MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners: Pitkin County, Colorado
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
FROM: Mike Kraemer, Senior Planner
RE: Redstone 2016 LLC – Redstone Castle Properties
Ordinance Amending Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, Specifically the 2006 Land Use Code, for a Land Use Code Text Amendment to Create the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District, Second Reading Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for a Citizen Initiated Rezoning on Private Property Owned by Redstone Castle 2016 LLC for Properties Referred to as the Barn Parcel, the Carriage House Parcel, and the Castle Parcel, Second Reading Resolution Approving the Redstone 2016 LLC Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Master Plan, Designation of Historic Structures to the Pitkin County Historic Register and Granting of Incentives, and Activity Envelope/Site Plan Review, Continued Public Hearing
DATE: June 13th, 2018
SUMMARY: The Applicant requests the following approvals:
1. Land Use Code Text Amendment to create the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District. 2. Rezoning of the Barn Parcel, the Carriage House Parcel, and the Castle Parcel to the VLP zone district. 3. Master Plan approval for a lodge/hotel use, special event use, and cabins/cottages tourist accommodations; designation of multiple historic structures on the properties to the Pitkin County Historic Register with requested optional incentives for the designation; approval for a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Change in Use from Residential to Commercial if certain incentives are not granted; and Activity Envelope and Site Plan approval for existing and future development.
In 2017, the Applicant submitted an application for a Land Use Code Text Amendment and Special Event Venue application for the subject properties. The 2017 application has been withdrawn at the request of the Applicant and is no longer being considered.
APPLICANT: Redstone 2016 LLC – Steve and April Carver
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn. Davis Horn, Inc.
LOCATION: Three parcels are part of this request. Two of the three parcels are addressed as 58 Redstone Boulevard and 68 Redstone Boulevard. The parcels are generally described as the “Castle Parcel”, the “Barn Parcel”, and the “Carriage House Parcel”, collectively known as the Castle Properties.
ZONING/LOT SIZE: Multiple Zone Districts apply to all three parcels. RS-30, AR-10, and AR-2. The three parcels total approximately 150 acres. Staff will display maps of all parcels at the hearing. Page 1 of 6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussed the proposal and evaluated the request on March 6th, 2018 and March 20th, 2018. The P&Z adopted a motion to recommend approval to the BOCC on a 7- 0 vote, subject to the P&Z Resolution 07-2018, viewed in Attachment A. This Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution is the formal recommendation of the proposal to the BOCC.
LAST BOCC MEETING The BOCC heard this request on May 23rd, 2018 and passed motions to approve on first reading the Text Amendment and Rezoning Ordinances and set 2nd reading for June 13th, 2018. The BOCC continued the Resolution. At this meeting, Staff provided an overview of the processes, the request, and the P&Z/Staff recommendations. The Applicant also made a presentation and identified issues and concerns with the draft ordinances and resolution.
At the conclusion of this meeting, the BOCC made statements regarding certain aspects of the Land Use Code Text Amendment to create the VLP Zone District, the proposed Castle VLP Master Plan, and requested incentives for designation of the historic structures on the properties. The BOCC also directed Staff to meet with the Applicant to discuss issues with the draft resolution. Community Development Staff and the Attorney’s Office met with the Applicant and their representatives on May 31st, 2018 to discuss certain issues. Comments and results from this meeting are outlined below.
Creation of the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District and Uses: Staff and the Applicant discussed the VLP Master Plan Uses identified in Chapter 4, Table 4-1 of the Text Amendment Ordinance. An issue regarding allowed VLP Master Plan uses was discussed. It should be noted that not all uses listed as an “M”, for Master Plan Use in the VLP Zone District are automatically a permitted use for a property. BOCC approval of a VLP Master Plan is required for a certain use to formally occur on a property. Staff has amended Chapter 3 of the draft ordinance to reflect this clarification.
For clarity, Staff has also included a statement in Chapter 3 of the draft ordinance that a VLP Master Plan is a site specific master plan for a property and is in no way associated with a Caucus or Pitkin County Master Plan.
Master Plan Duration: Staff and the Applicant discussed the intent of establishing a timeframe for a VLP Master Plan and the fact that this master plan timeframe does not constitute a vested property right. Currently, the Land Use Code states that SKI-Rec and PUB master plans have a 5 – 10 year timeframe. The effect of the conclusion of this timeframe is not defined in the Land Use Code. At this time, Staff feels that because of the difficulty of defining the effect on a property when a VLP Master Plan expires, it is prudent to eliminate a reference to a VLP Master Plan timeframe. Staff has amended Chapter 2 of the draft ordinance to reflect this sentiment.
Permitted and Further Review Uses: Staff and the Applicant also discussed the VLP Master Plan as it relates to “permitted” and “further review” uses. Permitted uses are clearly allowed to occur when a VLP Master Plan is approved by the BOCC, however, the process for reviewing and permitting further review uses is unclear. Staff has amended Chapter 2 to reflect that when further review is required in a VLP Master Plan, Special Review standards in Land Use Code Section 2-30-30, and Activity Envelope/Site Plan Review standards in Land Use Code Section 7-10-50 are engaged as the review process. These changes can be viewed in the attached Text Amendment Ordinance.
Page 2 of 6 Vested Property Rights: The Applicant has requested a 25 year vested property right as an optional incentive for Historic Designation of structures to the Pitkin County Historic Register. The P&Z considered this request and adopted a recommendation that a range of 15 years to 25 years be considered by the BOCC for the vesting period. Chapter 2 of the Land Use Code does not identify a master plan as a “Site Specific Development Plan” and therefore, does not have the ability to establish a vested property right. Chapter 2 states that an Activity Envelope and Site Plan is a “Site Specific Development Plan” and that, if approved, establishes a vested property right. Staff has amended the draft resolution to identify a potential extended vesting period for the Activity Envelope/Site Plan portion of this application. The County Attorney’s Office will be available at the hearing for clarifications on this topic.
Master Plan Document: Staff and the Applicant agreed that the approved VLP Master Plan should be reviewed as a separate document by the BOCC and, if approved, attached to the BOCC resolution. The intent of attaching a separate Master Plan document to the resolution is to clearly identify the approved uses, activities, and parameters on the properties. The Applicant has drafted this document and provided it to Staff. Due to the timing of the submittal of this document, Staff has not had the opportunity to review its contents. Staff has attached the Applicant’s Master Plan to this memo which can be viewed as Attachment B.
The Applicant has also provided a revised traffic report which can be viewed as Attachment C. Given the timing of the submittal of this traffic report, Staff has not had the opportunity to review its contents.
ADDITIONAL BOCC DIRECTION:
Transferrable Development Rights: The Applicant has requested to receive 21 TDRs for designation of historic structures and areas of interests on the properties to the Pitkin County Historic Register. During the P&Z meetings, some P&Z Commissioners felt that a reduced number of TDR’s was warranted while others felt that designation warranted the Applicant’s full request of 21 TDR’s. As a result of this discussion, the P&Z adopted a recommendation that the BOCC should consider granting a range of 5-21 TDR’s for historic designation of the structures and area of interest on the properties.
The Code gives the BOCC discretion to determine the availability and amount of TDRs to be awarded, in consideration of the community benefits associated with the historic resource including accessibility of the resource to the public, the cumulative community impacts associated with the grant of TDRs in addition to other incentives, and the amount of incentive required to effect preservation of historic resources. At the BOCC’s direction, Staff is also prepared to discuss some potential alternatives to address the County impacts associated with the potential issuance of a large amount of TDR’s in association with this application.
The Land Use Code states that TDR’s may be awarded based on a number of different criteria including “accessibility to the public”. The Applicant has represented that the Castle will be made accessible to the public through the proposed commercial lodge use and commercial historic tours. At this time, Staff has not included a condition in the approval to memorialize this representation and require that these uses operate in the future. The BOCC may want to discuss a public accessibility requirement for the Castle as it relates to the Historic Designation request and the potential grant of TDR’s as an incentive.
Bridge: The adopted 1993 Redstone Master Plan calls for an evaluation of improved access to the Redstone Castle properties which may include construction of a new vehicular bridge over the Crystal River. A potential bridge could also provide emergency egress from the subject properties. The P&Z acknowledged the direction of the 1993 Redstone Master Plan and evaluated the need for a bridge in Page 3 of 6 relation to the Applicant’s proposed access road improvements to the existing Redstone Boulevard access road. The P&Z adopted a recommendation to not require a bridge at this time and for the BOCC to consider triggers for requiring bridge construction when additional future development occurs as part of the Redstone Castle VLP Master Plan. Staff continues to recommend that if the existing access road and proposed improvements to this road do not achieve the desired outcome of “improved access” for the proposed lodge, special event use, and development of cottages/cabins, then construction of the subject bridge should be required as a condition of approval. As stated at the last hearing and in contrast to the P&Z recommendation, Staff recommends that the rezoning of the Castle Properties to the VLP Zone District should not be approved unless vehicular emergency egress along Lover’s Lane is created or a bridge crossing the Crystal River that accesses the Castle Properties is constructed.
Pitkin County OST also owns property adjacent to the Castle properties and has identified a potential bridge as part of the potential Carbondale to Crested Butte Trail. Staff feels that because OST comments have identified the need for a bridge in association with this trail, there may be opportunity for a joint partnership between the Applicant and OST to address this topic.
Employee Housing Mitigation and Manager’s Units: The Applicant has requested approval for 2 onsite “Manager’s Units”: 1 existing unit within the Redstone Castle and 1 unit to be constructed on the Barn Parcel. The Applicant also requests that these units be considered employee housing mitigation in lieu of paying the Affordable Housing Impact Fee as it relates to the development proposal. Staff and the P&Z support exempting the conversion of the Castle and Carriage House from the fee, but differ as to whether the two on-site units should mitigate for new development (Hose House, cottages and cabins.
Staff recommends that these units not be considered as onsite mitigation, since only fully deed-restricted units can be accepted in lieu of payment and the Land Use Code only provides for rental deed-restricted units, if publicly owned. The P&Z independently recommended that the BOCC should consider the onsite units exempt from GMQS and should consider them as onsite mitigation as they relate to the development of 4 additional cabins and 4 additional cottages, which require assessment of the Employee Housing Impact Fee. The P&Z also recommended that the units be deed restricted with the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority.
STAFF DISCUSSION: The draft BOCC resolution makes specific findings and has draft conditions that reflect the recommendations made by the Community Development Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. These draft recitals and draft conditions of approval should be considered and vetted at this hearing and the BOCC should provide direction on their appropriateness. In effort to help facilitate this discussion, the BOCC should consider the following questions and topics as they relate to the cumulative impacts of this request:
1. Should the Land Use Code be amended to create the VLP Zone District? 2. Does the proposed rezoning of the Castle Properties to the VLP Zone District comply with the applicable provisions of the Code? 3. Is the proposed VLP Master Plan for the Castle Properties which includes special events with certain parameters, historic tours of the properties, a lodge use for the Castle, Carriage House, and Hose House, and future development of 8 additional cottages and cabins appropriate given the impacts associated with these uses? 4. Is the designation of the historic structures and areas of interest on the Castle Properties to the Historic Register appropriate? 5. Are the following requested incentives proportional to the significance of the historic resources? o Building Code and Energy Code exemptions; Page 4 of 6 o Granting of a 100’ stream setback from Crystal River; o Waiver of all building permit and planning fees; o Request for 21 TDR’s; o Request for Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) exemptions for 21 Tourist Accommodation Units; o Employee Housing Impact Fee exemption for conversion of the Castle and Carriage House to tourist accommodations; o Credit for creation of 2 onsite employee housing units to defray the Employee Housing Impact Fee associated with the creation of new tourist accommodation units (Hose House, cottages and cabins). The Applicant does not propose to deed restrict these units; o Request for a 25 year vesting period.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Since the last public hearing on May 23rd, 2018 Community Development Staff has received additional written public comment. All written public comment received at the time of submittal of this memorandum can be viewed in Attachment D.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given the breadth of information associated with this application, the need for BOCC direction on the topics identified above, the recent submittal of the VLP Master Plan Document by the Applicant, and the additional public comment received, Staff recommends that the application be continued. A continuance will provide Staff the ability to take into consideration the BOCC’s direction and appropriately revise the draft ordinances and resolution for the next following hearing. A continuance will also allow Staff time to review and make a recommendation to the BOCC on the Applicant’s recent submittal of the VLP Master Plan Document.
For BOCC consideration, Staff has attached 2 draft ordinances approving the VLP Land Use Code Text Amendment and VLP Rezoning of the Castle Properties. Also for BOCC consideration, Staff has attached a draft approval resolution for the Redstone Castle VLP Master Plan, Designation of Historic Structures to the Pitkin County Historic Register and Granting of Incentives, and Activity Envelope/Site Plan Review.
● Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a motion continuing the 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 8 of the Pitkin County Code, Specifically the 2006 Land Use Code, for a Land Use Code Text Amendment to Create the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District to June 27th, 2018.
● Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a motion continuing the 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for a Citizen Initiated Rezoning on Private Property Owned by Redstone 2016 LLC for Properties Referred to as the Barn Parcel, the Carriage House Parcel, and the Castle Parcel to June 27th, 2018.
● Staff recommends that the BOCC adopt a motion continuing the Resolution for the Redstone 2016 LLC Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Master Plan, Designation of Historic Structures to the Pitkin County Historic Register and Granting of Incentives, and Activity Envelope/Site Plan Review to June 27th, 2018.
Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTS: A. P&Z Resolution No. 07-2018 B. Master Plan Document C. Traffic Report. D. Additional public comment
Page 6 of 6 ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE, SPECIFICALLY THE 2006 LAND USE CODE FOR A LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE VILLAGE LODGE PRESERVATION (VLP) ZONE DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. ______-2018
RECITALS:
1. Pursuant to 30-35-301 C.R.S., the Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) of Pitkin County, a home rule county, is authorized to make and publish ordinances for carrying into effect or discharging the powers and duties conferred upon such counties by law and as seems necessary.
2. Pursuant to Section 2.8.1 of the Home Rule Charter (“HRC”), the BOCC is authorized to take official action by Ordinance for certain matters where action is prescribed pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statues as amended.
3. Redstone 2016 LLC (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to create the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District. The boundary for land to be eligible to be rezoned to the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District is identified in ATTACHMENT A. This boundary is congruent with the Redstone Historic District Boundary.
4. Amendments will be made to the following chapters and sections of the Land Use Code:
ATTACHMENT B: Chapter 2: o Section 2-40-100, add VLP. o Table 2-1: Review and Approval Authority – Two Step Review, add VLP to review process.
ATTACHMENT C: Chapter 3: o Add Section 3-70-60: Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District.
ATTACHMENT D: Chapter 4: o Add VLP to the Permitted Use Table.
ATTACHMENT E: Chapter 5: o Add VLP to Dimensional Requirements, Table 5-1.A.
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 2
5. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed Land Use Code Text Amendment at regularly scheduled meetings on March 6th, 2018 and March 20th, 2018 and, pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. 07-2018 recommended approval to the BOCC by a vote of 7-0.
6. The BOCC considered the proposed Land Use Code Text Amendments on first reading at a duly noticed public hearing on May 23rd, 2018, and on second reading June 13th, 2018.
7. The BOCC further finds that the proposed Land Use Code Text Amendment to create the VLP Zone District is consistent with Land Use Code Section 2-40-10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and consistent with the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC further finds that the 1993 Redstone Master Plan has identified the VLP as a potential new zone district in the Redstone area for tourist accommodation facilities and, the creation of the proposed VLP Zone District is consistent with this Plan. The BOCC further finds that the creation of the VLP Zone District establishes a “Master Plan” review procedure which has the ability to limit commercial activities to a “small scale” size which is consistent with the 2016 Crystal River Valley Master Plan.
