use Code to ensure that when land is developed, water rights remain tied to agricultural and open space parcels along the valley floor.

House size is another major issue addressed in this Master Plan. The Master Plan recognizes that the Owl Creek Valley is a place where larger lots and larger homes have been built. It recommends that the Owl Creek area remain as a potential receiving area for TDR's to develop homes in excess of 5,750 sq. ft., up to a maximum size of 15,000 sq. ft. However, the Plan recommends the elimination of the existing opportunity to use a TDR to obtain a growth management exemption for the first 5,750 sq. ft. of floor area on a property, with one exception. That exception is when a conservation-type of development is proposed, where the development right is created by preserving resource lands (agricultural or wildlife lands) on the same fathering parcel on which the TDR is to be used.

At the time this Master Plan was being prepared, the County Commissioners concluded that it was no longer practical to maintain Owl Creek Road as an unpaved road. In recognition of this decision, the Master Plan recommends that: the rural character of the area be maintained; the improved road be managed to have minimum impacts on wildlife migration through the area; and actions be taken (speed limits, speed bumps/dips, weight restrictions) to ensure Owl Creek Road does not become the primary access to Snowmass Village. It is also recommended that Brush Creek Road remain the primary transit corridor. The Caucus also expressed concern about the potential for a gondola link between and Snowmass, particularly with regard to rural character, visual impacts, and wildlife habitat.

Finally, the Master Plan expresses support for dispersed affordable housing within the planning area, where densities are appropriate for the surrounding area and the

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 11 development is containable. Commercial uses that would change the rural residential character of the area should be precluded.

Brush Creek Master Plan (2003)

The Brush Creek Master Plan updates and replaces that portion of the Down Valley Comprehensive Plan that addresses the Brush Creek/Wildcat Planning Area. The Master Plan was prepared by the County, with assistance from neighborhood groups.

The Brush Creek Master Plan identifies the same primary issue as the Owl Creek Master Plan, this being that most of the planning area is zoned AFR-10, creating the opportunity for additional residential build out on large lots and on lands in public ownership. To ensure that the existing rural, large lot development pattern in the planning area is preserved and to protect remaining wildlife habitat, the following recommendations are made:

¨ Rezone undeveloped land, and land which is subdivided into large lots within the planning area to a new resource protection type of zone district, with a minimum lot size of 35 acres or larger.

¨ Rezone County-owned open space parcels and parcels that are subject to long term conservation easements to a new Conservation zone district.

¨ Rezone publicly-owned parcels (CDOT parking lot, Cozy Point, Aspen Mass and the Solid Waste Center) to Public.

¨ Formulate rural cluster guidelines, with incentives provided to encourage the preservation of larger tracts of critical wildlife habitat and agricultural land.

¨ Identify lands within the planning area that should be (but are not currently) subject to scenic review and create new scenic/visual guidelines to preserve the existing open valley floor, ridgelines, and view plane corridors (such as the entrance to the valley from Highway 82).

¨ Revise the Land Use Code to ensure that when land is developed, water rights remain tied to agricultural and open space parcels along the valley floor.

¨ The County and/or a land trust are encouraged to continue working to obtain additional conservation easements in the planning area.

The Master Plan also recommends consideration of a zone district that would make the lots in Brush Creek Village conforming.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 12 The Brush Creek Master Plan addresses house size in a manner similar to the Owl Creek Master Plan. It recommends that portions of the Brush Creek area remain as a potential receiving area for TDR's to develop homes in excess of 5,750 sq. ft., up to a maximum size of 15,000 sq. ft. However, the Plan recommends the elimination of the existing opportunity to use a TDR to obtain a growth management exemption for the first 5,750 sq. ft. of floor area on a property, with one exception. That exception is when a conservation-type of development is proposed, where the development right is created by preserving resource lands (agricultural or wildlife lands) on the same fathering parcel on which the TDR is to be used.

Finally, the Master Plan recommends that commercial uses be prohibited, other than home occupations and agriculturally-related commercial uses.

Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys Master Plan (2003)

The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys Master Plan was produced by the Snowmass- Capitol Creek Caucus, with assistance from Pitkin County. It summarizes the efforts of residents to plan proactively to maintain the unspoiled character and rural way of life that is disappearing in Pitkin County. The planning process included a detailed analysis of existing conditions, an opinion survey, formulation of goals, objectives and implementation measures, and preparation of a future land use map.

The principal goal of the Master Plan is that "The dominant agricultural and rural residential character of the Snowmass/Capitol Creek valleys be enhanced and preserved". Specific recommendations to achieve this goal include the following:

¨ Strengthen the County's TDR regulations. Specific criteria should be established for the evaluation of receiver sites within the planning area, including visual impacts, impacts on surrounding land uses and rural character, potential for light, air, and water pollution, and traffic impacts. Transfer of TDR's from outside of the planning area should be prohibited.

