2020/21 Aspen/Roaring Fork Thread

**gretch6364** · 08-25-2021, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by grskier

Not sure. It was probably going to be 2-2 last time, there is now a new commissioner in the mix and I'm guessing the one that recused herself last time will likely do the same this time, but I haven't talked to her this week about that. The P & Z approval and Staff recommendation against approval doesn't happen a ton, so I am not sure where this will land.

Wasn't trying to be nitpicky, Council usually refers to local village or city, while commissioners refers to county folk in CO....

Either way, it'll be a long one is my guess. I'd anticipate a presentation by Staff and by SkiCo being at least an hour.

Thanks for the insight GR. I know you were not being cagy or anything ;-)

**gretch6364** · 08-25-2021, 09:19 PM

I kind of fast forwarded through the meeting, but it seems like they never voted and now they want to do a tour of the area....hoping for before 9/8. One other takeaway for me at least...Ski Co privately owns 2/3rd of the land that is going to be the new Pandora area. They could easily stop BC skiers on the portion that is their land, right? Lastly, these commissioners appear to have a lot of....power.

**alpinevibes** · 08-26-2021, 08:36 AM

7hr meeting... yikes

Sounds like Mike gave them the beans!

**dcpnz** · 08-26-2021, 08:47 AM

I watched a lot of that meeting. Absolutely shocked how bad the commissioners are - I’m not saying vote one way or the other but I mean seriously just do your job with basic competence. The questions and comments clearly indicate they had not read the briefing packet. And how are we at this point without them already having done a site visit?

Also Steve saying to approve this I want to create a whole new zoning category, change the lift alignment, allow locals to skin up in pandoras, meddle with all your pass options and pricing, sterilize all your other land holdings, etc etc.🤯🤯. Dude - its a rezoning question, not a opening for a hostile takeover…

**gretch6364** · 08-26-2021, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by dcpnz

I watched a lot of that meeting. Absolutely shocked how bad the commissioners are - I’m not saying vote one way or the other but I mean seriously just do your job with basic competence. The questions and comments clearly indicate they had not read the briefing packet and how are we at this point without them already having done a site visit?

Yeah...the sudden idea that now it is time to do a site visit is crazy to me. The sad reality of the situation is that things are absolutely not going to stay the same. Mike laid it out pretty clear. Ski Co owns 2/3rds of this land and the right to develop 3 homes and 4 cabins.

They have ALLOWED people to ski on their privately held land up until now, but a Corporation has the obligation to its shareholders to utilize the assets that they hold. Assets that have been acquired with said shareholders money. If this commission says no on Pandora, we will no doubt get 3 mansions and 4 cabins up there with a couple hundred no trespass signs and likely a fence.

I fear the commissioners are too blind to see this and it sure sounds like this is not what Ski Co wants, but they can't just hold that asset idle forever.

**Percy Rideout** · 08-26-2021, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by gretch6364

Yeah...the sudden idea that now it is time to do a site visit is crazy to me. The sad reality of the situation is that things are absolutely not going to stay the same. Mike laid it out pretty clear. Ski Co owns 2/3rds of this land and the right to develop 3 homes and 4 cabins.

They have ALLOWED people to ski on their privately held land up until now, but a Corporation has the obligation to its shareholders to utilize the assets that they hold. Assets that have been acquired with said shareholders money. If this commission says no on Pandora, we will no doubt get 3 mansions and 4 cabins up there with a couple hundred no trespass signs and likely a fence.

I fear the commissioners are too blind to see this and it sure sounds like this is not what Ski Co wants, but they can't just hold that asset idle forever.

Mike Kaplan (Crown) with the nuclear option! I'm interested to see this one play out, and excited for the future editorials in the paper the next few weeks.

Call me crazy but the Crowns using the nuclear option was a little premature methinks. It was a threat...

So, SkiCO owns land up there. The land is zoned as rural and remote. What size residential structures are they allowed to build with that zoning?

How do you access these structures? Little Annies? I thought the whole re-zoning battle in the 90's was to keep Little Annie's from being loved to death...and keep residential development away from Ajax.

SkiCO wants it both ways apparently.

**gretch6364** · 08-26-2021, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Asspen

Mike Kaplan (Crown) with the nuclear option! I'm interested to see this one play out, and excited for the future editorials in the paper the next few weeks.

Call me crazy but the Crowns using the nuclear option was a little premature methinks. It was a threat...

It will be interesting for sure! I don't know the answers to some of your other questions, but the way Kaplan presented it was 3 houses under the current size limits within the county and 4 cabins at 1,000 sq ft each.

As for premature...couldn't they of voted last night to approve or deny? Wasn't that original plan? If you are at a meeting where the agenda includes a vote on the decision...how much longer do you wait to use the "nuclear" option? I know they pushed it and I honestly did not watch every minute of the meeting to know if that was apparent to Mike (that they were not going to vote) before he made the comment.