8. The BOCC finds that adoption of this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of Pitkin County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it hereby adopts an ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CODE, SPECIFICALLY THE 2006 LAND USE CODE FOR A LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE THE VILLAGE LODGE PRESERVATION (VLP) ZONE DISTRICT and authorizes the Chair or the Chair’s designee to sign the Ordinance and upon the satisfaction of the County Attorney as to form, execute any other associated documents necessary to complete this matter. Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (www.pitkincounty.com) ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 23rd DAY OF May.
ADOPTED AFTER FINAL READING ON THE ______, 2018.
PUBLISHED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY, AFTER ADOPTION, IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
POSTED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (www.pitkincounty.com) ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By ATTEST: Patti Clapper, Chair
Date
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
John Ely, County Attorney Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
P101-17 Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 4
Attachment A
Below is the boundary for land which is eligible to be rezoned to the VLP Zone District. This boundary is congruent with the Redstone Historic District Boundary.
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 5
Attachment B Chapter 2
Land Use Code Section 2-40-100:
2-40-100: SKI-REC, P-I, AND PUB, and Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) MASTER PLANS In the SKI-REC zone district, and the P-I zone district, the VLP zone district, and in the PUB zone district when the master plan option is chosen, permitted land uses are established through the approval of a Master Plan pursuant to the Two-Step Review process, in accordance with the standards in this Sec. 2-40-100.
(a) General Standards for Master Plans Master plans and major amendments to master plans shall comply with the standards in this section. Minor amendments to SKI-REC master plans may be permitted subject to compliance with the standards in Sec. 2-20-150(f).
(1) The time frame of the master plan shall be no less than five (5) years, nor more than ten (10) years. A VLP Master Plan does not have an associated timeframe.
(2) Activities that have substantial impact on County or municipal capital facilities, such as increases in the daily ski area capacity, shall be identified;
(3) If there is any substantial variance between a proposed activity or development and the actual construction of that activity or development, the proposed activity or development will be subject to an amendment procedure in Sec. 2-20-150 of this Land Use Code;
(4) Unless the GMQS, by its terms, is inapplicable to the proposed activity or development, or unless a growth management exemption is obtained at the master plan review stage, a growth management allotment is required for any development to occur;
(5) Area and bulk requirements shall be as set forth in the master plan; and
(6) The height of principal structures shall not exceed twenty-eight (28) feet, and the height of accessory structures shall not exceed twenty (20) feet unless the master plan demonstrates that the use or building cannot function properly within those limitations, or unless other substantial reasons for exceeding the limitations are demonstrated.
(b) General Guide to Uses in SKI-REC, VLP, and P-I Master Plans (1) Although permitted uses for the SKI-REC, VLP, and P-I zone districts are specified in Chapter 4, all such uses are subject to approval Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 6
through the master plan process, and in the SKI-REC zone district some uses may only be approved on a seasonal basis. The outcome of the master plan review process will be a detailed listing of uses and activities that are allowed all year or during a specific season, uses and activities requiring further review prior to their implementation, and other uses and activities that are prohibited all year or during a specific season. Specific time constraints on certain uses/activities may be imposed. In the VLP Zone District, further review uses shall comply with the Special Review standards in Sec. 2-30-30(h); and shall be subject to Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review pursuant to Sec. 7-10- 50, if applicable.
(2) All uses not specifically listed as permitted or special review uses in Chapter 4, or not specifically listed in subsection (c) below, are prohibited. In the SKI-REC zone district, prohibited uses specifically include: (i) retail, office, restaurant or other commercial activities that are not operating directly in support of the operation of the ski area, (ii) dwelling or lodging uses (other than cross country huts and employee housing), (iii) activities not directly in support of and compatible with the operation of the ski area, and (iv) activities that have significant unmitigatable service or environmental impacts.
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 7
Chapter 2:
Table 2-1: Review and Approval Authority – Two Step Review: Add VLP.
TABLE 2-1: Review and Approval Authority Public Pre-App. Review, Decision-Making, and Appeal Authority Land Use Code Section Lapsing Notice Required < > = Public Hearing Required ABRC BO Staff HO RHPC P&Z BOCC A
Review Body; D = Decision-Making Body; A = Appeal Body; < > = Public Meeting or Hearing Required; M = Mailed Notice Required; N = Newspaper (published) Notice Required; P = Posted (sign) Notice Required O= Objection Body ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Sec. 2-30-20 Activity Envelope D A 10 years (Without Vested Right) Activity Envelope P,M D A 10 years (With Vested Right) Agricultural Stand D A 10 years Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review at Building Permit for Ground M,P D O A 10 years
Mounted Solar Energy Collectors R if in VR or Building Permit D VC or within 1000 ft Caretaker Dwelling Unit P,M D A 3 years Certificate of Appropriateness D A None for Historic Registry Property Certificate of No Effect for D A None Historic Registry Property Demolition Certificate for Historic D A None Properties Demolition Extensions D A 6 months Flexibility for Agricultural Support P D R A 3 years
GMQS Exemption Not Listed D A None Elsewhere Minor Amendment to a Does Not Alter D = Original Decision- Development Permit or A Original Making Body Approval Lapsing Major Amendment to a Same Same as Development Permit or notice D or
TABLE 2-1: Review and Approval Authority Public Pre-App. Review, Decision-Making, and Appeal Authority Land Use Code Section Lapsing Notice Required < > = Public Hearing Required ABRC BO Staff HO RHPC P&Z BOCC A Site Grading, Earthmoving (> 50 cubic yards), Vegetation D A 1 year Removal, Grubbing and Clearing Site Plan M,P D A 10 years (With Vested Right) Solar Energy Collectors Totaling Less than or Equal to 200 D A 10 years
Square Feet (Roof Mounted) Solar Energy Collectors Totaling Greater than 200 Square M,P D O A 10 years Feet (Roof Mounted – Non Adjustable) Solar Energy Collectors Totaling Less than 400 Square D A 10 years
Feet (Roof Mounted – Adjustable) Solar Energy Collectors Totaling 400 Square Feet or Greater (Roof M,P D O A 10 years
Mounted –Adjustable) Special Review for Commercial Recreational None unless Use on Pitkin County Open Space and D A stated in Trails property or on County-owned approval property or roads if below thresholds established in Sec. 4-30-40(q)(3)(a) Subdivision Exemption Lot Line Adjustments D A None Minor Plat Amendments D A None Temporary Commercial Uses D A 1 year /Special Events Transfer of Development Right
(See also Sec. 2-40-30) Issuance of TDR Certificate D A None for Sale from Sending Sites Use of TDR Certificate for Additional Floor Area on a Lot/Parcel within the Aspen D A None Urban Growth Boundary Use of TDR Certificate for Additional Floor Area on a Lot in a Subdivision in the Rural D A None Area listed in Sec. 6-30-50(b)(2)(a) Water Crossing or Diversion D A None ONE-STEP REVIEWS Sec. 2-30-30 Designation to or Delisting from Historic N,P,M R
TABLE 2-1: Review and Approval Authority Public Pre-App. Review, Decision-Making, and Appeal Authority Land Use Code Section Lapsing Notice Required < > = Public Hearing Required ABRC BO Staff HO RHPC P&Z BOCC A Extension/ R D Reinstatement of Vested Rights GMQS Exemption for None One Additional Dwelling Unit on a Property Designated to the Historic N,P,M R
TABLE 2-1: Review and Approval Authority Public Pre-App. Review, Decision-Making, and Appeal Authority Land Use Code Section Lapsing Notice Required < > = Public Hearing Required ABRC BO Staff HO RHPC P&Z BOCC A Separation of Platted Sub-Standard Size Lots N,P,M R
(See also Sec. 2-40-30) Issuance of TDR Certificate for Constrained N,P,M R
1 For example, if an activity envelope is approved to remedy a takings, the approval will expire after 10 years. Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 11
TABLE 2-1: Review and Approval Authority Public Pre-App. Review, Decision-Making, and Appeal Authority Land Use Code Section Lapsing Notice Required < > = Public Hearing Required ABRC BO Staff HO RHPC P&Z BOCC A VLP, P-I and SKI-REC Master Plans and Amendments N,P,M R R
Subdivision Exemption for Major Plat N,P,M R R
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 12
Attachment C
Chapter 3:
Add Land Use Code Section 3-70-60:
(a) Intent: The purpose of the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District is to provide opportunities for and to encourage public use and enjoyment of privately owned historic tourist accommodation facilities located within the Town site of Redstone or on surrounding lands in the Crystal River Valley. The VLP zone district is intended to provide incentives for the upgrading and limited expansion of historic hotel, motel, lodge, and similar tourist accommodation facilities (including expansions within separate buildings to develop resort cabins, single family dwellings, and similar uses) when such expansions comply with the applicable development standards of this Land Use Code.
Lands which may be designated to the VLP zone district are those properties which: 1) Are eligible for listing on, or are already listed on, the National or State Register of Historic Places or the Pitkin County Historic Register; and 2) Are currently being legally used as tourist accommodation facilities or can be shown to have previously been used as tourist accommodation facilities: and 3) Are located within Redstone Historic District Boundary.
(b)Planning and Review Requirements: An approved Village Lodge Preservation Master Plan is required for any development in the VLP Zone District. The VLP Master Plan shall address all existing facilities and all proposed development, and shall be consistent with the Redstone Master Plan and Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan. All standards, requirements, and procedures for the review and adoption of master plans are found in Section 2-40-100. The VLP Master Plan shall cover the entirety of the property, and shall address all permitted activities/uses on the property.
A VLP Master Plan use is denoted as an “M” in Chapter 4, Table 4-1: Permitted Uses. Uses denoted with an “M” are eligible for consideration in a VLP Master Plan review process. Uses denoted with an “M” are not automatically permitted. Only the specific uses, activities, and facilities approved as part of a site specific VLP Master Plan shall be permitted on a property.
(c) Site Specific Master Plan: Rezoning to the VLP Zone District requires a simultaneous Master Plan review for a property. A VLP Master Plan is a site specific master plan for a property that elects to rezone to the VLP Zone District. A VLP Master Plan is not a neighborhood master plan and/or comprehensive plan. Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 13
(d) Transferable Development Rights (TDR’s): TDR’s may not be severed from and sold from lands located in the VLP zone district with the exception of TDR’s that are created from Designation to the Pitkin County Historic Register and associated requests for Optional Incentives. TDR’s may not be purchased from other zone districts and landed in the VLP zone district.
(e) Growth Management Quota Systems (GMQS): Lands in the VLP zone district are eligible for GMQS exemptions in accordance with the Pitkin and Section 7-20-100,
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 14
Attachment D
Chapter 4:
Intended for Rural Areas Intended for Urban Areas Eit
her TABLE 4-1: Permitted Uses Rural Districts Urban / Suburban Residential Business &
District Special Purpose RS RR RS RS LI TR- TR- RS A A S B R R R VR MH AH R AH B VC P - T V - - 1 – R - 1 2 - R R K - - 30 -15 - P M - - I L G 6 35 35 30 - - I 1 & 6 F P 2 P Use Category/ Use-Specific Regulations 0 & 10 2 - 15 U Use Type § 20 R A D E 15 C B Principal Uses of Land Residential Household Living Duplex Dwelling Unit S M S A S S S S M A M §4-30-010(a) Mobile Home A A §4-30-010(c) Mobile Home Park A Multi-family Dwelling Unit M S S S S S M A M §4-30-010(d) Single Family Dwelling Unit A A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-010(f) Group Living Dormitory Housing M S S S S M S M Group Home S S S §4-30-010(b) Nursing, Convalescent, S S S S S S M - §4-30-010(e) Rest, or Retirement Home Agricultural & Resource Unlisted Agricultural Use A A A A Blacksmithing S S S S Agricultural Building S A A S A A A S S M §4-30-020(a) Farming S A A A A A A A M M A M §4-30-020(b) Firewood Splitting, S S S S S M A A §4-30-020(c) Commercial Horse Boarding, Primary A A A A S §4-30-020(d) Kennel or Veterinary Clinic S S S S S S M - §4-30-020(e) Logging S S S S S M M - §4-30-020(f) Mineral and Gravel Extraction (formerly Mineral & Gravel S S S S S S S S M M §4-30-020(g) Exploration / Mining, Concrete, Batch Plants) Oil and Gas Extraction S S S §4-30-020(h) Ranching (formerly Animal Production & Husbandry Services, Other Farm and A A A A A A A A M M §4-30-020(i), Agricultural uses (not including Commercial Feed lots)) Silviculture A A A A M M Civic & Institutional Airport M §4-30-030(a) Cemetery S S S S S M - Day Care Center S S S M S S S S S S S S S S M S M Educational Class S S S §4-30-030(b) Hospital M §4-30-030(c) Institute M S S S M - §4-30-030(d) Park, Playground or A M S S S S M A A A A A A A A A A S Playfield Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 15
Intended for Rural Areas Intended for Urban Areas Eit
her TABLE 4-1: Permitted Uses Rural Districts Urban / Suburban Residential Business &
District Special Purpose RS RR RS RS LI TR- TR- RS A A S B R R R VR MH AH R AH B VC P - T V - - 1 – R - 1 2 - R R K - - 30 -15 - P M - - I L G 6 35 35 30 - - I 1 & 6 F P 2 P Use Category/ Use-Specific Regulations 0 & 10 2 - 15 U Use Type § 20 R A D E 15 C B Public Facilities, Major (Formerly Essential Government and Public M S S M §4-30-030(e) Utility Uses, Facilities and Services) Public Utilities, Major S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S M S M Public Utilities, Minor A A A A A A A A S A A A A A A A A A A M A M 4-30-030(f) Religious Institution S S S S S M S S S S S M S §4-30-030(g) (formerly Church) M School or University S S M S S S M §4-30-030(h) Sewage Disposal Area or M S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S M S Water Plant Transit Facility M S S M Commercial & Industrial Entertainment & Recreation Adult Entertainment M S S S §4-30-040(a) Establishment Alpine Ski Area & Support M Amusement or M Entertainment M S S S §4-30-040(b) Establishment Campground (formerly Commercial S S S S M S §4-30-040(f) Camping Areas) Golf Course M M Nordic Ski Area and M S S S S M M S Support Facilities Outdoor Recreational, Other S S S S S S S M M S M §4-30-040(q) Riding Stable or Academy (formerly Commercial S S S S M S M §4-30-040(w) Riding Stables) Eating, Meeting & Lodging Bed and Breakfast A A A S S M S S S S §4-30-040(d) Country Inn, Guest Ranch, M S S S S M S S §4-30-040(i) and Resort Cabins Hotels, Motel or Lodge S S M §4-30-040(l) Meeting Hall or Conference Center (formerly Reception S S S M S S M §4-30-040(o) Halls and Meeting Facilities Restaurant and/or Bar M A A A S M §4-30-040(u) Timesharing or Fractional M M S §4-30-040(x) Ownership Office and Clinic Uses Financial Institution M S S §4-30-040(j) Medical or Dental Clinic M A §4-30-040(n) Office M A A A M §4-30-040(p) Research Facility S M §4-30-040(t) Sales and Service Uses Arts and Craft Studio, M A A A A §4-30-040(h) Primary Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 16
Intended for Rural Areas Intended for Urban Areas Eit
her TABLE 4-1: Permitted Uses Rural Districts Urban / Suburban Residential Business &