¨ Reward landowners who permanently conserve over 90% of their total acreage and preserve sensitive resource lands from development. Rewards might include accelerated review, reduced processing fees, and longer vesting periods. Vesting time would be increased in proportion to the degree to which the project achieves preservation and conservation objectives and conforms to this Master Plan.

¨ Allow appropriate alternative small scale commercial uses on agricultural and open space properties of 70 acres or larger when the proposed use complies with specified performance standards that ensure the use will be compatible with the historic use of the property and with surrounding rural uses.

¨ Enable landowners to voluntarily exchange renewable non-development covenants for preservation of the regulatory status quo.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 13

The Master Plan recommends that new residential development be consistent with and compliment the area's rural character, based on the following specific concepts:

¨ The Future Land Use Map reflects existing land use and does not support rezoning for greater (or lesser) density of any property within the planning area.

¨ Multi-family development should not be allowed in the planning area, except for on- site affordable housing.

¨ The County's adopted house size limit of 5,750 sq. ft. is supported.

¨ Under exceptional circumstances, support is given to the use of TDRs or a growth management allocation on a parcel, to increase house size to 8,250 sq. ft.

¨ A separate, modest annual growth management allotment should be created for this planning area, to reduce the annual available quota for this area.

¨ Year-round occupancy of homes is encouraged, including voluntary incentives for Resident Occupied (RO) restrictions to keep neighborhoods vital. The plan recommends that more points be awarded in the GMQS competition to proposed residences of 3,000 sq. ft. or less.

New commercial development is not supported within the planning area, except the small scale uses on agricultural and open space lands described above. The Master Plan supports the development or re-development of existing institutional uses in the area, and supports new institutional uses if they preserve a large tract of unprotected open space.

The Master Plan recommends preserving the unique and abundant natural resources of these valleys to the maximum extent possible. It recommends only allowing development that does no harm to water quality and quantity, supporting the County's land preservation efforts, and establishing the strongest possible lighting regulations. The Master Plan also recommends amending the Scenic Foreground Overlay mapping to include areas visible from any public road within the planning area. The Master Plan urges the establishment of a long-term, sustainable solution for protecting water quality and quantity in Snowmass Creek. It also recommends increasing the minimum stream setback standard in the Land Use Code from 20' to 50' from the high water mark. The County is also encouraged to amend its wildlife habitat regulations to consider the broader perspective of "biodiversity".

The Master Plan expresses support for the County's road policies, including retention of existing unpaved roads and precluding the extension of winter maintenance into remote areas. Finally, the Master Plan recommends that "extractive operations" (which would include oil and gas exploration and drilling) be prohibited in all of the zone districts within the planning area.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 14

East of Aspen/Independence Pass Plan (2003)

The East of Aspen/Independence Pass Plan covers a broad area at the eastern end of Pitkin County. It includes all lands to the east of the Aspen community growth boundary (that is, lands to the east of the Mountain Valley and Preserve subdivisions) to the top of Independence Pass. It also includes lands on Aspen Mountain/Richmond Ridge, and lands on Smuggler Mountain and in Hunter Creek.

This plan updates and replaces the 1985 Roaring Fork East Master Plan (which, in turn, updated and replaced the 1974 Roaring Fork East Amendment to the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan).

The 2003 Plan identifies the theoretical potential for significant residential buildout on undeveloped lands in this planning area. A considerable percentage of these undeveloped lands are under the ownership of the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management, while the remainder are in private ownership.

A key County policy used to guide development in this planning area is that "New development should be compatible with and not fundamentally change the character of any neighborhood or area". Considering this policy, the Plan makes a series of recommendations for changes to zoning to ensure that the existing development pattern remains unchanged. Some of the key recommendations are as follows:

¨ Maintain the existing AFR-10 zone district designations on the valley floor, but consider allowing a TDR-type of exchange, whereby the development rights for residential square footage could be removed from one parcel and transferred to an adjacent parcel.

¨ Create a new Conservation zone district and apply it to public lands within the planning area (and throughout the County) to preclude the possibility that residential development could occur on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands, and to reflect the resource conservation uses that presently exist on these lands. Also use this district to zone County-owned open space parcels and parcels with long term conservation easements

¨ Rezone the face of Smuggler Mountain to preserve its open visual character and recreational uses. Rezone areas on the top of Smuggler Mountain and the face of Aspen Mountain to preserve their rural mountain character. Rezoning is also proposed for certain lands between Red Mountain and the Hunter Creek Valley to protect the character of this area.

The Plan recognizes that larger homes may be appropriate in the more developed portion of the planning area, immediately to the east of Aspen. The Plan identifies scenic issues as the main concern with respect to such houses. Therefore the Plan recommends

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 15 amendments to the scenic overlay maps and the Land Use Code to incorporate scenic/visual guidelines that address the concerns associated with larger homes.

Maroon/Castle Creek Master Plan (2003)

The Maroon/Castle Creek Master Plan was prepared by County staff, with input from members of the Maroon/Castle Creek Caucus. It addresses those portions of the Maroon and Castle Creek valleys that are outside of the Aspen growth boundary.