**dcpnz** · 08-26-2021, 09:21 AM

I didn’t see that bit of the meeting so no comment as to if it was delivered as a “threat”. I think the point trying to be made and that opponents (and BOCC?) are missing is that ski rec is actually a downzoning from a development perspective (which it undoubtedly is) and even moreso with concessions to limit ski rec buildings to patrol and lift only.

Begs question, which is really the crux of the rezoning, is how much more attractive to development are the next parcels further out when they become ski-in/ski-out. I haven’t researched enough to know who owns what, and what rights they have just that little bit farther out. Maybe (hopefully?/ surely should be) thats covered in the full BOCC briefing packet??

Edit: How ridiculous are the people who get up and say please vote no on this because I ski back there all the time and its awesome but I don’t want anyone else skiing there. Its not your secret little stash on public land dude - you are trespassing on private land and historically they’ve turned a blind eye.

**Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo** · 08-26-2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Asspen

So, SkiCO owns land up there. The land is zoned as rural and remote. What size residential structures are they allowed to build with that zoning?

How do you access these structures? Little Annies? I thought the whole re-zoning battle in the 90's was to keep Little Annie's from being loved to death...and keep residential development away from Ajax.

SkiCO wants it both ways apparently.

This is my take. I'm not sure how seriously the county should take their threat considering the nuts and bolts of building, maintaining and accessing private inholdings surrounded almost completely by public land, whose access is seasonal already at best and would probably require over the snow access across public land that is already subject to a separate leaseholders agreement. I think Pandora's should ultimately be approved, I think it will definitely open up requests from other landholders on Richmond ridge given what I know about some of the parcels back there unless they make some type of change to the zoning categories, and I think if it isn't approved the likelihood of SkiCo actually building and selling some mcmansions and cabins back there is pretty low, but definitely not zero. It will definitely be interesting to see how it all plays out.

**optics** · 08-26-2021, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Asspen

So, SkiCO owns land up there. The land is zoned as rural and remote. What size residential structures are they allowed to build with that zoning?.

Rumor mill info from an out of towner who has been hearing about this: 1,200 sqft max.

**gretch6364** · 08-26-2021, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by optics

Rumor mill info from an out of towner who has been hearing about this: 1,200 sqft max.

Is 100% of the land they own up there zoned as rural and remote?

**optics** · 08-26-2021, 02:31 PM

That I do not know.

**jummo** · 08-26-2021, 08:30 PM

While I'm personally in favor of Pandora's, it's surprising to see ASC go hardball.
Pitco BOC has a vastly overrated impression of themselves and it looks like they've been called out.
My guess is, it backfires on SkiCo and they'll deny it because of the perceived "threat".

jummo

**gretch6364** · 08-27-2021, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by optics

That I do not know.

Good details in the times today. 35 acres of the land are not under the rural zoning, so they could build three large houses on it, the the rest could have off grid 1,000 sqft cabins.

Looking like the opposition is really grabbing at climate change and setting an example for the world and industry, oh the wildfires and traffic and Aspens credibility, etc.

Ski Co should of promised to take out the couch lift as part of the plan so it is the same number of lifts on the hill or something. The gladding and forest cleanups sure seems like a good thing, but…oh the trees, the poor trees!

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Percy Rideout** · 08-27-2021, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by gretch6364

Good details in the times today. 35 acres of the land are not under the rural zoning, so they could build three large houses on it, the the rest could have off grid 1,000 sqft cabins.

Looking like the opposition is really grabbing at climate change and setting an example for the world and industry, oh the wildfires and traffic and Aspens credibility, etc.

Ski Co should of promised to take out the couch lift as part of the plan so it is the same number of lifts on the hill or something. The gladding and forest cleanups sure seems like a good thing, but…oh the trees, the poor trees!

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I also thought glading and forest cleanup was a good thing.....Until we watched "Fantastic Fungi" on Netflix.

Lots of "enviromentalists" wrote in the paper for support of pandoras as glading will clean up all the deadfall.

Lack of understanding of mycorrhizae association is the root problem here (big pun). We are underestimating the role fungi in ecology.

**gretch6364** · 08-27-2021, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Asspen

I also thought glading and forest cleanup was a good thing.....Until we watched "Fantastic Fungi" on Netflix.

Lots of "enviromentalists" wrote in the paper for support of pandoras as glading will clean up all the deadfall.

Lack of understanding of mycorrhizae association is the root problem here (big pun). We are underestimating the role fungi in ecology.

I have not seen that one, but will try to find when I get a chance.

The environmental outrage on this particular issue though, seems like just an excuse for people to be against the expansion. I get it, but where is the outrage on Aspen's composing program (or lack of) and construction waste issues?

I live in Basalt as most of you know and work in Aspen two days a week. Down here, we have compost buckets readily available for home use and much of our trash is separated at public events into recycling, compost and trash. And everyone can obviously buy planting soil and compost products from the PitCo dump for our gardens, etc. It seems like a much better use of energy then writing letters again this expansion.