District Special Purpose RS RR RS RS LI TR- TR- RS A A S B R R R VR MH AH R AH B VC P - T V - - 1 – R - 1 2 - R R K - - 30 -15 - P M - - I L G 6 35 35 30 - - I 1 & 6 F P 2 P Use Category/ Use-Specific Regulations 0 & 10 2 - 15 U Use Type § 20 R A D E 15 C B Building Materials and Landscaping (formerly Equipment Supplies and S S S A §4-30-040(e) Contracting or Subcontracting) General Services S A §4-30-040(k) Personal Service Outlet M A A A §4-30-040(r) Retail Sale of Goods (formerly Places for M A A A M §4-30-040(v) Retailing of Goods) Vehicle and Equipment Uses Automobile Parking Lot, M M S S M S Commercial Automobile Service Station S A S §4-30-040(c) Vehicle and Aircraft Sales and Service (formerly S M Vehicle and Aircraft Related Business) Other Principal Uses Cellular Telephone Facility S S S S S S S S M S S M S M §4-30-040(g) Junk Yard S S S §4-30-040(m) Radio or TV Transmitting S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S M §4-30-040(r) Station Solar Farms M §4-30-50(m) &§ 4-30- S S S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S S S 050(h)(5) Use by Federal Permit (formerly Uses, Activities & Facilities Permitted by S S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S M S M Special Use Permit Issued by Federal Agency) Accessory & Temporary Uses Accessory Structures with A A A A A §4-30-050(a) Bathing Facility Agricultural Stand A A A A A A M A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-050(b) Agricultural Buildings A A S A A A A A A A A A A A A M A §4-30- 050(c) Arts and Crafts Studio, M A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M A Accessory Building-Mounted Cellular M S S S S S S S S S S S S S S §4-30-050(d) Telephone Antennae Bus Stop A A A A A A A S A A A A A A A A A A A A M Camping Area A A A M M §4-30-050(e) Caretaker Dwelling Unit S S S S S S S S S S S S M S M §4-30-050(f) Club House or Recreational M S S S S S M S S S S S S M Building Day Care Home A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A M Employee Dwelling Unit S S S S S S S S S S M S M Home Occupation A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-050(g) Horse Boarding, Accessory A A A A S Satellite Reception Device S A A A S S A A A M A A A A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-050(h) Solar Energy Collector A A A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-050(i) Ground Mounted Solar Energy Collector Greater S S S S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S S M S M §4-30-050(j)(5) than 12’ in Height Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 17
Intended for Rural Areas Intended for Urban Areas Eit
her TABLE 4-1: Permitted Uses Rural Districts Urban / Suburban Residential Business &
District Special Purpose RS RR RS RS LI TR- TR- RS A A S B R R R VR MH AH R AH B VC P - T V - - 1 – R - 1 2 - R R K - - 30 -15 - P M - - I L G 6 35 35 30 - - I 1 & 6 F P 2 P Use Category/ Use-Specific Regulations 0 & 10 2 - 15 U Use Type § 20 R A D E 15 C B Temporary Land Use and A A A M A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A M A §4-30-050(b) Activities Trail A A A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A A M A M Water Crossing or Diversion S S S S S S S S S S M S S S S S S S S S S S M S M Wind Powered Electric S S S S S S S M S M §4-30-050(k) Generator Micro Hydro Electric S M S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S §4-30-050(l) Energy System Snow Storage/Dumping M S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S §4-30-050(m) Trucking S Special Events A A A A A A A A A A M A A A A A A A A A A M A M §4-30-050(j) Special Events Venue S S M S S S M S M §4-30-050(k)
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 18
Attachment E
Chapter 5
RS RR RS - RS - LIR- TR-1 TR-2 RS - RS - AR - AR- B-1 SKI- WOMP VLP TABLE 5-1.A: -G 160 35 35 30 20 10 2 REC Overlay Dimensional NOTE NOTE NOTES Requirements Rural 1 NOTE 3 3, 4, 5 Zones 2 LOTS Minimum Lot Area N/A 35 160 35 35 35 35 30 20 10 2 MF = M Note M (ac.) 15,000 17 OTH = 6,000 NOTE 6 Minimum Usable 800 M Note M Open Space per 17 Dwelling Unit (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot Width N/A 400 400 400 N/A 400 400 400 200 50 M Note M (ft.) 17 MINIMUM SETBACKS From Arterial Highways Structures / Outside 100 ft. setback for buildings/ 100 ft. setback for outside uses M Note M Uses (ft.) NOTE 7 17 From Major Roads Structures / Outside 100 ft. setback for buildings/ 50 ft. setback for outside uses M Note M Uses(ft.) NOTE 7 17 From Collector Streets Structures/ Outside 50 ft. setback for buildings/ 25 ft. setback for outside uses M Note M Uses(ft.) NOTE 7 17 From Property Lines Front Setback (ft.) SR SR (1) Lot Size ≤ 3 ac = 30 ft.; 30 M Note M (2) Lot > 3 ac. and ≤ 10 acres = 50 ft.; 17 (3) Lot > 10 acres = 100 ft. Side Setback (ft.) SR SR (1) Lot < 7,500 sq. ft. = 5 ft.; (2) Lot ≥ 7,500 & < 30,000 sq. ft. = 10 ft.; 10 M Note M (3) Lot Size ≥ 30,000 & < 43,560 sq. ft. = 15 ft.; (4) Lot ≥ 43,560 & < 3 ac. = 20 17 ft.; (5) Lot ≥ 3 ac. & <20 ac. = 30 ft.; (6) Lot ≥ 20 ac. = 50 ft. Rear Setback (ft.) SR SR (1) Lot Size < 30,000 sq. ft. = 10 ft.; 10 M Note M (2) Lot ≥ 30,000 sq. ft. & < 10 ac. = 30 ft.; 17 (3) Lot ≥ 10 ac. = 50 ft. From Streams (ft.) 100 M Note NOTE 14, 15 and 16 17 MAXIMUM HEIGHT Maximum Height of 20 20 28 28 28 20 20 28 28 28 28 28 M Note M Principal Structure NOTE 17 (ft.) 8 Maximum Height of 20 12 20 20 20 15 15 20 20 20 20 20 M Note M Accessory Structure NOTE 17 (ft.) 9 Maximum Height of Refer N/A Refer to Sec. 5-20-70(i) N/A N/A Refer to Sec. 5-20-70(i) N/A N/A Note M Exempt Agricultural to 17 Buildings Sec. 5-20- 70(i) MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 19
Gross Floor Area N/A NOTE 5,750 5,750 5,750 1,000 2,500 5,750 5,750 5,750 5,750 NOTE M Note M Exempt From GMQS 10 NOTE NOTE NOTE 4 NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE 11 17 (Without GMQS 11 11 11 11 11 12 NOTE Allocation or TDR 13 Purchase) (Base Max.) Floor Area Gross Floor Area N/A NOTE 15,000 15,000 15,000 1,000 3,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 8,000 M Note M After GMQS 10 NOTE NOTE 2 NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE 17 Allocation and/or 11 11 11 11 11 11 TDR Purchase (Final Max. Floor Area
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR A CITIZEN INITIATED REZONING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED BY REDSTONE CASTLE 2016 LLC FOR PROPERTIES REFERRED TO AS THE BARN PARCEL, THE CARRIAGE HOUSE PARCEL, AND THE CASTLE PARCEL
ORDINANCE NO. ______-2018
RECITALS:
1. Pursuant to 30-35-301 C.R.S., the Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) of Pitkin County, a home rule county, is authorized to make and publish ordinances for carrying into effect or discharging the powers and duties conferred upon such counties by law and as seems necessary.
2. Pursuant to Section 2.8.1 of the Home Rule Charter (“HRC”), the BOCC is authorized to take official action by Ordinance for certain matters where action is prescribed pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statues as amended.
3. Redstone 2016 LLC (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") to rezone three (3) properties to the Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Zone District. The 3 properties are all owned by the Applicant. The 3 properties are located at 58 Redstone Boulevard and 68 Redstone Boulevard, Redstone, Colorado 81623 and are commonly referred to as the Barn Parcel, the Carriage House Parcel, and the Castle Parcel. The State Parcel Identification numbers for these properties are 2729-291-00-005, 2729-291- 00-006, and 2729-291-00-007 respectively. Legal Descriptions for these 3 properties can be viewed in Attachment A. Maps of these 3 properties can be viewed as Attachment B.
4. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed citizen initiated rezoning at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 6th, 2018 and March 20th, 2018 and, pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. 07-2018, recommended approval to the BOCC by a vote of 7-0.
5. The BOCC considered the proposed rezoning on first reading at a duly noticed public hearing on May 23rd, 2018, and on second reading June 13th, 2018.
6. The BOCC further finds that the proposed citizen initiated rezoning is consistent with Section 2-40- 10 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code and consistent with the Pitkin County Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC further finds that the 1993 Redstone Master Plan has identified the VLP as a potential new zone district in the Redstone area for tourist accommodation facilities and, the rezoning of the Barn Parcel, Carriage House Parcel, and Castle Parcel is consistent with this Plan. The BOCC further finds that the rezoning of the subject properties to the VLP Zone District is consistent with the overall direction of the 2016 Crystal River Valley Master Plan which states that commercial activities in the Crystal River Valley should be “small scale” in nature.
7. The BOCC finds that adoption of this ordinance is in the best interest of the citizens of Pitkin County.
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it hereby adopts an ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR A CITIZEN INITIATED REZONING and authorizes the Chair or the Chair’s designee to sign the Ordinance and upon the satisfaction of the County Attorney as to form, execute any other associated documents necessary to complete this matter. Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE POSTED ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (www.pitkincounty.com) ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 23rd DAY OF MAY, 2018.
ADOPTED AFTER FINAL READING ON THE JUNE 13TH, 2018.
PUBLISHED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY, AFTER ADOPTION, IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
POSTED BY TITLE AND SHORT SUMMARY ON THE OFFICIAL PITKIN COUNTY WEBSITE (www.pitkincounty.com) ON THE ___ DAY OF ______, 2018.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION FOLLOWING FINAL ADOPTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By ATTEST: Patti Clapper, Chair
Date
Jeanette Jones, Clerk to the BOCC
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
John Ely, County Attorney Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
P101-17 Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 4
Attachment A
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 5
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 6
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 7
Attachment B Barn Parcel:
Carriage House Parcel:
Ordinance No. ___-2018 Page 8
Redstone Castle Parcel:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE REDSTONE 2016 LLC VILLAGE LODGE PRESERVATION (VLP) MASTER PLAN REVIEW, DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO THE PITKIN COUNTY HISTORIC REGISTER AND GRANTING OF INCENTIVES, AND ACTIVITY ENVELOPE/SITE PLAN REVIEW
Resolution No. ______-2018
RECITALS
1. Pursuant to Section 2.8.4 (Actions) of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter (“HRC”), all matters not required to be acted upon by ordinance or formal resolution may be acted upon by informal resolution.
2. Redstone 2016 LLC, (hereafter "Applicant") has applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado ("BOCC") for development of 3 separate properties.
3. The properties are addressed at 58 and 68 Redstone Boulevard. The parcels are generally described as the “Barn Parcel”, the “Carriage House Parcel”, and the “Castle Parcel” and are legally described in Attachment A.
4. The 3 parcels are located within the RS-30, AR-10, and AR-2 Zone Districts. The Barn parcel contains 42 acres, the Carriage House Parcel contains 36 acres, and the Castle parcel contains 72 acres. The 3 parcels total 150 acres.
5. The Castle Parcel contains the Redstone Castle (also known as the Cleveholm Manor), the “Hose House”, “Garden Shed”, and a “Gazebo” which have all been named to the National Register of Historic Places. The Redstone Castle was constructed in 1903 by the previous owner John C. Osgood and contains approximately 22,000 square feet of floor area. The Castle contains multiple bedrooms, a courtyard, and outdoor deck areas. The BOCC approved Resolution No. 82-188 which approved a “Seminar/Group Meeting Facility” and BOCC Resolution No. 080-2001 which approved a bed and breakfast, restaurant, and special event facility. The Castle Parcel has also received numerous permits for “Castle Tours” and wedding events. These previous approvals have expired and are no longer applicable, with the exception of the permit granted in 2017. The Castle Parcel is located within the designated Redstone Historic District.
6. The Carriage House Parcel contains the historic Carriage House that was also constructed by the previous owner Osgood in 1903. The Carriage House structure is approximately 5,800 square feet in size and contains a barn/garage on the 1st floor and a single-family residence on the 2nd floor. The Carriage House is also listed on the National Register for Historic Places. The Carriage House Parcel is located within the designated Redstone Historic District.
7. The Barn Parcel contains six structures including a non-historic barn, dog kennels, shed, and greenhouse. Of these structures, the dog kennels are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are subject to certain review standards when changes are made. The Barn Parcel also contains an historic ski lift that is currently non-functional. The Barn Parcel is located within the designated Redstone Historic District.
8. The Applicant has applied for the following development activities:
Village Lodge Preservation (VLP) Master Plan: Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 2
VLP Master Plan approval for the properties that establishes permitted uses, further review uses, prohibited uses, and dimensional standards. The 3 main uses that are proposed for the subject properties are:
● Historic tours of the properties, ● Special Events, ● Commercial lodging including: ○ Hotel lodging within the existing Castle (10 lodging suites), Carriage House (2 lodging units), and Hose House (1 lodging unit), ○ Development of 8 additional cottages/cabins for rental purposes.
Historic Designation: Designation of the following structures, and areas around these structures, and areas of interest to the Pitkin County Historic Register:
The Redstone Castle, Carriage House, Hose House, Garden Shed, Gazebo, Dog Kennels, Historic Entrance Gate, Historic water reservoir on the Castle Parcel.
Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review The Applicant is requesting Activity Envelope and Site Plan approval for improvements to the existing private road that accesses the three subject properties, and utility upgrades. Site Plan review is required for future development of the 4 additional cottages on the Castle Parcel and 4 additional cabins on the Barn Parcel.
9. The BOCC finds that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 2-40-100, the request to establish a VLP Master Plan for the subject properties can be approved, subject to the conditions outlined below.
10. The BOCC further finds that pursuant to the Crystal River Valley Master Plan and the 1993 Redstone Master Plan, the proposed events can be considered “small scale” and consistent with these Master Plans. The BOCC further finds that the Applicant has provided details on the type, frequency, duration, and manner of the events and has adequately addressed impacts that may arise from these events. The proposed events will not materially endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.
11. The BOCC further finds that the Applicant has made adequate provisions for transportation, parking, noise abatement, duration, frequency of events, sanitation, and water usage.
12. The BOCC further finds that pursuant to the Redstone Master Plan, an evaluation of a bridge accessing the subject properties off Highway 133 and improvements to the existing access road (Redstone Boulevard) have been considered. The BOCC finds that the proposed improvements to the existing access consisting of pull-off’s, widening, regrading, creation of bar ditches, surface improvement, dust suppression, and construction of culverts to the existing road will improve this access for not only event participants and hotel lodge customers but also for egress and ingress for emergency vehicles. The BOCC finds the proposed road improvements are consistent with the Redstone Master Plan and the Pitkin County Road Management and Maintenance Plan and that a Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 3
bridge is not required at this time. The BOCC further finds that pursuant to the 1993 Redstone Master Plan, the BOCC shall reconsider the requirement for bridge construction when additional development occurs in the VLP Master Plan area.
13. The BOCC further finds that the proposed Activity Envelope avoids Land Use Code Chapter 7 constraints with the exception of an alluvial fan that exists on the properties. At this time, no mitigation is required. Future mitigation may be required when cottages and cabins are developed on the Castle Parcel and the Barn Parcel, respectively.