The Master Plan provides a detailed analysis of existing land use and zoning in the area. This analysis found that there is potential for additional development in the planning area, particularly on several larger acreage parcels that have little existing development. Residents of the area have expressed a willingness to accept this density if the homes are moderately sized or are located where they are not highly visible.

Actions recommended by the Master Plan with respect to potential development include the following:

¨ Create a new Forest/Natural Resource zone district and apply it to public lands within the planning area (and throughout the County) to preclude the possibility that residential development could occur on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands, and to reflect the resource conservation uses that presently exist on these lands.

¨ Consider extending the boundary of the Rural/Remote zone district to include parcels up the Express Creek drainage.

¨ Consider revising the AFR-10 zone district to require PUD review to address the siting of new single-family residences. Consider revising the PUD regulations to allow the County to vary house size depending upon how visible the house is from a public road.

¨ Prohibit multi-family development in the planning area, except for on-site affordable housing.

¨ Support the existing house size limitation of 5,750 sq. ft., plus increased house size through TDR's. Consider strengthening the regulations regarding TDR receiver sites to address visual impacts, impacts on surrounding land uses and rural character, potential for light, air, and water pollution, and traffic impacts. If visual impacts cannot be minimized, then TDR's should only be considered appropriate for the development of below-grade space. Consider allowing houses to be sited on steeper slopes (greater than 30%) rather than locating them on the more visible, open, flat portions of the property.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 16 ¨ Consider eliminating the existing opportunity to use a TDR to obtain a growth management exemption for the first 5,750 sq. ft. of floor area on a property, except when a conservation-type of development is proposed, where the development right is created by preserving resource lands (agricultural or wildlife lands) on the same fathering parcel on which the TDR is to be used.

¨ Give property owners the option to aggregate square footage from potential lots onto a single lot as an alternative to creating more lots.

¨ Reward landowners who permanently conserve over 90% of the total acreage of their property and preserve the sensitive resource lands from development. Rewards might include accelerated review, reduced processing fees, and longer vesting periods. Vesting time would be increased in proportion to the degree to which the project achieves preservation and conservation objectives and conforms to this Master Plan.

¨ Support existing commercial uses and allow these uses to expand to a limited extent, subject to review of traffic, noise, and visual impacts, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Limit new commercial activities to lands within the urban growth boundaries. t Consider establishing a voluntary overlay zone district to accommodate the rural tourist accommodation/recreation amenity that exists on the T-Lazy 7 Ranch. The intent of this district should reflect the fact that the agricultural and tourist- related uses on this particular property function as a transition from the more intense tourist uses on the Highlands ski area to the more rural residential, and less intense recreational uses on the Forest at the upper end of the valley

¨ Reduce the total square footage awarded annually through the Rural Area GMQS. Establish a specified allotment for the Maroon and Castle Creek valleys based on historic growth rates and potential buildout analysis. Revise the scoring system to favor modest-sized houses.

¨ Develop affordable housing within the urban growth boundaries. Dispersed affordable housing may be considered within the planning area where densities are appropriate for the surrounding area and the development is containable.

The Master Plan also makes recommendations with respect to environmental resource protection. These include recommendations to increase the minimum stream setback to 50' from the ordinary high water mark, to adopt wildlife regulations that reflect the concept of "biodiversity", to consider the adoption of more stringent regulations to protect wetlands and riparian areas, and to require that "retroactive" defensible space standards be met by any existing residence that seeks a building permit for remodeling. The Master Plan also encourages the County to establish the strongest possible lighting regulations.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 17 The Master Plan expresses support for maintaining County roads in their current condition, with minimal improvements for safety. The County is also urged to investigate the cost and feasibility of installing a wider shoulder or bike path along Maroon and Castle Creek roads. Finally, the Master Plan supports limited expansion of existing campgrounds (but not the establishment of new campgrounds) if off-site impacts (such as traffic) can be adequately mitigated.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 18 COMMON THEMES AMONG THE COUNTY'S PLANS

If one were to examine all of the above-described plans as a body of work, then the most common unifying concept that pervades all of these documents is the desire of residents to Preserve, Conserve, and Protect the existing rural character of Pitkin County. For nearly two decades residents have watched as surrounding counties in the Roaring Fork Valley and other rural valleys around Colorado have abandoned their agricultural and rural roots and become more urban and suburban. Residents view Pitkin County as a unique environment, the "Crown Jewel" as it is described in the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys Master Plan. And so with these plans, residents seek to manage change and chart a different direction for Pitkin County. This thought is expressed in a variety of ways in the various plans, from the very direct desire to "Keep it as it is" in the Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan, to the statement that "The Crystal River Valley is a place where the rural character should remain substantially unchanged" and to the "deep desire to preserve the rural and recreational nature of the Upper Fryingpan Valley, while at the same time sustaining the viability of its unique community".

