Aspire Tours Site Plan at 11302 CR 190 West. Image courtesy of Board of Chaffee County Commissioners
With no shortage of public comments on Aspire Tours’ plan to develop a campground and outfitting facility on County Road 190, Chaffee County’s commissioners on Tuesday continued the hearing to their meeting on April 12.
At issue: An appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Aspire’s Limited Impact Review. The appeal was submitted Feb. 8 by attorney Tom Wagner of Anderson Law Group, representing adjacent property owners and the CR 190 Initiative group.
The arguments for and against the 44-acre proposal remained mostly as they have through the course of the lengthy approval process, with neighbors continuing their fight against potential noise, traffic and associated dust, fire danger and water impacts. There were numerous questions about shuttle van traffic and guests needing to travel off site for recreational activities and dining. In addition, Wagner said there were enough procedural and substantive flaws to cause the application to be denied or reconsidered.
Devin Castendyk, Ph.D., a hydrogeologist and neighbor who has installed and tested wells, said recent tests that were presented after the Planning Commission’s decision were inadequate. He questioned long-term yield and mineral concentrations, among other factors.
Concerned about nearby properties and whether guests would adhere to fire-safety practices, critics referred to the recent Marshall Fire in Boulder County as a cautionary tale. Other speakers talked about a neighborhood that would be forever changed. Ken Tiegs, who lives in the vicinity, said neighbors have been living with “peace and quiet and peace of mind” in the rural, riverside area, and that the county and its regulations have “ignored the very people they’re supposed to protect” while “seemingly bent over backwards to accommodate Aspire.”
Eric Stein, legal counsel for Aspire, presented the company’s plans for the site, which includes 10 campsites, five guest cabins and an employee cabin, rest station and outfitter barn, as well as a future owners’ residence. He contended the Planning Commission’s findings were correct, and that Aspire had satisfied remaining issues concerning water supply and quality.
Several people, many of them from outside the county, commented in favor of the proposal, including Jennifer Bartlett-Enriques of Lafayette. She described the project as adding value to the community and attracting “high-value, international” travelers.
Aspire will have the opportunity to once again address opponents’ concerns at the April 12 meeting.
Featured image: Board of Chaffee County Commissioners, 2019 Jan Wondra photo
A portion of Land Use Code 2.2.3 A is quoted in the P&Z’s Notice of Decision Findings for Aspire Tours:
“The intent of the Rural zone is to “allow agricultural uses of any kind and to promote development that enhances the agrarian and rural character of the County.”
But you need to read the LUC 2.2.3A in its entirety.
LUC 2.2.3 Rural A. Intent Statement: These lands consist of open range lands and agricultural lands that are the original root for the rural character of Chaffee County. The intent of the Rural zone is to allow agricultural uses of any kind and to promote development that enhances the agrarian and rural character of the County. These regulations are developed in a general way that encourages or produces compatibility between the numerous kinds of users in this zone. Development within this zone district should maintain agricultural resources; protect historic resources and mitigate impacts to visual resources; maintain natural resources including streams, floodplains and riparian corridors; protect wildlife habitat and corridors; protect irrigation systems; and allow for the continuance of the rural lifestyle.
P&Z selected a phase “uses of any kind” to support that the LUC 2.2.3 allows a campground in a rural zone (CR 190W).
In my opinion, Aspires’ commercial campground is incompatible with a rural zoned residential neighborhood.
In reference to LUC 2.2.3 A I would like to point out:
*A campground will not enhance the agrarian and rural character of the County.
*A campground does not produce compatibility between campers and homeowners.
*A campground with 12 structures will have negative visual impact
*A campground with 68 guests hanging out on the banks of the Arkansas River will have a negative riparian impact
*A campground will scare away the pronghorns & other wildlife
*A campground filled with tourist will ruin the rural lifestyle of this residential neighborhood
Just because BoCC believe the Land Use Code allows a commercial campground in a rural zone doesn’t mean they should approve it. I hope they are listening to the legitimate concerns of their community members.
I think this mentality of the county not caring about the residents and “bending over backwards” to accommodate the developers is completely true. It’s been happening in Smeltertown for years. Starting with the enormous cannabis growing facility in a residential neighborhood. Or covering a small wetland where the new hospital was built. Where you have a helipad with all the noise associated. Its a real shame what is happening to our area and the long time residents. Damian Buchholz