14. The Redstone Castle Properties have a storied and well documented history dating to the early 1900’s. The properties were developed by the previous owner Osgood, coal mining mogul, and all structures with historical significance generally remain intact in their original condition. The Castle and supporting structures on the properties have a very high level of historical significance to the Crystal River Valley, Town of Redstone, and Nation. The BOCC finds that the structures and areas around these structures and areas of interest identified in Recital #7 under “Historic Designation” are eligible for designation to the Pitkin County Historic Register.
15. With regard to the requested incentives for designation of the 3 properties and structures to the Historic Register, the BOCC makes the following findings:
A. Exempting existing buildings (Castle, Carriage House, Hose House) from the Pitkin County Efficient Building Program and Energy Code is proportional to the amount of preservation that will occur. The 4 new cabins and 4 new cottages will not be exempted from these Codes. B. Granting the reduction in the 100’ streamside setback for maintenance to Redstone Boulevard and upgrades to “Lovers Lane” is acceptable. This requested incentive is proportional and compatible with the neighborhood. C. While the 1993 Redstone Master Plan suggests that building permit and planning application fees be waived for historic properties, the Historic Incentives section of the Land Use Code does not provide for a waiver of fees. D. The Applicant has taken advantage of the “Expedited Review” optional incentive and met with the BOCC to discuss historic designation of the properties on October 24th, 2017. E. The BOCC finds that the significance of the Castle properties and associated structures is great, and designation of the properties and structures is deserving of issuance of a TDR(s). The BOCC specifically finds that ______TDRs shall be awarded as an incentive. F. The request for Commercial GMQS exemptions for 21 Tourist Accommodation Units (13 within existing structures - Castle, Hose House, and Carriage House, and 8 for new cottages/cabin development) is reasonable and proportional to the amount of historic preservation that will occur. If the cottages and cabins are sited as represented in the application, the new development will have little impact on the historically designated structures. G. An Employee Housing Impact Fee exemption for conversion of the existing residential use in the Castle and Carriage House to the proposed Tourist Accommodation Units is proportional and reasonable in relation to the amount of preservation that will occur on the properties. H. The BOCC is not supportive of granting an exemption from the Employee Housing Impact Fees for development of the 4 new cottages, 4 new cabins, and Hose House Unit. I. The BOCC finds that a ______year vesting period is appropriate to be established for the Activity Envelope and Site Plan portion of the request.
16. The BOCC further finds that pursuant to Land Use Code Section 6-70-40(a)(10)(b), the cumulative community impacts associated with the granting of these discretionary incentives can be mitigated if compliance with the conditions this resolution are achieved.
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 4
17. The BOCC finds that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Pitkin County to approve this Resolution.
18. The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposal at regularly scheduled meetings on March 6th, 2018 and March 20th, 2018 and, pursuant to P&Z Resolution No. 07-2018, recommended approval to the BOCC by a vote of 7-0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado that it hereby approves the Redstone 2016 LLC request subject to the following proposed conditions, and authorizes the Chair to sign the Resolution and upon the satisfaction of the County Attorney as to form and execute any other associated documents necessary to complete this matter:
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application or in public meetings or hearings and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions.
2. VLP Master Plan conditions of approval:
A. Shuttle service to the properties shall be required for any event with more than 50 people.
B. Amplified music is prohibited with the exception of amplification for officiants and processional music and amplified music in the Castle Courtyard, within the Castle, and within the Carriage House.
Decibel (dB(A)) limits for sound measured in accordance with the Pitkin County Noise Code: 7:00PM to 7:00AM: 50 dB(A) 7:00AM to 7:00PM: 55 dB(A)
C. Connection to the District for sanitation service shall be required prior to commercial operation of the Castle properties. D. Within 30 days of the anniversary of this approval, the Applicant shall submit an “annual review” to the Community Development Director that outlines the operation for the year. This outline shall include information about the preceding year of operations, any changes to the approved plan that have occurred, and any complaints received. The annual review shall be heard before the BOCC. A public hearing is not required. The BOCC may, at its discretion, modify or revoke the development approval at this meeting. E. The VLP Master Plan shall clearly outline the uses, dimensions, timeframes, short and long term goals of the Redstone Castle VLP Master Plan. Special Event parameters shall be clearly outlined. Limits on camping and silviculture shall be included. ATTACHMENT B. F. The Master Plan shall identify the Lover’s Lane emergency evacuation egress and, should the need arise, the Applicant shall make customers of the venue aware of this route. The Applicant shall obtain an access permit for upgrades to this egress route which shall be constructed to accommodate a standard sized licensed motor vehicle and completed prior to commercial operation of the Castle properties. The Applicant shall obtain all necessary easements/agreements from the adjacent property owner to the south and submit these documents with the access permit application. G. The Applicant shall consult with Pitkin County OST regarding the possible construction of a bridge to provide access to the Redstone Castle as identified in the 1993 Redstone Master Plan. H. Driveway lighting shall be removed within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearings. Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 5
I. The Applicant shall restrict the Redstone Castle properties in perpetuity against any future subdivision, partition, condominiumization, division or any other event that would create another lot, parcel, unit, or other division of land or interest out of the property. This restriction includes the creation of parcels that are 35 acres or larger pursuant to CRS § 30-28-101, or its successor or its amendment. J. Site Plan Review is required for the future cottages on the Castle Parcel and cabins on the Barn Parcel, prior to building permit application. Mitigation for debris flow hazards may be required. K. Prior to submission of any building permit applications for the new tourist accommodation units (4 cottages, 4 cabins, Hose House, Carriage House, and Castle) the Applicant shall submit a covenant for review and approval by the County Attorney, which covenant shall specify that the tourist accommodation units could only be used for short-term tourist accommodations and that no other uses, including long-term tourist accommodations or residential use, are available for the units. Upon approval by the County Attorney, the Covenant shall be recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. L. The creation of timeshares on the Castle Parcel, Barn Parcel, and Carriage House Parcel is prohibited. M. Prior to issuance of building permits for the new tourist accommodations units (4 cottages, 4 cabins and the Hose House), the Applicant shall pay the applicable housing impact fee for the number of rooms pursuant to Sec. 8-30-40 of the 2006 Land Use Code (as amended) based on the formula for “standard/historic” tourist/lodge accommodation development. N. Tree mitigation shall not be required for trees that are removed to gain enhanced views of the historic structures from Hwy 133.
3. The 3 properties are granted 21 Tourist Accommodation Unit GMQS exemptions as a result of the BOCC granting approval for optional incentives for designation of historic structures on the property.
4. As a result of the granting of optional incentives for designation of historic structures on the property, the Applicant is awarded a vesting period of ______years for the Activity Envelope and Site Plan portion of this request.
5. Conversion of the existing residential use in the Castle and Carriage House to the proposed Tourist Accommodation Units (10 units in the Castle and 2 units in the Carriage House) shall be exempt from the Employee Housing Impact Fee. The 2 proposed onsite Staff Managers units (one in the Castle and one on the Barn Parcel) shall be exempt from GMQS and shall be considered onsite mitigation as they relate to the Employee Housing Impact Fee associated with the development of the 4 cottage on the Castle Parcel and 4 cabins on the Barn Parcel. The Staff Managers units shall be deed restricted with the Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority at the time of construction.
6. Prior to submission of any permit applications, the Applicant shall be required to submit for approval by the County Attorney and Community Development a Site Plan with an Activity Envelope in accordance with Land Use Code Section 2-30-20(g) and Application Manual Sections 2.1.11 and 2.1.12. The above referenced approvals shall be a condition precedent to finalization and recordation of them.
7. Prior to issuance of ___ TDR’s, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval, a Covenant Agreement for preservation of the Castle Parcel, Carriage House Parcel, and Barn Parcel, and the following Historic resources, which documents their inclusion on the Pitkin County Historic Register and maintenance in accordance with the Pitkin County Historic Guidelines:
A. The Redstone Castle, B. Carriage House, Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 6
C. Hose House, D. Garden Shed, E. Gazebo, F. Dog Kennels, G. Historic Entrance Gate, H. Historic water reservoir on the Castle Parcel,
8. The Applicant shall submit an earthmoving permit for re-grading the previously disturbed Castle meadow, the Carriage House ceremony site, and reclamation of the two-track access that divides the meadow west of the Castle. A geotechnical report shall be submitted with the permit application for the regrading of the ceremony sites and the Applicant shall address any alluvial fan recommendations provided in the report.
9. With regard to impacts on wildlife, the Applicant shall comply with the following: A. Dogs are prohibited with the exception of the bride and groom’s dog, which shall be leashed under human supervision or kenneled. Property owner dogs are exempt from this restriction. B. Guest use of off road motorized vehicles is prohibited.
10. Prior to conducting commercial activities on the 3 properties, the Applicant shall connect to the Redstone Water and Sanitation District for sanitation service, to the satisfaction of the District.
11. The property shall comply with the following low wildfire development standards. A. Defensible Space: The area around all buildings/structures, limited by property boundaries that may limit a property owner’s ability to comply with this section, shall incorporate landscaping with wildfire defensible space considerations as follows: 1. Brush, debris and non-ornamental vegetation shall be removed within a minimum ten- foot (10') perimeter around all structures. 2. Vegetation shall be reduced to break up the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuels at a minimum of a thirty (30) foot perimeter around a structure built on flat ground. Spacing between clumps of brush and vegetation up to the thirty (30) foot perimeter shall be a minimum of two (2) times the height of the fuel. Maximum diameter of the clumps shall be equal to the height of the fuel. All measurements shall be from the edges of the crowns of the fuel. 3. All branches from trees and brush within the thirty (30) foot perimeter shall be pruned to a height of ten (10) feet above the ground with removal of ladder fuels from around trees and brush. 4. Tree crown separation within the thirty (30) foot perimeters shall have a minimum of ten (10) feet between the edges of the crowns, except for mature stands of aspen trees where ladder fuels have been removed. In areas of aspen regeneration, understory shrubs and down and dead materials shall be removed. 5. All branches that extend over the roof eaves shall be trimmed and all branches within fifteen (15) feet of chimneys shall be removed. 6. The density of fuels up to a one hundred (100) foot perimeter of the structures shall be reduced where natural reduction has not already occurred. 7. All deadfall up to a one hundred (100) foot perimeter shall be removed. 8. No new conifer trees shall be planted within ten (10) feet of a residence. 9. No flammable mulches shall be placed within two (2) feet of a residence. Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 7
10. The property owner shall be responsible for the continued maintenance of the defensible space vegetation requirements. B. If roofs are replaced on structures: Class A covering or Class A assembly as defined by the currently adopted Building Code. No wood shakes or shingles. All other adopted Building Code compliant methods and materials permitted. Roofs with less than a 3:12 pitch are not permitted unless they comply with the following: 1) All roof coverings shall be constructed of non-combustible materials and installed on a Class A roof assembly. 2) All roof coverings shall have a surface that shall facilitate the natural process of clearing roof debris. 3) Protrusions above the roofline, such as parapets, shall be prohibited. 4) Roofs shall be installed as required by the adopted Building Code and shall have a minimum pitch of 1:48. 5) All roof designs, coverings, or equivalent assemblies shall be specifically approved by the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of a building permit application.
C. Maintenance and Miscellaneous Requirements 1. Roofs and gutters shall be kept clear of debris. 2. Roof vents shall be screened with corrosive resistant wire mesh, with mesh one-fourth (¼) inch maximum. 3. Yards shall be kept clear of all litter, slash and flammable debris. 4. All flammable materials shall be stored on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from any structure. 5. Weeds and grasses within the ten (10) foot perimeter shall be maintained to a height not more than six (6) inches. 6. Firewood/wood piles shall be stacked on a parallel contour a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from the structure. 7. Swimming pools and ponds shall be accessible by the local fire district. 8. Fences shall be kept clear of brush and debris. 9. Wood fences shall not connect to other structures. 10. Fuel tanks shall be installed underground with an approved container. 11. Propane tanks shall be buried, if possible, or installed according to NFPA 58 standards and on a contour away from the structure with standard defensible space vegetation mitigation around any aboveground tank. Any wood enclosure around the tank shall be constructed with materials approved for two (2) hour fire-resistive construction on the exterior side of the walls. 12. Each structure shall have a minimum of one ten (10) pound ABC fire extinguisher. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District Code. 14. Addresses shall be clearly marked with four (4) inch non-combustible letters and shall be visible at the primary point of access from the public or common access road and installed on a non-combustible post.
12. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this property. Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 8
13. As a result of the granting of optional incentives for designation of historic structures on the property, the Applicant is awarded a vesting period of ______years for the Activity Envelope and Site Plan portion of this request.
Statutory vested rights for the Activity Envelope and Site Plan contained herein are granted pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code and Colorado Statutes, subject to the exceptions set forth in the Pitkin County Land Use Code § 4-140 and C.R.S., § 24-68-105. The statutory vested rights granted herein shall expire on ______, 20____ .
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLISHED IN THE ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY on the ___ day of ______, 2018.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ______day of ______, 2018.
PUBLISHED AFTER ADOPTION FOR VESTED REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS in the Aspen Times Weekly on the ___ day of ______, 2018.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By ______By: ______Jeanette Jones Patti Clapper, Chair Clerk to the BOCC Date: ______
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
______Richard Neiley III, Cindy Houben, Community Development Director Assistant County Attorney
Case#: P101-17 Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 10
Attachment A
Legal Descriptions
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 11
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 12
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 13
Attachment B Barn Parcel:
Carriage House Parcel:
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 14
Redstone Castle Parcel:
Resolution No. ___-2018 Page 15
Attachment B
Castle VLP Master Plan Document
May 31, 2018
Mr. Steven R. Carver Redstone Castle PO Box 2021 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: Response to Delich Trip Generation Analysis Redstone Castle Traffic Analysis FHU Reference No. 117241-01
Dear Mr. Carver:
I have reviewed the Trip Generation Analysis by Delich Associates (memorandum dated May 22, 2018) which contains a number of comments relative to the Traffic Analysis for the Redstone Castle and Access Road (our letter report dated August 7, 2018). Some of the Delich comments are critical of our analyses; therefore, I offer the following responses in rebuttal:
Delich states the Saturday trip generation rates for Resort Hotel are 13.43 trips per day and 1.23 trips per hour for each lodging unit. Response: o The Saturday rates quoted by Delich are based on only one study – in other words, only one hotel site was counted. Because of this small sample size, ITE cautions against the use of these rates. We used the average rates (per occupied room) that were based on multiple studies, extrapolating Saturday rates from ITE land use code 310 (Hotel), which is a more appropriate approach. Using the rates that Delich suggests, each lodging unit would generate more trips than a typical suburban single family home, which is clearly unlikely, especially in Colorado mountain communities.
Delich states that a reduction of 25 percent for the remote location is too high, given that there are destinations in the surrounding area which would attract trips. Response: o Note that the ITE rates are for urban and suburban locations which tend to have more nearby trip options than Redstone. Typically, mountain communities experience lower trip rates than urban/suburban locations. Previous traffic engineering efforts in Pitkin County included counts at a hotel site, which were about 33 percent lower than what ITE rates would indicate. Therefore, the 25 percent reduction is appropriate.
Delich presents a table which breaks out event catering categories and the expected number of vehicles for each. Delich suggests an average of 40 trips per day for catering aspects. Response: o Delich includes the “bridal and groom’s entourages” in the catering categories. It is expected that at least some of these people would be staying at the Castle; therefore, the Delich estimates include some double-counting of trips. o The “bartending”, and “alcohol delivery” estimates should be discounted; these services are to be provided by the Castle. o Our approach to the event trip generation is consistent with CDOT Region 3 methodology for wedding venues.