Preserve, conserve, and protect are the action terms used throughout these plans to describe how Pitkin County envisions its future. This approach to land use planning harkens back to the Down Valley Plan, whose principal objective was to "identify the highest priority land for preservation and suggest preservation strategies...". But as one digs deeper into these plans, it becomes apparent that the desire to defend and to sustain the community's heritage touches nearly all aspects of residents daily lives. Preservation of agricultural/ranch lands and open space is the most fundamental expression of this desire, and it is a basic goal of every single plan produced in this County. Conservation of natural resources, including wildlife habitat, scenic quality, water quality, water quantity, and air quality, is a common supporting element found from plan to plan, as is the protection of historic resources.

So if there is one unifying theme that ties together all of these documents into a single comprehensive planning concept it is as follows. This is a plan intended to sustain the existing rural character of Pitkin County. The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys wish to enhance and preserve their dominant agricultural and rural residential character. The residents of Woody Creek make clear their desire to "preserve the past and present character of the Woody Creek community and to endorse and support land use policy which will encourage, not sacrifice, traditional and rural agricultural pursuits, both residential and commercial". In areas closer to Aspen, such as the Owl Creek and Brush Creek valleys, 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". And in Redstone the principal theme of the Plan is to "Maintain the historic character and scale of land uses and structures on Redstone Boulevard and adjacent platted lands". How do the residents of Pitkin County intend to sustain rural character? The plans recognize that the County's rural character is threatened, and though it has not vanished, it

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 19 has certainly been diminished by the changes this County has experienced. The various plans that make up this Comprehensive Plan identify a broad palette of objectives and implementation measures to accomplish this goal. Following below is a synthesis of these many ideas into a set of common themes. These themes are illustrated graphically in Figure 1, and are comprehensively summarized in Table 2.

1. Locate Future Urban Development Within Adopted Urban Growth Boundaries.

The concept of steering urban development into defined boundaries has been a fundamental part of the County's master plans since the adoption of the original Growth Management Policy Plan in the 1970's. The County's original concept was to maintain a development pattern in which Aspen and Snowmass Village are defined growth centers which are separated from one another and surrounded by rural and wilderness areas. This concept was advanced in the DVCP, which sought to steer development away from the major road corridors and to concentrate new development into existing rural nodes (such as Woody Creek and Gerbazdale) or into very low density patterns, in order to avoid sprawl between the municipal areas.

In more recent years, several municipalities within and adjacent to the County have adopted formal urban growth boundaries as a method of encouraging compact forms of urban development, avoiding suburban sprawl, and preserving rural character. In support of these actions, the County has established policies to "locate future urban development within adopted urban growth boundaries" and stating that "lands outside of the urban growth boundaries will be deemed most appropriate for the preservation of agriculture, natural habitat, environmental resources, open space and rural residential spaces".

The plans reviewed above recommend a coordinated set of actions to ensure that urban growth is channeled into the growth boundary areas and does not sprawl into the rural area. Following are some of the key concepts:

A. Do not permit multi-family development in the rural area. Although this concept was not part of the DVCP (which identified several sites for "Cluster Residential" development), it has since become a significant element of many neighborhood plans. This includes the plan for the Upper Fryingpan Valley, which allows only single-family homes and cabins; the Crystal River Valley, which allows primarily low density and clustered single-family homes; and the Maroon/Castle and Snowmass- Capitol Creek Valleys, which recommend prohibition of multi-family, condominium, apartment or townhouse units, "except for on-site employee housing approved by special review". The Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan states that no new high density development will be allowed in Woody Creek and eliminates the Cluster Residential designation that was given to the Pitkin Iron property by the DVCP.

B. Dispersed affordable housing may be permitted only where densities are consistent with the surrounding area and where this type of development is

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 20 containable. This policy has been expressed in many of the County's plans. It first appears in Pitkin County's 1998 Citizen Housing Plan, which was subsequently incorporated into the 2000 AACP. This policy was then integrated into the 2002 County Land Use Policy Guidelines. Several of the caucus and neighborhood plans reiterate this policy, including the plans for Owl Creek, Brush Creek, and Maroon/Castle Creek. The Woody Creek Caucus Plan addresses this issue quite directly, stating that employee housing will continue to be provided in scattered, low density housing patterns and no changes in zoning which increase density will be permitted.

Two of the adopted neighborhood plans identify alternative approaches to this issue. The Crystal River Valley Plan envisions a new opportunity for dispersed affordable housing, by encouraging landowners to deed restrict existing homes for affordable housing and by allowing for deed restricted second dwellings on parcels where appropriate. The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys have suggested their own housing approach, encouraging the County to study the concept of a voluntary, incentive-oriented Resident Occupancy (RO) restriction, to include a County buy- down program to compensate owners who deed restrict existing homes as RO.

C. Direct new commercial uses to lands within the adopted urban growth boundaries. The DVCP establishes a County land use policy that commercial and retail uses should be steered into the municipal boundary areas. The plan recognizes that there were some existing highway commercial uses and neighborhood commercial uses in the rural area. While the DVCP does not recommend the elimination of these uses, it clearly states that their expansion, and the establishment of new commercial uses, (particularly strip commercial development in the Highway 82 corridor) should not be permitted.