Speaking of gardens, and this has its own thread...our zucchinis and cucumbers have been so late this year and not as productive as last season. I have noticed a lack of bees and want to put in a small hive for next season. Any of you have experience with such a thing? Just starting to research and watch videos, etc., but gonna put something together and imagine starting in the spring after last or close to last freeze will be best?

**dtown** · 08-27-2021, 09:57 AM

Gretch…I don’t live in the RFV so don’t know if they have these companies there but we have hives on our property, local bee keeper manages everything and kicks us back a little honey, he keeps the rest. Win win

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**Percy Rideout** · 08-27-2021, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by gretch6364

I have not seen that one, but will try to find when I get a chance.

The environmental outrage on this particular issue though, seems like just an excuse for people to be against the expansion. I get it, but where is the outrage on Aspen's composing program (or lack of) and construction waste issues?

I live in Basalt as most of you know and work in Aspen two days a week. Down here, we have compost buckets readily available for home use and much of our trash is separated at public events into recycling, compost and trash. And everyone can obviously buy planting soil and compost products from the PitCo dump for our gardens, etc. It seems like a much better use of energy then writing letters again this expansion.

Speaking of gardens, and this has its own thread...our zucchinis and cucumbers have been so late this year and not as productive as last season. I have noticed a lack of bees and want to put in a small hive for next season. Any of you have experience with such a thing? Just starting to research and watch videos, etc., but gonna put something together and imagine starting in the spring after last or close to last freeze will be best?

https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/r...-for-business/

"My hunch is ski area expansion is the more environmentally hazardous of the two possibilities, but it is more enticing to skiers. This is the premeditated diversion. Environmental responsibility is clearly not the priority. So, is this really a zero-sum plan coming from the self-proclaimed environmental stewards of the ski industry? Shockingly, the answer is undeniably “yes.”

I love Roger Marolt's articles.

**grskier** · 08-27-2021, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by gretch6364

I have not seen that one, but will try to find when I get a chance.

The environmental outrage on this particular issue though, seems like just an excuse for people to be against the expansion. I get it, but where is the outrage on Aspen's composing program (or lack of) and construction waste issues?

I live in Basalt as most of you know and work in Aspen two days a week. Down here, we have compost buckets readily available for home use and much of our trash is separated at public events into recycling, compost and trash. And everyone can obviously buy planting soil and compost products from the PitCo dump for our gardens, etc. It seems like a much better use of energy then writing letters again this expansion.

Speaking of gardens, and this has its own thread...our zucchinis and cucumbers have been so late this year and not as productive as last season. I have noticed a lack of bees and want to put in a small hive for next season. Any of you have experience with such a thing? Just starting to research and watch videos, etc., but gonna put something together and imagine starting in the spring after last or close to last freeze will be best?

You should visit the landfill and see all of the new programs going on. See what the rates are like and see what it changes.... it's evolved pretty significantly the last 10 years.

As for the zoning question, 35 acres are zoned AR-10, so, basically a house every 10 acres. The remaining is Rural and Remote. Which allows up to a 1000 sf cabin... if memory serves. I don't know the density off the top of my head.

**JaytaeMoney** · 08-27-2021, 12:05 PM

Roger thinks the terrain is lame, huh? I better not see him skiing it, then.

**gretch6364** · 08-30-2021, 07:49 PM

What travel length/wheel size do you all think works best for our trails around the valley (you can only have one mountain bike)? Does riding with kids change your mind?

Maybe a 5.5 (140mm) with 27.5” wheels? Also, is a carbon frame a terrible idea for someone just getting into the sport or used? If buying used, just take to a local shop to check out to confirm no cracks?

Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**funkendrenchman** · 08-30-2021, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by gretch6364

What travel length/wheel size do you all think works best for our trails around the valley (you can only have one mountain bike)? Does riding with kids change your mind?

Maybe a 5.5 (140mm) with 27.5” wheels? Also, is a carbon frame a terrible idea for someone just getting into the sport or used? If buying used, just take to a local shop to check out to confirm no cracks?

Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

29er. 150-160mm front travel can handle everything. I’ve had a 120, 140, and 160. If I could pick one, it’d be the 160mm. They pedal so well these days.

Don’t be afraid of carbon, but aluminum will save some money. I’d look at the Ripmo AF. Don’t bother taking it to a shop. Just look for cracks yourself.

**alpinevibes** · 08-31-2021, 08:12 AM

29er, 130-140mm

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

**JaytaeMoney** · 08-31-2021, 08:16 AM

Agreed. Get a carbon 29er with modern geo and you'll hook yourself into a nice expensive new hobby.

**gretch6364** · 08-31-2021, 08:33 AM

Thanks Mags. With the current supply situation around the world…is the bike community basically in the same situation? Order something now (if buying new) and get it in 6 months?

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums