Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Flying Dog topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flying Dog Ranch West land‑use amendment continued to Sept. 10 after commissioners and applicant narrow options
Summary
Commissioners continued a major amendment and activity‑envelope review for Flying Dog Ranch West to Sept. 10 after the applicant and board coalesced around a provisional compromise on maximum replacement‑house size, retention of the historic cabin, and a multi‑year vesting window for new approval language.
Pitkin County commissioners continued consideration of a major amendment, activity‑envelope review and a request for a long‑term vested property right for Flying Dog Ranch West to a Sept. 10 hearing after a lengthy Aug. 13 discussion. The board and property owners (Richard and Lydia McIntyre) negotiated a compromise that staff will translate into a revised draft resolution for the board to consider.
What the application seeks: The owners asked for an activity envelope covering the ranch headquarters, an amendment to the 2012 historic incentives and an extended (10‑year) vested property right. The property is 224 acres and entirely encumbered by a conservation easement held by Aspen Valley Land Trust; three existing principal dwellings and several historic agricultural buildings sit within a headquarters footprint along Prince Creek Road.
Key points of disagreement: The central technical question was how to treat floor‑area entitlements on the headquarters parcel — staff relied on the county’s GMQS (growth‑management quota system) code, finding that the parcel already contains approved floor area exceeding the GMQS base maximum (5,750 sq ft) and therefore does not qualify for an additional GMQS exemption. The applicants proposed alternate interpretations and sought a larger replacement main residence while preserving the recently built addition to the historic north cabin.
Provisional compromise: During the meeting the applicant proposed and the board directed staff to draft a revised decision that (a) limits the replacement main house size, (b) preserves the historic north cabin and its non‑historic addition on site, and (c) sets a multi‑year vesting term shorter than the applicant’s original 10‑year request. The parties agreed to continue and bring back a clean resolution spelling out the agreed terms. Staff and the applicant agreed to a Sept. 10, 2025 continuation for final action.
Why the board continued: Commissioners said they needed precise, legally vetted language that protects the county’s growth‑management rules while recognizing the property’s long conservation history and the owners’ desire for marketable development rights. The board directed staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the compromise reached in public session and to return on Sept. 10 with a clean draft for vote.
What’s next: Staff will return Sept. 10 with a revised resolution and activity‑envelope plat reflecting the agreed compromise; the remaining legal, floodplain and geotechnical site constraints will be reviewed at site‑plan stage if commissioners approve the amendment.