Every single County plan that has been formulated subsequent to the DVCP has followed that document's lead and sought to direct growth into urbanized areas and to avoid the proliferation of new commercial uses in the rural area. However, in more recent years, many neighborhood groups have recognized the value of small- scale commercial activities and cottage industries as a means of supplementing the income of ongoing ranching and agricultural operations. This concept receives its broadest support in plans for the Crystal River Valley and Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys, and is also voiced in the plans for Owl Creek and Brush Creek.

The Maroon/Castle Creek Plan recommends the development of a zoning overlay to accommodate the rural tourist accommodation/recreation amenity that exists on the T-Lazy 7 Ranch. The intent of this district should reflect the fact that the agricultural and tourist- related uses on this particular property function as a transition from the more intense tourist uses on the Highlands ski area to the more rural residential, and less intense recreational uses on the Forest at the upper end of the valley

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 21 The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Plan addresses a related issue in a unique manner. It would permit the re-development of existing institutional uses (such as a new Rocky Mountain Institute or Windstar) and would support a new institutional use when that use preserves a large tract of unprotected open space. Similarly, the East of Aspen/Independence Pass Plan recognizes the value of existing institutional uses in the area (Wildwood School) and would allow for a case-by-case review for the creation of similar new uses

2. Create New or Refined Incentives for Land Preservation.

The County has embraced an incentives-oriented approach to land preservation over the last fifteen years. Following the adoption of the DVCP, the County implemented a Low Impact Subdivision process, in which a growth management exemption and simplified land use review process were offered in exchange for development below underlying density. The DVCP also recommended the adoption of a TDR program to protect sensitive agricultural and wildlife lands and a purchase of development rights program. Subsequently, the County adopted a TDR program to protect rural and remote lands and the voters authorized a new sales tax to fund open space preservation.

Each of the caucus and neighborhood plans prepared since the adoption of the DVCP has recommended the creation of new or refined land preservation incentives. Following are the key features of the proposed incentive programs:

A. Make refinements to the County's TDR program. The caucus and neighborhood plans recommend a wide array of refinements to, or expansions of the County's adopted TDR program. The highlights of these recommendations include:

¨ The Brush Creek, Owl Creek, and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans recommend the elimination of the GMQS exemption to use a TDR for the initial 5,750 sq. ft. development right, except when the TDR has been created on the same fathering parcel and there is a clear conservation benefit from the transfer.

¨ The Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creeks Plans make specific recommendations to strengthen the criteria for review of TDR receiving sites. The criteria would address visual impacts, impacts on surrounding land uses and rural character, potential for light, air, and water pollution, and traffic impacts.

¨ The Woody Creek and Snowmass-Capitol Creek Plans recommend the prohibition of the transfer of TDR's from outside of the subject planning areainto the planning area.

¨ The Crystal River and East of Aspen Plans recommend allowing owners to reduce the density on their own property in exchange for the ability to transfer floor area to their own or another property.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 22

¨ The Snowmass-Capitol Plan recommends the establishment of a bank to allow the accumulation and sale of fractional TDR's. It also recommends studying the use of TDR's for uses other than residential.

B. Adopt other zoning incentives (such as overlay districts and clustering provisions) that promote land preservation. Several of the recently-produced caucus and neighborhood plans recommend that the County also adopt other types of zoning incentives to encourage landowners to preserve open lands. Some of the more innovative recommendations are as follows:

¨ The Crystal River Valley Master Plan recommends the adoption of a voluntary agricultural overlay district, in which development would occur at a density of less than 1 unit per 35 acres. It would include a sliding scale for house size, whereby the more land that is conserved, the larger the allowable house size of the parcel. TDR's or other planning tools could be used to achieve further increases in house size, and, conversely TDR's or other planning tools could be used as incentives to encourage owners to choose to develop below the maximum allowable house size. Commercial uses would be allowed by right, provided the use is of a scale that is compatible with agriculture, the surrounding neighborhood, and the other aspects of the CRVMP. Other incentives that would be available in this district would be a growth management exemption for the planned new development and a density bonus in exchange for land conservation.

¨ The Owl Creek, Brush Creek, and Maroon/Castle Creek Master Plans call for the County to give incentives for owners to cluster development on larger tracts of land, or to place conservation easements over their agricultural lands.

¨ The Crystal River and Snowmass-Capitol Creek Plans recommend allowing appropriate small-scale commercial uses on larger agricultural properties when the use is compatible with the historic use of the property and with surrounding rural residential uses.

C. Adopt administrative incentives (such as longer periods of vesting and streamlined processing) that encourage land preservation. In addition to the substantive incentives described above, several of the plans recommend the adoption of administrative incentives, as follows:

¨ The Crystal, Snowmass-Capitol, and Maroon/Castle Creek plans all recommend that the County consider allowing landowners to exchange a renewable non-development covenant for the County's guarantee of the regulatory status quo for the property.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 23 ¨ The Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creek plans recommend that landowners who preserve more than 90% of the total acreage of their property as open space be rewarded with an accelerated land use process, eliminated or reduced processing fees, and a longer period of vesting.