Michael Kraemer
Redstone Land Use Application 1 message
Peter Bone
Dear Commissioners Clapper, Richards, Poschman, Child and Newman,
As a 22 year full time resident of the Crystal River Valley, and living in Crystal River Park, I have some concerns regarding the Redstone Castle Land Use Application.
First let me say I’m not against progress and I’m happy that the Castle is finally going to be restored and used. My concern is the magnitude at which it is proceeding. Neighbors here bought property to enjoy the serenity of this end of the valley. With the residential zoning we have enjoyed what we expected when we purchased property here. What you are contemplating on passing will change this forever!
Here are my concerns:
1. I live across the Crystal from the Castle. Our experience from excessive noise on the Castle property is that it resonates off the 2000 foot cliff behind our house. With the number of events you will be granting, and the hours of amplified music, this once peaceful valley will be no more.
2. Another concern is the massive amount of traffic that will be generated by the sheer number of events. For example, I’m not sure if you have had the opportunity to visit Redstone during the 4th of July parade, but there aren’t anywhere near the number of cars the Castle events will generate, yet cars are parked up and down #133 to the point where Redstone residents end up having to direct traffic. Who is going to assume traffic control when these events are taking place?
Add to this the danger that will increase as this excessive traffic moves up and down the winding #133. The police response time to incidents in this area is abysmal. Adding even more concern is the number of drunk or stoned drivers that will be leaving the Castle after these events. Without added Pitkin County Sheriffs patrolling and LIVING in this area, I’m afraid of the possible consequences.
3. My last concern is the 25 year review process Mr. Carver is requesting. If he intends on meeting his obligations, he should have no problem with a review process every 5 – 10 years max. It’s only when someone has something to hide do they ask for such a lengthy time between review processes! Flying Dog Ranch in the beginning required a yearly review for residents to assess their performance.
You have a thankless job, and I applaud you for your time spent on this issue. All we are asking is that the concerns of the people who live here be taken into consideration. Show us that “big money” doesn’t always get what they want and that the “little guy” still has a voice in this matter.
I thank you for your time.
Peter Bone
Another Meeting?
I understand that there is another meeting scheduled regarding the zoning and use of Cleveholm Manor and the Castle Property in Redstone.!
As a member of the Redstone Historic Preservation Commission and the Mt. Sopris Historical Society, and as a long term activist in the preservation and protection of this special place, I must comment on the statement in the Aspen Times, May 24, following a Pitkin County BOCC meeting at which someone stated to the Commissioners that the “ proposed ‘master plan’ is way out of scale with the town of Redstone, to the point of degrading the town.” Since this comment reflects a lack of understanding of Redstone, Cleveholm Manor, the historic significance of the Castle and the Castle properties, and the role of Pitkin County in the protection of this unique site, I feel obligated to respond.
Cleveholm Manor is listed on the National Register of Historic Places because it holds unique and special significance for the state of Colorado, the Crystal Valley, Pitkin County, and the nation. A review and study of the history of Redstone and its surroundings is recommended before one dares to suggest that a proposed master plan that seeks to preserve this special and unique place will “degrade the town”.
The community of Redstone has a special history of settlement and industrialization and redevelopment into a recreational center and tourist destination.
Redstone is a unique little village. It is surrounded by National Forest and several Wilderness Areas. The most recent native people who lived and hunted in our valleys were the Utes. When Hayden surveyed the area he found it to be ‘the most geologically complex area’ he had surveyed. The influx of settlers, the militia, and gold seekers and miners and farmers and ranchers modified the valley’s character.
The most formative change for Redstone was the discovery of high quality coal for the steel mills in Pueblo. Osgood developed Coal Basin and the Crystal River Rail Road to move that coal from its source to the factories that turned steel into rails for the nation’s railroads.
He established the town of Redstone with 84 cottages, a 40 room Inn (the Redstone Inn) with indoor plumbing and electricity, a bathhouse, a clubhouse, a library, a theater, a school….. A magazine, Camp and Plant, recorded the activities in his worker friendly town…..worker friendly because a “happy worker is a more productive worker”. Lady Bountiful and Osgood entertained in Cleveholm. National leaders, including President Teddy Roosevelt visited there.
Cleveholm Manor, Osgood’s 42 room home, was built between 1897 and 1901 on 72 acres with servant’s quarters, a gameskeeper’s house, a carriage house, and a greenhouse. Original furnishings remain in Cleveholm. The Gameskeeper’s house and Cleveholm are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Osgood left, the railroad to Carbondale was discontinued, many buildings were removed or destroyed. Redstone was left to the few, until Mid-Continent opened the Coal Basin Mines, the Colorado Department of Transportation relocated and widened highway #133, and subdivisions were created, many to accommodate the miners who worked at the mine or in related activities. Carbondale provided farms and ranches, homes, the Black Nugget, the laundromats, and the schools. Cleveholm escaped the ‘wrecking ball’ when it was purchased by Ken Johnson and operated as a Bed and Breakfast Inn. The McCormicks, former owners of The Country Store, and other shop owners in Redstone often stated that they benefited from the vibrancy and activities of the Castle during its years of operation as a Bed and Breakfast.
For several years, with other ownership, public activities were not allowed at the Castle, which fell into disrepair. Before reopening Cleveholm Manor to the public, the new owners, Steve and April Carver, must make significant improvements to the structures and the grounds. Several steps toward much needed preservation have been taken. It is time to support the efforts being proposed by the Carvers, the County, and those who support historic study, participation, and preservation.
Given the proper support, Cleveholm Manor can, once again, be the Gentleman’s home, one Gentleman’s mile from his town, open to the residents and visitors it serves. The Village of Redstone can, once again, serve as a beacon of history and community in the Crystal River Valley.
#30
Michael Kraemer
Redstone Castle comments 1 message [email protected]
Hi Michael--Here are my comments regarding the latest proposals at the Redstone Castle. I have copied them into the body of this e-mail, and attached a word file for your convenience. I would greatly appreciate you passing this along to the commissioners.
Thank you for all the time and work you have put in on this issue, Michael.
Dear Pitkin County Commissioners:
My name is David Johnson. I live and do business at the Redstone Company Store, 117 Redstone Blvd, right across from Redstone Inn.
Many people move to Redstone because they have already made a living. Most people visit Redstone to take a break from making a living. A few of us move to Redstone to make a living. No one moves to Redstone to make a killing.
The Carvers have a right to make a living, and they have a right to make a return on their investment. After being in business in Redstone for the past year, I do believe the Castle can give a little boost to most local businesses. I think the notion that the Castle is the only thing that can save Redstone—which has been brought up a few times over the past year—is ridiculous. Businesses thrive or fail on their own merit— based individually on the public appeal of the goods and services they offer.
The only thing Redstone needs to be saved from is from becoming just like most other places in the Roaring Fork Valley and Colorado—overcrowded and sold to death. The people who have chosen to live or do business in Redstone have made a conscious decision to sacrifice some of their business interests to enjoy a quality of life that has disappeared in so many places on the Western Slope. There’s a place to try to make a killing—and it’s 20 minutes down the road. It’s called the Roaring Fork Valley.
I moved to the Roaring Fork Valley in 1991. I decided I wanted to commit the rest of my life to Redstone a couple of years ago because Redstone is the only thing left near the Roaring Fork Valley that is still actually a mountain town---instead of a sprawling, crowded, Denver-esque metropolitan area. Like most people who live in Redstone, I chose to live here because it’s not Glenwood, Carbondale, or Aspen.
I want to see the Castle open and succeed, but like others who have concerns over the current plan proposed, I think the plan is too ambitious in some areas. There are at least as many residents who could be negatively impacted by some of the proposals of the current plan as there are people who would benefit from these expanded operations—and their concerns need to be addressed.
I question the proposal of camping on the property. This seems to be a complete contradiction to the image of the property and what the Castle stands for. Using the opulent image of Cleveholm Manor to sell camping strikes me as an attempt to simply maximize revenue from this property. Camping presents fire dangers, camping already exists in the immediate vicinity, and it also contradicts the Scenic Byway and Wild and Scenic designations.
I also question the proposal of a tree farm on a property surrounded by forest. This is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to zone part of a commercial property as agricultural, which then spreads out the property tax burden to everyone else in town. Why should I pay for this?
I am concerned about the lack of limits placed on events at the Castle for non-profit groups. Limits for events should be applied regardless of who is attending these events. And the number of large scale events is simply way too many, and will result in too much disruption.
My biggest concern continues to be the impacts on Redstone Blvd and Redstone Castle Blvd along the Crystal River and the riparian habitat that exists there. I think the traffic impact study that was done is completely out of touch with what will happen in the real world. The study doesn’t take into account the number of people who will drive the road just to look around. I have people walking into my shop on a daily basis who don’t want to spend the money to take a tour of the Castle, who ask me daily where it is and how they can get there just so they can look around.
The traffic figures in the study are low, and when you also add horse drawn carriage rides to the mix, the road becomes even more unsafe. Too many people are simply bad drivers, and when people are forced to back up to the closest pull out—especially when alcohol has been in the mix---someone is going to back into the river and die.
Increased traffic along the Castle Blvd will negatively impact the Redstone Inn’s wedding operations, and greatly diminish the aesthetic experience of the fly fishing property along it used by our fishing clients and the general public who books that property through Redstone Inn and the Rocky Mtn. Angling Club. It will also negatively impact numerous animals along that riparian corridor, and eventually harm the river itself through road degradation.
I believe there is a win-win solution for everyone involved with some common sense compromises. I have heard of multiple public subsidies for the Castle in the form of TDR’s, water taps, and sewer line. I feel many of these public subsidies are for private gain. I don’t know anyone in Redstone—including myself--- who has gotten any kind of public subsidy. It is reasonable that public subsidies be applied for historic preservation purposes to a certain extent, and I salute the Carver’s commitment to keeping the Castle open to the public. But why should anyone get preferential treatment---especially if some of that comes at the expense of others? I own a historical building that is only a few years younger than the Castle. My historical building got many more visits last year than the Castle did when it was open.
If subsidies from the public are to be applied, I believe they should be awarded for public benefit. The biggest public benefit from a subsidy would come from providing safe and realistic access to the Castle property through the construction of a bridge. I encourage county commissioners to seriously consider this-- -helping the Carvers build a bridge would solve the largest and most contentious issue surrounding this entire project, which is traffic congestion on Redstone Blvd and access along a dangerous one lane gravel road.
Our government exists to look out for the public good, and more importantly, the public safety. If Pitco pitched in to help build a bridge, it is a win-win for everyone involved: for the Castle, the landowners living on Redstone Castle Blvd, the Redstone Inn wedding guests, the riparian habitat along Redstone Blvd, the business owners in Redstone, and most importantly—the general public who wants to visit the Castle.
Pitco certainly has the funds to help with this. Another place they could look is with Healthy Rivers, who is basically looking for projects to put money towards. I believe that a bridge to the Castle does make for a healthier Crystal River. Bridges themselves make for better fish habitat, but more importantly, a bridge to the Castle will preserve a much longer riparian habitat that exists along the Castle Blvd.
There is much concern about additional bridges over the Crystal in the debate over the proposed bike path. But if a bridge is needed anywhere, it is needed into the Castle property, which may be the most popular tourist attraction in the area other than the Crystal River and Valley itself.
I urge Pitkin County Commissioners to incorporate compromises in the Redstone Castle plan to protect the quality of life of town residents and wildlife, the viability for the Castle, and safety for all. Let’s make sure we don’t change too much too fast--there is something sacred about Redstone that must be respected and preserved for posterity.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Johnson Redstone Company Store 117 Redstone Blvd. Redstone CO 81623 970-963-7359
Redstone Castle comments David Johnson June 4 2018.doc 49K Dear Pitkin BOCC,
Thank you for the opportunity to address issues relating to the Redstone 2016 LLC application.
During the last public hearing the applicant made the following statements:
1. "The applicant has fully adopted the Redstone Master Plan".
In reality, the applicant has "cherry picked" the RMP (Redstone Master Plan), embracing sections that benefit them and ignoring sections that don't. Some examples are listed below:
RMP Chapter 1 Page 33. Issues and Concerns. Section 5 “Environment”, not addressed.
RMP Chapter 2 Page 4. #7 “Wildlife.” Applicant’s expert’s findings are disputed by numerous experts not employed by the applicant. (You have their letters on file.)
RMP Chapter 3 Page 16. The designation of RC (Resource Conservation) for sensitive areas, not addressed
2. “The extension of the sewer line to Castle property is a benefit to the community.”
In reality the sewer line extension was to benefit the applicant only (on a cost neutral basis). The 4/4/2017 contract between Redstone Water and the applicant reveals. A. Gifting of 21 prepaid sewer taps to the applicant ($210,000.00) B. 100% of fees collected by Redstone Water for future connections to the extension will transfer to the applicant until costs are recovered. C. Limited to 20 year recovery period.
Other areas of concern:
Noise The applicant is requesting exemption from Pitkin County Title 6 Noise Abatement, during Processional and Announcement periods. No estimate or time frame is given for this exemption. The current Title 6 document provides for a 10% exemption period. Additional exemption periods are unnecessary and will be a detriment to the area wildlife, particularly during Elk calving.
Traffic The carrying capacity of the country lane that serves the Castle is questionable. Applicants expert claims of max. capacity of 500 cars per day is a theory. In order to carry that number of cars, the trips would have to be evenly spaced at 2.8 minute intervals over a 24 hour period. The expected traffic of 350 cars per day has the same issue. In order for this to work, the cars would have to travel in evenly spaced intervals of 4.1 minutes over a 24 hour period. As the time frame is compressed this data quickly falls apart. Please don’t let this traffic theory replace common sense and logic. They need a bridge.
Traffic flowing onto Hwy. 133 has never been addressed. I hope a fatality is not required before this becomes an issue.
Please give serious consideration to the impact of excessive noise and traffic and the effect it will have on the wildlife and people who live adjacent to the castle ptoperty.
Thank you,
Joe Gates 84 Chair Mountain Dr. Redstone, CO 81623
Dear BOCC,
We hope that all the board members takes into consideration that our personal lives are being impacted by this large commercial operation.
My grandparents owned the Castle from 1947 to 1957 and we have owned our current property sense 1957.
Even if something is in a master plan that doesn’t mean that it should be implemented, we need to take into account what impact this will have on the area, what about sustainability, water resources, threat of wildfire, and impact on the wildlife.
We feel that the Castle owners would and are basically dictating our comings and goings on a daily bases. We don’t want to be impacted by all vehicles coming and going. I had personal experience this fall/spring with traffic increase on the road with around a dozen added cars and trucks. To avoid the extra vehicles on our road I left earlier then needed to each day for work and returning from work had the same effect.
We need to remember that it’s not only cars that will increase but the tonnage trucks and vans diffidently increase the risk of deterioration of the road.
We all need to remember that the castle is inside a residential area, it is not like a hotel operation in the city of Glenwood Springs or a venue in Larkspur CO.
We will be forced to live in a snow globe LIKE environment with the outside music bouncing off of the mountain behind the castle and bouncing off our house. All music should be inside said buildings not out in the open. I experience the effect when the sound test was going on when I was outside trying to enjoy the day.
Our front yard is where we spend our time and this would not make it enjoyable any longer if the castle has music outside and cars passing in front of our home.
Shuttle all guest in and out of area for all activity is a no brainer if you truly care about not impacting the neighborhood and road. The castle truly needs to build a bridge to the property. We all need to remember that when the castle was built and used for events and ran as a resort the population was less. The bridge truly needs to be at the utmost southern part of his property away from all property owners adjacent to the property.
The secondary exit he speaks of is a game trail and no ATV could use it. It is a steep rocky narrow trail. You should actual come and visit this trail to see that he is misleading the BOCC.
Events for such a short time frame should be of limited to 2 per month. I work and weekends are my time to enjoy my home with my mom, but with so many events each weekend will impact my relaxing time.
Time of events/tours should be from 10am-8pm all people out of the area by 9pm.
Entrance for all vehicles should be restricted to the main castle road leaving the road directly in front of our property unused.
Castle owner so far hasn’t shown that he wants to be a good neighbor; he has made threats to sue everyone if he doesn’t get what he wants.
More people for sure will increase the wildfire threat to this small residential area. It not a matter if it’s a matter on when.
The Castle owner is trying to control the area with no consideration to property owners adjacent to his property or within the surrounding area.
He wants a new gate when the existing one works and we feel it’s for the social status that he seems to need another gate.
He wants us to pay for road maintenance on percentage great then our actual usage, we’re only 1 car daily and his got hundreds.
What the castle owner wants to do is too EXTREME!!
This is a residential area and what the castle owner is purposing for the Castle is an encroachment on our privacy and our way of life. I hope the County Commissioners will think strongly about the situation.
My family picked Redstone for the mountains, quite surrounds and wildlife not a loud, populated city!
WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF THIS WAS IN YOUR FRONT YARD?
Thank you for your time,
Evelyn and Cindy Harper 0066 Redstone Blvd Redstone, CO 81623
Michael Kraemer
Sewer line installation for Redstone Castle 2 messages
Mtn Crafty
Yancy,
We are concerned about this up coming project to the road in which is our only means of getting to and from our home. We feel the BOCC should be made aware of this issue already encountered with this road.
I have encountered many issues this winter with additional vehicles on this one lane shelve road, with the additional 10 or more vehicles on a daily bases.
The additional vehicles have made the road more rutted then in the past years, the plowing job so bad that there was no areas to pass vehicles. Whomever was plowing the road for the Castle did not plow the snow from inside to outside edge, just plowed straight up the center of the road leaving no pull over areas.
I was forced to leave my house earlier than I usually do to miss the vehicles on the road in the mornings, and didn't return until after 5:30pm each day.
The road around the installation of the water shutoff pipe by the McCormick's house has no road base around the pipe due to the additional vehicles driving over it 2 times a day or more.
I'm sure that the road base was not compressed when the project was installed last fall.
I truly feel with the additional vehicles on the road this winter shows that the road will not withstand more vehicles in great number.
Has I am sure you are aware this road original was constructed for horse and carriage, but now the world drives vehicles that weight more that a horse and carriage.
The Castle needs to build their own access road!!!!
Attached are current pictures of the road.
Cindy and Evelyn Harper
5 attachments
DSCN0564[3].JPG 3253K DSCN0565[1].JPG 3243K
DSCN0566[1].JPG 3515K
DSCN0567[1].JPG 3415K
DSCN0568[1].JPG 3278K
Michael Kraemer
Hi, I am currently out. I will return to the office on Tuesday May 1st, 2018. Thanks, Mike
-- Mike Kraemer Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5482
Dear Commissioners:
My wife Debbie and I have lived in the Gatehouse on the Osgood estate for over 40 years. Debbie and I were married in the Castle and would stay there for weeks on end, looking after it when the caretakers would go on vacation. We know and love this property and have spent most of our lives trying to help care and preserve it for future generations. We purchased two 35 acre tracts that were part of the estate and helped put together a conservation easement of our parcels and the purchase of four other parcels totaling almost 240 acres of the original Osgood Estate by Open Space and Trails. The Osgood Estate is truly a prize and needs to be preserved!
The Osgood Estate has had many short-lived commercial ventures over the years, but It has remained mostly a residential use. The longest and most successful commercial use was during Ken Johnson’s ownership. When Ken bought the property in 1974, it had been without heat for over five years and needed extensive work so it could be occupied. Ken bought it as a second home and though they hosted several weddings a year starting in 1978, it was primarily residential. The county did not make a mistake in rezoning the property residential in 1978 as has been claimed. Mr Johnson knew of the rezoning and he did not object. The use was residential at that time. The property was also not rezoned after the 1993 Master Plan because Mr. Johnson who had voluntarily asked to have the Castle property included later demanded to be not included be- cause the master plan task force did not approve of his submitted devel- opment plan that he later abandoned.
In 1984 another upgrade to the servants’ wing was started and in 1985 (with a manager instead of a caretaker) the Bed and Breakfast and the special events were started. This past manager, Cyd Lange, kept the rec- ords from those days and very unfortunately passed away several years ago. Her former partner and the assistant manager of the Castle reviewed those records and reported to me that there were approximately 499
1
weddings from 1985 to 2000. Those weddings had a low of 2 people and a one time high of 200 attendees. At that time the Castle was open as a year round Bed & Breakfast with special events. When you include the occasional wine makers’ dinners, Sweetheart Balls and Concerts the number goes up to approximately 40 events on an annual basis. These were the “Camelot Years” era with Ken and Rhodie living in the Car- riage House and with lots of volunteers helping to make the events work. Those events were mostly inside the Castle and were limited in size to 100 or less because the Castle could not hold more. A lot of the people that I have spoken with who are in favor of the applicants plan have in- dicated that they want the return of those good old days when the Castle was open. I would love that also. It was an amazing time. There were very special events in the Castle and a very strong community spirit. Un- fortunately, the current plan consists of an over the top number of large outside tent events with amplified music. Not the special events that we had inside the Castle .
The applicants’ business plan is for few to no employees. Special events are to be overseen by outside party planners. There will be no accounta- bility here. This is just another way of scapegoating the blame for any bad behavior and the lack of response to active complaints. The Castle must have onsite managers that are not only responsible for protecting the Castle but also educating and enforcing rules and to help neighbors by responding to active complaints. During the Ken Johnson years of 1985 to 1990, all special events were planned and supervised by the Cas- tle management and their employees. Almost every event had an EMT or advanced first responder fireman on site. It should be incumbent on the applicant to insure the safety and conduct of the event attendees. That is why everything went smoothly and incidents were few to none. A local CRFPD person could be hired.
There needs to be fewer parking spaces on site and the applicant needs to develop off-site parking. The Redstone Inn property west of the river
2
and east of Hwy 133 (old stables area), having an existing access road, could easily serve this need. It could potentially be used not only by the Castle but also the Redstone Inn. This would help to alleviate the traffic congestion in the Redstone Blvd and Castle access road area as well as lessen the impact on the Castle access road itself. This area was planned for additional parking as part of the Redstone Inn’s approved PUD. This would also alleviate some of the congestion that WILL occur at Hwy 133 and the Redstone Blvd. south bridge. The extra incoming traffic for a large event at the Castle along with an event at the Redstone Inn will cause traffic to back up onto highway 133 causing a public safety con- cern for not only vehicles but also for pedestrians and equestrians cross- ing and enjoying ELK Park and the Coke Ovens. It should be a require- ment that the additional vehicle trips per day be analyzed for this area and off-site parking be secured before any large events are allowed.
Shuttles from hotels in Glenwood/Carbondale should also be required for larger events, especially for those with alcohol being served. The ve- hicle trips per day on the Castle access road should be greatly limited or the applicant should be required to build a new access bridge to the property from Highway 133. There is absolutely a place where a bridge could work on County-owned land and it is on a long straight away with existing pullouts and within 100 feet of a 40 MPH speed zone.
The Upper Parking area above the existing buildings on the barn parcel should be eliminated as it is in an active mudslide area! The last mud- slide in this area deposited 2 feet of mud into the riding arena and backed up four feet deep above the arena where the parking lot is now planned. This mudslide was easily large enough to move vehicles and could crush people trying to save their cars parked in that location when it occurs. The applicants’ geologist report did not address this hazard area at the top of the alluvial fan. The elimination of these 10+ spaces would also bring the number of parking places down which should be recommended anyway. The 60+ planned parking spaces only invites too many vehicles on the road.
3
At night, the Castle access road is dark, narrow and dangerous through private property. The Applicants should be required to maintain and be liable for the road that passes through the four other property owners’ land. Speeding, alcohol and drug-influenced drivers from unsupervised special events, trespassing on and vandalism to adjacent property is a major concern to the neighbors. With virtually no police protection and with no security, it is a recipe for disaster. Security should be required for all large events (over 50 people).
The Access road is part of the historical heritage of the Osgood estate. It has always been pedestrian friendly and should always remain pedes- trian friendly. This was the back entrance to the Manor at the turn of the century and was mostly used by workers living in town who walked to work at the greenhouse and Manor House. The main access was actually from the south through the Crystal Farm area. We have allowed the resi- dents of Ranch Acres to pass through our property with permission and we have also have allowed people staying at the Redstone Inn to walk this special road. If you have never walked it you would have no idea how beautiful a walk it is.
The applicants’ own traffic analysis states that the 15 mph speed limit is too fast given the sight distances that are needed at that speed. Although the 3 or 4 pull outs will help accommodate emergency response, the pro- posed road widening and surface improvement will only increase the speed of vehicles on the road and will reduce safety. The road should remain as narrow as possible with grass shoulders so that very slow pass byes will occur as it has been since the road was constructed.
The applicant has employed an engineer who has filed a report which maintains that the road is adequate for the uses proposed in the applicant’s Master Plan. However, G. R. Fielding, the Pitkin County Engineer, responds as follows: “While technically it is fea- sible to host events of 100+ people and get those vehicles up to
4
and from the venue, the Felsburg Holt and Ullevig report does not discuss what sort of level of service, or more plainly, what it would be like to have that occur – how would it feel”.
Yes, “how would it feel” to have the traffic on your one lane private dirt road go from 70 vehicle trips per day mostly around the noon hour on a busy Saturday to as many as 400 to 500 vehicle trips per day from be- tween 9am and 11pm? How would it feel if your bedroom windows were only 30 feet from that road?
The applicants should be responsible for the cost and maintenance of whatever speed calming devises that are necessary to keep vehicles at or below their proposed and recommended 11 mph. This should NOT be the responsibility of the adjacent property owners but should be the re- sponsibility of the applicant.
The activity envelopes for cottages and cabins should be enlarged so that they may be clustered in areas that mitigate their wildlife and wildfire hazards. The height of these cottages and cabins should not exceed 24 feet, which is the same for any new commercial buildings in the Village Commercial Zone of Redstone. This will make them much less visible and will result in them having less visual impact.
The Redstone Master Plan calls for the protection of the meadow on the barn parcel. The “existing road” as shown on north side of meadow on the barn parcel was a temporary road built to access construction of the RWSD water tank on the upper part of the barn parcel and it was revege- tated and restored per Pitkin County requirements. Cabins should be clustered lower and on the outside of the meadow closer to the existing homes, access road and the parking area.
5
There is an existing wildlife corridor and raptor nesting area on the up- per part of the meadow that needs to be protected. The wildlife corridor is important for access to the river for calving elk above. Although we have not seen a severe winter in some time, that meadow helped save about 20 elk from starving during an extremely bad winter in the early 1980’s. The Redstone Master Plan states: “The site plan for the property in the vicinity of the old ski runs should strive to preserve the existing meadows…” The Crystal River Master Plan states that the County should purchase the barn parcel.
The Redstone Master Plan states under Wildlife goals: “Protect wildlife and preserve wildlife habitat areas for the benefit of wildlife, residents and visitors… Explore conservation easements to preserve important wildlife habitat.”
John Osgood made wildlife an important part of the history of this mag- nificent estate;. He created a wildlife refuge which was overseen by his private Gamekeeper. Why isn’t saving some wildlife habitat a part of this plan which supposedly celebrates the history of the Osgood Estate?
The BOCC should strive to conserve this valuable wildlife habitat by of- fering the applicant TDRs and/or Open Space funds in exchange for the preservation of that part of the barn parcel that is north of the debris flow wash and includes the historic ski lift and ski runs.
Outside amplified music should not be allowed after 8pm. Please recog- nize the wildlife letters from concerned professional wildlife consultant Eric Petersen and retired wildlife officer Kevin Wright, both highly re- spected men who are very familiar with the property. Even the appli- cants’ wildlife consultant said in his memo that night time events will create a more detrimental effect on local wildlife.
6
Camping/Glamping- Should not be allowed and was not envisioned in any of the Redstone master plan areas.
True silviculture should be encouraged and practiced. A tree farm should NOT be allowed in the meadows on the barn parcel per Redstone Master Plan in order to preserve the meadow. A wildfire mitigation plan should be required to remove dead and downfall trees east and south of debris flow wash that bisects the barn parcel and east of Carriage House and Castle and also along the existing and proposed trail above the Castle and Carriage House. The applicant should be required to have a plan for protecting the existing trees from the on-going beetle infestation above the Castle and Carriage House. Just imagine what the Osgood Estate would look like from Hwy 133 with all the trees above the Castle dead and dying or burnt to the ground by a wildfire started by careless par- tiers. This is a very real possibility.
There are just entirely way too many large events (50 plus people) per week, month and year planned for this pristine residential area. The im- pacts on the neighbors, wildlife and the land will be horrible. It is ex- tremely ironic that to “save” the Castle we have to allow the degradation of the rest of the Osgood Estate’s environment.
The applicants seem to have done an amazing job in asking for every one of the perks found in the Redstone Master Plan and the Pitkin County Land Use Code, but they have totally ignored the mitigation of the impacts that their proposed events will have in those very same doc- uments.
The intent of the Redstone Master Plan of 1993 and the lodge preserva- tion zoning was to preserve lodging rooms. The current plan for the Cas- tle has immediately reduced the amount of lodging rooms in the Castle by approximately 40%. How accessible is this Luxury boutique hotel go- ing to be? The applicants have stated that the special events attendees
7
will not be welcome to stay there. “They do not want the party to follow them inside the Castle”. This will put more pressure on the already over- booked weekend availability of rooms in Redstone that other businesses rely on. There needs to be far fewer events and more impetuous on lodg- ing days booked at the Castle. That would be much closer to the intent of the Lodge Preservation Zoning that was intended in the Redstone Master Plan.
The Redstone Master Plan states in the Future Land Use Plan: The fu- ture land use Map depicts a trails system which SHOULD be developed to provide amenities for residents and visitors to Redstone. It is uncon- scionable that the applicants can’t possibly have a trail across their prop- erty because of potential vandalism, but they have no problem inviting up to 250 people plus per day with their cars, trucks and motorcycles across their neighbors’ property without any concern for their safety and privacy.
The special events venue has to be a special review use. It needs to be verified that the Castle is still accessible for public tours and lodging and not just an event center with circus tents for wedding and concert par- tiers. There definitely needs to be an annual review of the impacts brought on by these events. If the applicants are so positive that they are doing the right thing for Redstone then they should not be worried about annual reviews of their operation.
The Redstone Castle is a true Gem and deserves restoration but at what cost to the rest of Redstone. It was only about 10 years ago that many people in the village demanded a downzoning of the village because it was getting too commercial. Now some of the same people are demand- ing that you allow an unprecedented amount of large outdoor events on
8
the Castle property. They have not thought of the enormous negative im- pacts that these events will bring with them, but unfortunately by the time they do, it will be too late to slow it down again.
I respectively ask the BOCC to be as vigilant as their predecessors were in the early 1970’s when they thumbs-down the idea for 1500 condos that were planned and incidentally had the support of over 80% of the village at the time! I am not asking you to turn down this application as it has way too much merit but I am asking that you put some sane limita- tions on the size and number of events and require a conscious mitiga- tion of their impacts.
Having been a volunteer fireman here in Redstone for over 25 years and a member of the Redstone Water and San district Board for 20 years, I personally know how unappreciated public service can be.
I would like to thank you for your service to our county and our “spe- cial” Crystal Valley. It is not an easy place to figure out. Listen to your hearts and do what YOU think is the RIGHT thing for Redstone. Not just for today but for future generations.
Respectfully,
Bob McCormick
9
This does not include the impact of visitors to the area going to see the Redstone Castle if the gate is left open during these events. It also does not including if any of these events occur more than once a day.
After review of the aerial photo and road photos, there is a concern about the congestion and a bottleneck at the Redstone Inn parking lot and event area. With an event at the Redstone Inn and another at the Redstone Castle the event traffic could back up onto Redstone Boulevard and possibly even onto SH133. Photos are included in Appendix A.
Based on the proposed events at the castle, the impact to the SH133/Redstone and Redstone/Access Road should be evaluated, including sight distance and accident history to determine if key intersections can handle the additional traffic. This does not appear to have been done in the Traffic Analysis.
Therefore, it is recommended that only one event is scheduled to occur per day and the gate remain closed/monitored during an event. Since many attending the events will likely stay in the Glenwood Springs or Carbondale area, a shuttle service should be evaluated to determine if this could alleviate many traffic concerns and minimize traffic impacts during an event. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or desire additional information.
DELICH Redstone Castle Boulevard Trip Generation Analysis, April 2018 ASSOCIATES
TABLE 1 Trip Generation 9th Edition Occupied Rooms Saturday Saturday Daily Trip Ends Peak Hour Code Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips 330 Resort Hotel 22 Rooms 13.43 296 1.23 27 12% reduction based on occupancy 11.82 260 1.08 24 25% reduction based on cited Traffic Analysis 10.07 222 0.92 20
TABLE 2 Event Catering
Vehicles Wedding Planner 1 Photographer 1 Florist 1 Caterer 1-3 Wedding cake 1 Bartending 1 Alcohol delivery 1 Rental company 3-5 DJ/Band 1-4 Lighting 1 Officiant/Minister 1 13-20 vehicles
DELICH Redstone Castle Boulevard Trip Generation Analysis, April 2018 ASSOCIATES
TABLE 3 Peak hour Trip Generation –Redstone Castle Boulevard Component of Scenario Inbound Outbound Total Traffic Background 2 5 7 Low Intensity Tours 0 24 24 Saturday Noon Lodging 13 (11) 11 (9) 24 (20) Total 15 (13) 40 (38) 55 (51) Background 2 5 7 Medium Intensity Tours 0 24 24 Saturday Lodging 13 (11) 11 (9) 24 (20) Noon 50-Person Event 15 1 16 Total 30 (28) 41 (39) 71 (67) Background 3 1 4 High Intensity Tours 0 0 0 Saturday Lodging 13 (11) 11 (9) 24 (20) 2 PM 150-Person Event 46 2 48 Total 62 (60) 14 (12) 76 (72) (25% based on location per cited Traffic Analysis)
TABLE 4 Daily Trip Generation –Redstone Castle Boulevard
Scenario Component of Traffic Daily Trip Ends
Background 30 Low Intensity Tours 48 Saturday Lodging 260 (220) Total 338 (298) Background 30 Tours 48 Medium Intensity Lodging 260 (222) Saturday 50-Person Event 40 Event Catering 26 Total 404 (366) Background 30 Tours 64 High Intensity Lodging 260 (222) Saturday 150-Person Event 120 Event Catering 40 Total 514 (476) (25% based on location per cited Traffic Analysis)
DELICH Redstone Castle Boulevard Trip Generation Analysis, April 2018 ASSOCIATES APPENDIX A
1 Redstone Inn to Castle Gate photos
Subject: Redstone Inn to Castle Gate photos From: Bob McCormick
1 of 3 5/22/2018 3:40 PM Redstone Inn to Castle Gate photos
2 of 3 5/22/2018 3:40 PM Redstone Inn to Castle Gate photos
3 of 3 5/22/2018 3:40 PM more photos
Subject: more photos From: Bob McCormick
1 of 3 5/22/2018 3:41 PM more photos
2 of 3 5/22/2018 3:41 PM more photos
3 of 3 5/22/2018 3:41 PM Michael Kraemer
STOP - The REDSTONE CASTLE re-zoning 2 messages
McCroskey Pam
Dear Mr. Kraemer;
I am writing this letter, to voice, my concerns and horror, about the Redstone Castle re-zoning issue.
I have owned three separate properties in Pitkin County and have had the honor of being in Redstone many many times since 1983. I consider Redstone and the Crystal River Valley as a serene hamlet - unlike, any other place in the world.
It seems apparent to me, that an additional access road to the Redstone Castle, must be built. The current lane, would not accommodate, any additional traffic, as proposed, to the Castle. The additional traffic for the outrageous number of additional events, could ruin, the serene town of Redstone. The term “ Village Lodge Preservation “ should be applied to “preserving” the beautiful “village/hamlet” of REDSTONE. Separate Redstone by building a new ingress/egress road and bridge only to the Castle.
As a physician, I am extremely concerned, about the resources, that will be needed, for the additional traffic and celebrations at the Redstone Castle. Events, such as the ones anticipated, will bring out the liquor and cannabis, that will be ingested, during such events. For people traveling to and from the Redstone Castle, on the curvy and small Highway 133, it will certainly increase the number of traffic accidents, rollovers and deaths. This rezoning proposal affects every emergency resource in the county and valley. I beg you, to consider, the additional on-call emergency resources, that will be required to support all the numbers that the new owners of the Redstone Castle are marketing to. Out-of-state, drunk, stoned celebrators, that are not used to driving on Highway 133. Devastating.
I am asking you, to review, these issues.
STOP and really, consider, what is at stake with the proposed re-zone……..please !!!
Thank you. I am one email away, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Pam McCroskey, MD
Michael Kraemer
Received. Thanks Pam.
Mike Kraemer Senior Planner Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5482 [Quoted text hidden] Michael Kraemer
Fwd: Redstone Castle issue 1 message
Charlotte Anderson
FYI
Charlotte
------Forwarded message ------From: Alyce Meredith
([email protected])- assuming this will be forwarded to the Commissioners as per information online? Thank you.
June 6, 2018 Commissioners,
We moved to the Crystal River Park area last Fall and are enjoying the beauty and peace of this special place. However, we are distressed to learn that plans are afoot by the Carvers to make drastic changes that will completely alter the serenity that we have come to treasure. The approach in validating their plans in the form of so-called experts is not valid nor acceptable. Limitations must be enacted and enforced by the BOCC.
Alyce Meredith 16 Chair Mountain Drive Redstone, CO. 81623
-- Charlotte Anderson
Executive Assistant Pitkin County Government 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621 Phone: 970-920-5210 Fax: 970-920-5198 [email protected] www.pitkincounty.com
Please note: Our office has temporarily moved to 123 Emma Road #106, Basalt. The office is in the building with Ho Palace and Subway off the Basalt round-about on the north side of Hwy 82.
Michael Kraemer
BOCC receive residence input 1 message
Roger Olson
Dear Mr. Kraemer, We live south of Redstone at 1 Chair Mountain Drive. Our home is located on the west side of Highway 133, across from the Redstone Castle. Understand today this the final day for submitting comments regarding Mr. Steve Carver’s new application for Redstone Castle events.
Attached is a letter we submitted to the BOCC on September 27, 2017. With your permission, we are resubmitting this letter for BOCC consideration. We are petitioning the BOCC to help preserve Redstone’s annual heritage events:
th - July 4 Americana Parade and Celebration
- Labor Day Weekend Art Show – from Friday through the weekend and Monday holiday
- Friday-after-Thanksgiving Grand Illumination
These 3 events are important to the heritage and friendships we share in our small mountain community.
Thank you for accepting the attached letter for our input regarding Mr. Carver’s new application for Redstone Castle use.
Regards, Roger Olson & Margaret Inman-Olson 1 Chair Mountain Drive Redstone, Colorado
Cell Phone: 817-966-5885
Pitkin BOCC Open Letter Sept 27.pdf 1557K Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 1 of 7
OPEN LETTER to Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners 123 Emma Road, Suite 106 — 970-920-5200 Basalt, Colorado 81621
Honorable Commissioners Newman, Clapper, Richards, Poschman, and Child,
PETITION: Request the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) help preserve Redstone’s annual community heritage events while considering special event venue status for the Redstone Castle. Because Redstone’s community events use what is known as the Redstone Inn Parking Lot, and because Mr. Steve Carver’s intended use of Redstone Castle for special events requires access via Redstone Boulevard through the same Redstone Inn Parking Lot, we ask the BOCC to legally establish and declare in favor of Redstone any future scheduling conflicts between Redstone’s community events and any future Redstone Castle events.
This petition is neutral regarding Mr. Carver’s use of Redstone Castle. We are simply drawing attention to a critical topic apparently not yet discussed before the BOCC. Specifically, what are potential scheduling conflicts between the town of Redstone community events and Redstone Castle events?
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AT STAKE FOR REDSTONE: If Mr. Carver’s Castle events are given unrestricted access rights to Redstone Boulevard through the Redstone Inn Parking Lot, then what happens to Redstone’s community events which also use the same Redstone Inn Parking Lot?
Redstone’s Annual Community Events include: 1. July 4th Americana Parade and Celebration 2. Labor Day Weekend Art Show – from Friday through weekend and Monday holiday 3. Friday-after-Thanksgiving Grand Illumination
The Redstone Inn Parking Lot (photo 1) is the area just west of the Redstone Inn. Without clear markings, cars park on both sides of this area, and somewhere down the middle is Redstone Boulevard running south toward several Redstone homes and the Castle.
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 2 of 7
For “low-volume” community use, no one really cares where the actual boundaries are for Redstone Boulevard through this parking lot. However, we do not know how much “easement width” Mr. Carver’s plans require for his “higher-volume” and possibly “two-lane” traffic access to Castle events. This is one of the big questions Mr. Carver should answer before the BOCC approves his Castle plans.
EVENT 1: Would Mr. Carver accept a blackout date of Castle events for Redstone’s July 4th Parade? Redstone’s Americana 4th of July Parade and celebration is historic, widely famous, and a community event with a long history of some 35 years. The Redstone Inn Parking Lot IS the parade’s staging area and crowded with large numbers of children on bicycles, neighbors on horseback, floats, fire engines, and large crowds of people just walking in the parade down Redstone Boulevard.
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 3 of 7
Both south and north entrances to Redstone are blocked so cars cannot drive into town, because of the throngs of people. Several thousand visitors from neighboring towns come to celebrate and parade with us. The celebration is a huge event for our community and neighbors. QUESTION 1: What are Mr. Carver’s plans to help preserve Redstone’s Annual 4th of July Americana Parade and Celebration? Without a blackout date on Castle events for July 4th, this parade would no longer be able to “stage” in the Redstone Inn Parking Lot as it does today. Thus, our parade’s future is in question.
EVENT 2: Would Mr. Carver accept blackout dates of Castle events for Redstone’s Labor Day Art Show, including all dates from Friday through Labor Day weekend and Monday holiday? Our annual Redstone Art Show is also widely famous with a history going back some 22 years. This year Redstone residents and visitors purchased art from 32 artists, who live in Redstone, throughout Colorado and neighboring states. The Redstone Art Foundation donates 30% of proceeds annually to fund scholarships for area high school seniors attending college in the arts.
Shown in photo 6, Redstone Inn allows the Art Show to setup artist display tents on their grounds with access to the parking lot for visitors and artist exhibitors. Unknown is how Mr. Carver’s events might bring higher-volume traffic with perhaps two-lane access that disrupts this Art Show event. Also, one might wonder what effect this traffic would have on creating road-dust drifting into the artist exhibition tent.
QUESTION 2: What are Mr. Carver’s plans to help preserve Redstone’s annual Art Show event every Labor Day Weekend — from Friday through the weekend and Monday holiday?
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 4 of 7
EVENT 3: Would Mr. Carver accept blackout dates of Castle events for Redstone’s annual Grand Illumination celebration from the Friday after Thanksgiving through that weekend? Grand Illumination is a community tradition the Friday-after-Thanksgiving. The Christmas lights in town are lit, 500 luminaries line Redstone Boulevard, and Santa arrives in a horse drawn sleigh to visit with the children at Redstone Inn. A huge bonfire is lit on the river side of the Redstone Inn Parking Lot, extending about half-way out into its open space area.
Seen in photo 7, Redstone neighbors and visitors gather round the fire, covering the Redstone Inn Parking Lot west of the Inn. Wood for the bonfire is collected from the day of the Inn's last wedding, usually sometime in mid-October, and the pile of wood grows for the next 1-1/2 months. This is a big community-spirited celebration.
Understandably, any vehicles using Redstone Boulevard during November must drive around this huge pile of wood – both before the bonfire and after for a few days until cleaned up. Obviously, during this community bonfire celebration on the Friday night after Thanksgiving, there is no traffic access on Redstone Boulevard through this parking lot going south toward the Castle.
QUESTION 3: What are Mr. Carver’s plans to help preserve Redstone’s annual Grand Illumination on the Friday-after-Thanksgiving?
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 5 of 7
NEW BRIDGE A BETTER SOLUTION: Some have suggested that for better access to Redstone Castle events, Mr. Carver should build a new bridge from Highway 133 (point C in photo 8) across the Crystal River directly to Castle property (point D) for Castle events. If Mr. Carver builds this bridge and does not use Redstone Boulevard through the Redstone Inn Parking Lot, then the above issues regarding possible scheduling conflicts with Redstone heritage events are no longer a concern.
Photo 8 illustrates a possible location for what is referred to in this document as the “Castle Bridge” (points A to B in photo 8). If this bridge can be constructed, its length would be an estimated 150 feet. This location is about 3/4 mile south of the Redstone Bridge (see photo 9).
If one stands on the river’s edge at point A and looks east to point B, there is an upward angle of perhaps 10 degrees. This is probably too great an angle for a bridge. This 10 degree angle is illustrated above from point A to point B1.
However, if a road ramp is constructed from points C to A on the west bank, so that point A is raised to be level with the east bank at point B2, then a level bridge can be constructed across the river. If a notch were cut into the east bank at B to lower the east side of the bridge, then point A would also be lower, and thus the bridge itself would be lower. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 6 of 7
Public Safety Concerns While visualizing a possible Castle bridge location (photo 8), two public safety concerns became obvious for BOCC consideration. Photo 9 helps illustrate what is at stake. It is hoped Mr. Carver’s plans for Redstone Castle events are successful. In realizing that success, there would probably be significant traffic arriving and exiting Castle events. Passenger vehicles might include cars, shuttle vans, and perhaps tour buses. There would also be trucks and vans delivering event supplies.
A. Response Time for Emergency Vehicles How quickly can emergency vehicles arrive at the Castle (point D), after receiving a call for help? Fire and medical emergency personnel are stationed north on Redstone Boulevard about ½ mile above photo 9. If a Castle Bridge is built, responding emergency personnel have two possible routes: 1. Redstone Boulevard from point C to D 2. Highway 133 to B and over Castle Bridge to D. Both routes are about the same distance south from the Redstone Bridge. However, the section of Redstone Boulevard between points C and E is mostly single lane with some pull-outs for passing traffic. If there is traffic backup of vehicles — arriving or exiting an event — on this section of road, it could impede emergency vehicle arrival times for reaching the Castle at D. Thus, building a Castle bridge at B provides better emergency vehicle access to Castle events.
B. Driver Safety Exiting Events onto Highway 133 As people leave Castle events, they arrive at either point A or B to access Highway 133. Driver visibility to the north for seeing oncoming “highway speed” traffic driving south is about the same distance for both points A and B. However, driver visibility to the south for seeing oncoming traffic diving north is much better and a greater distance at point B, because point A is just after a curve. Thus, building a Castle bridge at B provides better driver safety — for both drivers exiting events and oncoming drivers heading north on Highway 133. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners September 27, 2017 PETITION: Request help preserving Redstone’s annual heritage events Page 7 of 7
Our specific request of the Pitkin County BOCC: If Mr. Carver intends to use Redstone Boulevard through the Redstone Inn Parking Lot for access to Castle events, then we request Mr. Carver provide legally binding guarantees to: 1. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, 2. Redstone Community Association, and 3. Redstone Art Foundation, that there will be blackout dates of Castle events for the three Redstone traditional community events described in this letter. If Mr. Carver provides such guarantees, then he will help preserve our heritage. If not, these community events may be in jeopardy of being reduced or eliminated.
However, if Mr. Carver decides to build a bridge (photo 8) from Highway 133 over the Crystal River directly to his Castle property – and not use Redstone Boulevard through the Redstone Inn Parking Lot, then one would anticipate the Redstone community would support this better solution. A “Castle Bridge” solution preserves our Redstone heritage events for future generations to enjoy and cherish.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing Mr. Carver’s plans for preserving these Redstone community’s traditions and heritage at the BOOC’s September 27, 2017 meeting.
Thank you, Roger Olson & Margaret Inman-Olson 1 Chair Mountain Drive — 970-704-0546 Redstone, Colorado, since 2003
Michael Kraemer
Fwd: New Redstone Castle property regulations 1 message
Sandy Ray
Pitkin County Commissioners RE: Rezoning of The Redstone Castle
As former residents of the Roaring Fork family since 1971, my wife and I have always loved the Crystal River Valley and the quaintness of Redstone. The history and unique character of the "Redstone Castle" have always been an insightful and picturesque vision of the past in that area. While we understand that some of the planned improvements to the Castle are necessary to extend its future, we object to what we understand are overcapitalization of the planned uses by the new owner. After reviewing what was approved at the Flying Dog Ranch which we understand has similar uses to those planned for the Castle, it certainly is apparent that the ingress/egress to that facility on a County maintained road is far superior to that now in place for the Castle and with far less approved capacity than was is proposed by the new owner of the Castle. The access road between the Redstone Inn and the Castle is limited in terms of capacity at best and based on what the owner has expressed as to his desired capacity for his various venues, it is apparent that the only reasonable solution would be for a new bridge to be built from Highway 133 perpendicular to the Castle property.
Other concerns that should be addressed is the number of cars traveling north on 133 with drivers inebriated from the various events planned by the owner. Plucking cars and victims from the Crystal River due to over capacity at these events will become a sober reminder of the planning errors should this development/zoning plan be approved with the current overly aggressive uses that the owner desires. If this plan is approved as the owner desires, greed will have won over proper planning and a reasonable approach to the future of this area. Please take this email into consideration when deciding on this issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
John and Sandra Ray 10572 Mossrock Run Littleton , CO 80125
4 June 2018
To: Pitkin County B.O.CC Ref: Redstone 2016 LLC Application
Many neighbors of the Redstone Castle are united in one common goal--the restriction of special events at the Redstone Castle in regards to noise, traffic, and the impact on a small mountain community. I am writing on behalf of the neighbors who have no voice--the wildlife. The large mammals in our valley, elk, deer, and bighorn sheep, have calving periods in the spring months. The Castle property and the conservation easement parcels are important areas for these animals to replenish themselves before giving birth, and hence are essential to the continuance and health of the herds. The following sources confirm the importance of this:
(1) The Redstone Master Plan Chapter 2 : Goals and Objectives, Page 4 Goal: Protect wildlife and preserve wildlife habitat areas for the benefit of wildlife, residents, and visitors. Objective: Utilize existing mapping and Colorado Division of Wildlife field surveys to steer future development from occuring in existing and/or potential wildlife habitat Areas. Chapter 3: Future Land Use Plan, Page 15 The majority of the Castle property is designated as Resource Conservation (RC). This land….contains valuable deer and elk habitat. The existing RS-30 zoning within the RC portion….should be maintained. Development is discouraged in this area….
(2) Kevin Wright, Retired District Wildlife Manager of Carbondale and Aspen Districts “ It is important that the Castle try to minimize disturbance to wildlife, especially during the more sensitive periods.”
(3) Eric Petterson, previous District Wildlife Biologist with U.S. Forest Service in Colorado, Current environmental consultant “The proposed venues at the Castle property would create impacts that extend to neighboring habitats well outside of the bounds of the property.”
In contrast to the directives of the Redstone Master Plan, and the above experts, is the report of the applicant’s paid Wildlife Ecologist, Jonathan Lowsky, who wrote in his report: “ It is unlikely that special event held in the locations...will have substantial effects on wildlife…” and “ There are no federally listed threatened, endangered plant or animal species know to occur on the parcels, nor is there critical habitat for any federally listed species.” and, ironically “An active peregrine falcon eyrie (i.e. nesting site) occurs on the cliffs across the valley more Than 0.7 miles from the Redstone Castle.”
Mr. Lowsky failed to cite the 2017 USDA Forest Service Report on Rocky Mountain (R2) Sensitive Species Evaluation: “The Peregrine Falcon is currently listed as imperiled in the state of Colorado. At peak abundance, there are less than 200 breeding pairs in the state. Low population size infers continued potential vulnerability. The Peregrine Falcon is vulnerable to human disturbances, especially around nest sites. Efforts to restrict activity in the known habitat should be made during nesting season. THe population is small enough that environmental disturbances could result in further population declines.”
The July 2017 Crystal River Trail Preliminary Wildlife Analysis Wilderness Workshop cites an active peregrine Falcon nesting area in the cliffs above Crystal River Park neighborhood, located directly across Highway 133 form the Redstone Castle. This study specifically states The following Wildlife Standard:
“ Discourage land use practices and development that adversely alter the character of Peregrine Falcon hunting habitat or prey base within 10 miles of the nest site and the immediate habitats within one mile of the nesting cliff.” and “According to Jerry Craig, the former CDOW Raptor Biologist, eggs are lain as early as April 15, youn hatch mid to late May, and fledge mid to late June. So, the most important nesting period would be April 15-June 30. This does not include courtship or post-fledging use of the area.”
Obviously, this is in direct contrast to Mr. Lowsky’s paid report. In order to protect this state imperiled raptor, human noise and activity must be restricted during these sensitive periods.
The reality of “Co-Extinction” or the so-called “Domino Effect” of species is well documented. When one species becomes extinct in an area, it affects all other plant and animal species. Please restrict the number of venues allowed on the Castle property, as well the evening hours that the events take place, which is when the wildlife is most active. In addition, please limit the noise levels of the venues so that the Castle neighbors, both animal AND human, can flourish In our small mountain community.
Respectfully yours, Jane E Reed Resident of Crystal River Park, home of the Peregrine Falcon
Tamara W. Shirk 11 Chair Mountain Drive Redstone, CO 81623 970-963-1098 [email protected]
June 5, 2018
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners 123 Emma Road Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Redstone Castle Land Use Application
Dear Commissioners Clapper, Richards, Poschman, Child, and Newman:
The Redstone Castle LLC Master Plan states that property will only be open from May to October, which ironically are the months when surrounding residents are outside enjoying the peaceful sounds that are provided by living in the Crystal River Valley. Neighbors are sitting on their decks, have their windows open, enjoying nature. It is when the wildlife are giving birth. Please don’t allow the Carvers’ plans to destroy everything for which we have worked hard all our lives. Many of us had the opportunity to purchase property in Redstone, because we chose not to be around noise and congestion, choosing instead to live where it is quiet and peaceful. The Carvers’ property rights are no more important than mine or my neighbors. The adverse effects of the Special Events Venue are very real, and involve issues such as traffic, parking, inebriated drivers, lack of law enforcement, inadequate ingress and egress, wildlife habitat intrusion, and noise. I would like to address some of these concerns regarding the Redstone Castle application. Special Events Venue In 1998/99, the Flying Dog Ranch first submitted documents for Event Venue Status, and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended to the BOCC that they not approve the application due to disruption to neighbors and wildlife. The BOCC approved the application anyway, but added restrictions. The Flying Dog Ranch’s event venue is reviewed annually by the BOCC. Following their first year of operation, the restrictions were relaxed due to no complaints being filed. However, the restrictions have never been changed since that time. Redstone Castle events should be treated no differently. Michael Kraemer’s staff recommendations memo to the BOCC dated August 23, 2017, stated on page 9 and 11 that if parameters are established to limit the size and scale of the Special Events Venue, and create conditions of approval to mitigate potential impacts, compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods can be achieved. Special Events Venue status should not be a part of Village Lodge Zoning nor a part of the Redstone Castle’s Master Plan. Instead, Special Events Venue status should be granted by permit, and restrictions should be placed on the events similar to those imposed on Flying Dog Ranch. An annual review is necessary, and in this way restrictions can be changed as the impact of these events is determined. The events should start out heavily restricted and eased up if there are no issues or complaints. This has worked well for the Flying Dog Ranch and will as well for the Redstone Castle. Parking for Castle event participants should be prohibited in town, on Highway 133 or in Elk Park. Redstone has limited parking for its tourists and events, and can become extremely congested during these times. Events with more than 50 guests or any event where alcohol is served, should require shuttle service. Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners June 5, 2018
The applicant does not want restrictions placed on events for non-profit organizations. Because no parameters are stated, non-profit organizations can be from anywhere in the world, and their events could potentially be any size and any frequency. Please limit the size and frequency of these events unless these organizations are local and not being charged for the use property. Traffic The traffic and congestion from the number of persons and vehicles Mr. Carver has submitted will only cause issues for our small hamlet of Redstone. The intersection of Highway 133 and the South entrance to Redstone plus the intersection of Redstone Boulevard and Redstone Castle Boulevard will be a traffic jam. Consider on a Friday or Saturday evening when the 50 + vehicles are leaving the Castle, wedding guests are leaving the Inn, people attending Music in the Park or other events in town are leaving as well. The line of cars will be backed up on the Boulevard as well as down Redstone Castle Boulevard. Turning north onto Highway 133 is tenuous at best. The line of site to the south down 133 is very short and vehicles are going 50 to 75 miles per hour. This should be a trigger requiring a bridge to be built before the Events begin. Emergency Access Emergency vehicles will be unable to respond quickly because of the size of the Castle access road. Several pull-outs will be inadequate with a line of cars leaving an event should an emergency vehicle need access. Where are the vehicles between the pull- outs going in order to make room for a fire engine or ambulance? An emergency access plan via Lovers Lane with guests on an ATV has been proposed. This is an inadequate plan for emergencies for several reasons. Guests to a property of this stature expect reasonable emergency egress and care. Emergency vehicles will be unable to respond quickly and if someone were to die or be permanently impaired because of this, their families will be looking for someone to blame. Because it has been recommended that a bridge should be built, not only would the Redstone Castle LLC be sued, but also the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners for refusing to require a bridge to be built. Alleviating traffic congestion and allowing quicker responses for emergency vehicles are triggers requiring a bridge to be built now. Wildfire danger is a reality and Castle guests would have no way of escape without a reasonable emergency exit. The quicker a wildfire can be attended to, the less chance of it spreading. When our “tinderbox” of a canyon ignites, access for firefighters will be essential, and is another trigger requiring a bridge to be built now.
In closing, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners is responsible not only to ensure that business and development thrive and obey the regulations, but to protect property rights of all residents as well as businesses. Please consider all these impacts of as if you owned a beautiful piece of rural property surrounding the Redstone Castle. Please limit and restrict the Special Events and require that an access bridge to the Redstone Castle property be constructed over the Crystal River.
Regards,
Tamara Shirk
2
Daniel A. Shirk 11 Chair Mountain Drive Redstone, CO 81623 970-963-1098 [email protected]
June 5, 2018
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners 123 Emma Road Suite 106 Basalt, CO 81621
Re: Redstone Castle Land Use Application
Dear Commissioners Clapper, Richards, Poschman, Child, and Newman:
As a resident of Redstone and Pitkin County I would like to share my concerns regarding the proposed activities at the Redstone Castle. I live in Crystal River Park, a small residential community directly across the Crystal River from the Castle. I chose to live in this scenic, picturesque valley to enjoy the serenity, and peace and quiet of the Colorado mountain lifestyle. Redstone is a sleepy, little town without the traffic, congestion and noise of larger towns and cities. Mr. Carver, the present owner of the Castle, is proposing the use of the Castle property to include weddings and special event that will feature live acoustic and amplified music, as well as the noise generated by D.J.s and their public address systems. In addition, weddings are to be accompanied by amplified singers at the tent sites. The goal of the Redstone Castle Master Plan is to provide for up to 6 amplified events per week between the hours of 9 am and 9:30 pm for 6 months of operation. These amplified events are to be conducted both inside and outside on the Castle grounds. Noise pollution is my major concern. The noise standard set forth by the Pitkin County Ordinance is 50 to 55 decibles. An exception allows for ten minutes every hour to exceed this standard. I had the opportunity to accompany Tom Dunlap, author of the of the noise ordinance, on a thorough sound test conducted at the Castle and surrounding neighborhoods. Tom’s decibel meter measured 100 decibles at Mr. Carver’s car stereo, the source of the music. Tom then took various meter readings on the Castle grounds, at the river and across the river to determine the D.B. levels. Some levels were minimal, others were inaudible. One particular measurement at the edge of the Castle property was drowned out by the sound of the river. However, the couple living in the adjacent house said they had been listening to “that infernal” music all morning. So while the D.B. meter didn’t register the noise, the people living there clearly heard it. But the test is skewed. I do not profess to be a sound engineer, but I am a professional musician. I have performed at numerous venues and events including weddings throughout by career. I have never played at or attended any event that used a car stereo for a P.A. system. Small, 6 inch speakers in no way put out the same volume and frequencies as 15 inch subwoofers used in professional sound systems. Admittedly, sound tests vary. Atmospheric conditions such as wind, temperature, and humidity can affect the way sound travels. Noise can travel across the river valley given the right conditions. Crystal River Park sits at the base of the cliff, northwest of the Castle. This cliff acts as a natural amphitheater Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners June 5, 2018 reverberating sound coming from across the river. When conditions are right, we can hear people talking in the neighborhood across the river, adjacent to the Castle property. On more than one occasion, we have heard noise project from across the river from amplified sources – iPhone or microphone – that prompted my neighbors to drive across the bridge into the Redstone Ranch Acres neighborhood and put a stop to it! In the quiet of the evening is when sound travels the most. Typically, one only hears the river and the birds as the sun sets and we settle into the peace and quiet of the approaching night. But, throw in incessant pounding of the bass drum and the throbbing drone of the deep bass and our serenity is lost. And if this is allowed to continue until 9:30 pm, the quiet evening is ruined by the revelry at the Castle. Limits and restrictions must be imposed on the proposed plans of the Castle Master Plan. Are we residents of Crystal River Park, Redstone, and Pitkin County to give up our peaceful life to accommodate this business venture that intrudes on our quiet? How will all this commotion enhance the historic value of the Castle or the town of Redstone? What of the wildlife in whose neighborhood we live? I ask you, the County Commissioners, to consider the far reaching consequences of the unfettered proposal of the Castle Master Plan. Start with restraint to see how this plan unfolds. Limit the number and duration of events, then we can determine the effect it all has on our community. Regards,
Dan Shirk
2