3. Limit Growth Potential in the Rural Area by Reducing Underlying Zone Density.

It has been quite some time since any plan produced by Pitkin County contemplated wholesale changes to underlying zoning. The DVCP specifically concluded that changes to underlying zoning should not be pursued as an implementation technique. However, in the more recent round of planning with neighborhood and caucus groups, the County and residents have concluded that some changes to underlying zoning are warranted. While the municipal plans recognize the needs for increased zone density to encourage infill development and efficient use of lands where urban services can be provided, the rural area plans point out the need for density reductions to be made in the rural area. These reductions are necessary to comply with the County policy stating that: "new development should be compatible with and should not fundamentally change the character of any neighborhood area".

The key changes proposed to the County's official zone district map are as follows:

A. Create several new large lot (35 acre) zone districts and rezone certain rural residential lands to this district. The majority of the neighborhood and caucus plans recommend that the County adopt a new 35 acre zone district and rezone rural residential lands to this district. One such zone district has already been created by the County to implement the Upper Fryingpan Valley Master Plan. The Owl Creek and Brush Creek Plans envision the rezoning of most of the private lands in these planning areas to new 35 acre zone districts to reflect rural character and preserve conservation values. The East of Aspen Plan also proposes rezoning many larger tracts of land above the valley floor to this zone district. However, the future land use maps for the Snowmass-Capitol Creek and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans do not support the idea of downzoning of residential properties.

B. Create a new Forest/Natural Resource zone district and rezone U.S.F.S./ BLM lands to this district. A concern raised in several plans is the theoretical possibility that lands now in federal ownership could experience residential development, either through land trades or some other approach. Given the remote location of many of these properties, their value as wildlife habitat, and the lack of public services, this possibility would have severe consequences for the County. Therefore, the Owl Creek, Snowmass-Capitol Creek, East of Aspen, and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans all recommend the rezoning of these properties to a Forest/Natural Resource zone district that would preclude residential development and reflect the resource conservation uses that currently exist on these properties.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 24 C. Create a new Conservation zone district and rezone open space lands owned by the County or otherwise encumbered by a conservation easement to this district. There are an increasing number of properties that are either owned by the County or another open space organization, or are subject to a conservation easement. These properties are not expected to be developed at any time in the future. Therefore, the Brush Creek, Snowmass-Capitol Creek, and East of Aspen Plans all recommend that these lands be rezoned to a new Conservation zone district.

Note: During the review process for adoption of the master plans, the Planning Commission recommended that the proposed “Conservation” and “Forest Natural Resource Lands” zone districts be combined into one overall “Conservation” zone.

4. Refine/Expand Upon Adopted Resource Conservation Strategies.

If there is any theme that is absolutely fundamental to all of the plans adopted by Pitkin County, it is the importance of conserving the unique and fragile natural resources that make Pitkin County such a special place in which to live, visit, and recreate. For years Pitkin County has been at the forefront of thinking on techniques to protect these environmental values. Following are the key concepts contained in the adopted plans:

A. Adopt regulations and other techniques to ensure that development avoids wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and other environmentally sensitive lands. This theme is the most consistently recommended policy throughout all of Pitkin County's planning efforts and can be found in every one of the plans summarized herein. The DVCP describes how the County sought to become more proactive in its environmental regulations, to steer development away from sensitive lands. The outcome of this effort was the adoption of the "Agricultural Wildlife Reserve" (AWR) for down valley lands, and the adoption of new environmental regulations to ensure that development is located in the most suitable portions of a property.

All of the plans adopted since the DVCP support this more proactive approach, and encourage the County to take additional regulatory actions to ensure that development avoids sensitive lands (including consideration of the concept of "biodiversity" when formulating approaches to protect wildlife habitat). The plans also recommend that the County continue to use its open space funds to target important preservation properties, or properties where conservation easements can preserve sensitive lands.

B. Formulate new guidelines for scenic areas/expand the land areas that are subject to scenic review; install utilities underground. The County's initial efforts at scenic area regulations came out of the planning of the 1980's for the Highway 82 Corridor and the DVCP. These documents recommended the adoption of a scenic foreground overlay, with performance standards to ensure that the foreground area next to certain highly traveled areas remained aesthetically pleasing. These regulations were subsequently adopted by the County, and over time amendments

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 25 were adopted to also address ridgeline development through the County's scenic overlay.

The more recent plans focus on the need to refine the adopted guidelines and to expand the areas that are subject to scenic review. The Crystal River Valley Plan calls for the adoption of a zoning overlay to protect viewsheds along S.H. 133 and for amendments to the Land Use Code to make the scenic overlay more effective. Similarly, Brush Creek, Owl Creek, and East of Aspen recommend that additional areas be mapped for scenic review, including the open valley floor, ridgelines, and specified view planes (such as the entrance to the valley as seen from S.H. 82). Snowmass-Capitol Creeks recommend that areas visible from all public roads be subject to scenic review, while Maroon-Castle Creeks recommend the adoption of guidelines for siting residences so they have little to no visual impact from public roads. The Maroon-Castle Creek Plan also expresses concern about the visual impacts from the installation of a Buttermilk to Snowmass gondola.

The Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans also recommend that the County adopt "the strongest possible lighting regulations" and require all utility extensions for new development or re-development be installed underground.

C. Create new programs to protect water quality and water quantity. The County's adopted plans recommend a wide array of measures to better protect water quality and water quantity. Most fundamentally, the plans recommend better monitoring of water resources and monitoring of the features that could impact water quality (particularly runoff and failing septic systems), followed by appropriate modifications to the County's drainage and erosion control standards, and its Individual Sewage Disposal System regulations to ensure that water quality complies with adopted State standards. Several of the plans urge the County to research new technologies for wastewater treatment and to modify its regulations to require the most environmentally sound systems be employed. Other plan recommendations include:

¨ The Snowmass-Capitol Creek and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans recommend that the County increase the minimum stream setback from 20' to 50' from the ordinary high water mark. The Crystal River Valley Plan also recommends an unspecified revision to the minimum stream setback.

¨ Several plans recommend that the County adopt procedures to ensure the water supply is adequate (considering legal and hydrological adequacy) before approving development.

¨ The Crystal River and Snowmass-Capitol Creek Plans recommend that the County take actions to protect minimum stream flows. In particular, Snowmass-Capitol Creeks want the County to establish an automatic trigger that requires a review of water issues for any proposed annexation into the Town of Snowmass Village. The Crystal River Valley Plan recommends that

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 26 the County purchase water rights to protect minimum streamflows, and that the County oppose the construction of dams and reservoirs.

¨ The Brush Creek, Owl Creek and East of Aspen plans recommend that the County adopt regulations to ensure that water rights applied to irrigation be formally dedicated to those purposes.

D. Provide incentives to protect historic resources. Several of the County's adopted plans recognize the contribution of historic resources to the County's rural character and seek greater protection for these resources. All of the plans are in agreement that incentives, not mandatory requirements are the preferred approach to protection. The plans urge the County to "revise the Land Use Code to include incentives for protection of historic resources on properties that are pertinent to the history of the County".

E. Place greater limitations on mineral extraction. The Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans recommend that the County create a new Code definition for "extractive operations", and that oil and gas exploration and drilling be included in this definition and be subject to the County's mineral exploration and mining standards. Furthermore, the plans recommend that extractive operations be prohibited in the County's residential zone districts. The plans also recommend that the County pursue agreements with federal agencies to more aggressively limit mining, mineral exploration and other extractive operations on federal lands in Pitkin County.

The Crystal River Plan recommends strict enforcement of all applicable local, state and federal regulations governing mining, mineral exploration and all other extractive operations when such operations are proposed within the Planning area; and recommends that the County seek amendments to antiquated federal regulations providing preemption from local regulations for mining and mineral exploration

Other County plans, such as those for Owl and Brush Creek and East of Aspen, simply state that if mineral extraction were to be pursued in those planning areas, it should be subject to the currently adopted County mineral extraction regulations.

5. Enact Further Limitations on House Size in the Rural Area.

In 2000, a house size limitation was enacted for the rural portion of the County. This action limits each parcel to a total residential floor area of 5,750 sq. ft., unless the owner either: (a) purchases a TDR to expand the house size by 2,500 sq. ft. per TDR; or (b) competes successfully in the growth management quota system (GMQS) for additional floor area. Agricultural buildings are exempt from this limitation, provided the property is at least 20 acres in size. Existing structures could be expanded to 5,750 sq. ft. If an existing structure

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 27 already contained 5,750 sq. ft. or more, then it is eligible for a one time expansion exemption of 1,000 sq. ft.

Virtually all of the plans adopted since that time include recommendations for refinements to the adopted house size limit. These refinements can be described as follows:

¨ The Upper Fryingpan Valley Plan recommends that house size in that planning area be limited to 4,000 sq. ft. (a recommendation since adopted by the County).

¨ The Crystal River Valley Plan proposes the adoption of a graduated house size limit, based on the size of the parcel, its location, and the planned use. House size could be increased based on the use of TDR's or other zoning tools to lower overall density, to a still to be determined maximum "brick wall" limit.

¨ The Brush Creek and Owl Creek Plans both support the existing house size limitation of 5,750 sq. ft., plus the opportunity to use TDR's to increase house to 15,000 sq. ft.

¨ The Snowmass-Capitol Creek Valleys Plan supports the existing house size limitation of 5,750 sq. ft., plus the opportunity to use TDRs to increase house to 8,250 sq. ft in exceptional cases.

¨ The Maroon/Castle Creeks Plan supports the existing house size limitation of 5,750 sq. ft., plus the ability to use TDR's to increase house size (with no limit specified), provided there are no visual impacts from the use of the TDR's.

¨ The Snowmass-Capitol Creek and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans each recommend that the County reduce the 40,000 sq. ft. annual quota that is available for the rural area through the GMQS and adopt a targeted allotment just for their valley, to limit the potential that the entire annual rural area quota could be awarded to projects in a single neighborhood. These Plans also recommend that the County revise the GMQS scoring to favor modest sized homes (specified as 3,000 sq. ft. or less in the Snowmass-Capitol Creek Plan).

6. Maintain Public Facilities at Their Current Capacities

The County's adopted plans make it abundantly clear that the infrastructure which serves residents should not be substantially altered. Instead, residents prefer that the facilities which serve the rural area be maintained at their current capacities and reflect the rural character of the area they serve. The County's Land Use Policy Guidelines state that "Extensions of public and private facilities should be consistent with urban growth boundaries". The Crystal River Valley Master Plan takes this policy a step further, calling for the County to "Prevent the development or construction of major physical infrastructure

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 28 within the Crystal River Valley" and recommending that the County strengthen its 1041 regulations addressing Activities of State and Local Concern.

The specific policy statements in these plans which reflect this direction are as follows:

A. Make necessary safety improvements to roads and make improvements to bicycle-pedestrian trails. A common theme among the neighborhood and caucus plans is that County and State roads should be maintained to, but not beyond current standards. Residents generally support safety improvements to existing roads, whether this be Highway 133 in the Fryingpan Valley, Highway 82 east of Aspen,or the County roads in Woody Creek or Snowmass-Capitol Creeks. But residents do not seek improvements such as widening, further paving, or wider shoulders that would increase the capacity of those roads or allow motorists to travel at higher speeds. Residents do support improvements to trails that provide alternatives to motorized travel. This includes the desire of residents in the Crystal River Valley to create a paved bike path within the Highway 133 right-of-way and to provide paved shoulders on this road, and the desire of residents of Brush Creek to create a trail along the Brush Creek Road corridor and to make a seamless connection from this trail to the rest of the trails network.

B. Retain unpaved roads as a reflection of rural character. Do not expand the service areas for winter road maintenance further into remote areas of the County. These policy statements have been taken directly from the County's Land Use Policy Guidelines and represent the County's intent to ensure that roads remain rural in character. These statements have been included verbatim in the Snowmass- Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans. This policy is also expressed in the Upper Fryingpan Valley Master Plan.

C. Maintain existing levels of recreation on public lands. Recreation is addressed in a variety of ways among the adopted County plans. The Upper Fryingpan Valley and Crystal River Valley plans recommend that the capacity of existing campgrounds not be expanded. However, the Maroon/Castle Creek Plan supports expansion of campgrounds if off-site impacts such as traffic can be mitigated. The Owl Creek Master Plan is the only neighborhood plan to address skiing, and it recommends that no new ski areas be established. This is consistent with County policy dating back to the Growth Management Policy Plan, which prefers expansions to existing ski areas over the establishment of new areas.

Several of the plans (Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creeks) express the importance maintaining existing trails and access to public lands through private lands, while the Crystal River Valley Plan encourages landowners to voluntarily grant access to public lands through intervening private lands. The Owl Creek Plan points out the need to secure easements to trails that are currently used under license agreements. The East of Aspen Plan focuses on the importance of adopting and enforcing management plans for public open space (such as the plan for the

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 29 Northstar open space). Finally, the Snowmass-Capitol and Maroon/Castle Creek Plans seek greater involvement by the County and residents in the management of federally-owned lands. Suggested mechanisms for this involvement include intergovernmental agreements (IGA's) or memoranda of understanding (MOU's).

Finally, Figure 1 depicts one more theme that underlies, or provides the foundation for the above six themes. This is the desire among residents for self-expression of their planning ideals, and for local control of land use planning and regulation. The Woody Creek Caucus Master Plan states that "Local control of the planning process is essential", and sets forth the authority of the Woody Creek Planning Committee to interpret and amend the Plan and to review land use proposals within the planning area. The Snowmass-Capitol Creeks Plan expresses the need to establish a process with the County to ensure land use applications (and amendments to prior land use approvals) are referred to the Caucus for review. Overall, the level of community involvement in the planning process epitomized by the creation of all of these plans over the last 15-20 years is quite remarkable, and demonstrates how much the residents of Pitkin County care about and seek to influence the future of Pitkin County.

A key challenge for Pitkin County as it continues to establish neighborhood and caucus groups and places authority in these groups to review land development applications is how to balance the importance of achieving Countywide goals with the need to respect the distinct neighborhood goals that are expressed in these plans. This balance is essential for the County to have effective programs, such as the transfer of development rights program, and for Countywide needs to be met, including transportation and affordable housing. Maintaining this balance between local desires and Countywide needs will be a critical element to the successful implementation of this plan.

Overview of the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan Page 30