HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Roaring Fork Railroad #3.38A-86 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
- c "'��' r City of Aspen "A39-073- ce -&'73
DATE RECEIVED COMPL4TE: ST ' STAFF: � o �
l
PROJECT NAME: . 1.t L { 1/ l : ? F I 4' 1 , . :'.. qel. -
APPLICANT:
Appl icant Address /Phone:
REPRESENTATIVE: 1 _� , I
Representative Address/Phone :siDWlargr sterna f /7I
1
Type of Application:
5 6951
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00
2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
II. Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission / 14 $1,900.00
2. Preliminary Plat 9 ,20700
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.00
IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 680.00
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1 . Minor Appl ications 2 $ 50.00
2. Major Applications / 5 $ 125.00
Referral Fees -
Engineering
Minor Applications 80.00
Major Applications/ 200.00
u,.
P &Z CC MEETING DATE: S 4 a PUBLIC HEARING: YES 4
DATE REFERRED: 7 - . C INITIALS • _
REFERRALS:
✓ City Atty 7 Consol. S.D. School District
✓ City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
. Housing Dir. Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
✓ Aspen Water Holy Cross Electric StateHwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning /Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. te Fire Chief Other:
Roaring Fork Transit Roaring Fork Energy Center
( FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED : 5 : ,57 X INITIAL .
City Atty City Engineer Building Dept.
I
Other: Other:
l /lA /arr
CAS E'DISPOSIT ION : G5O ia,F( Cura� n; JP1
Reviewed by: P &Z) City Council
P.- cairp, L) (,zat 0 - i U , � i' ii t l c C 6F ) „,4,„ i1? b
, - _ W u� i.7 ✓� flip L'; �-�, Fa�L -�� 1) IL ptecAP - 0 .
Rev low cr< ^y: Aspen PO City CounciiD
1. CD,* [ i ce'+' fu f Wlwv'Vl h - tfl 6 0421/44% f U Jo, 1;
11 6� a ry
T. . 1 - 10 Y t J � w a �:�� e �- c 07 ,1..- t a,�,�i (a tac );
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
0 - 100 Leaves
RESOLUTION NO. 40
(Series of 1986)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROARING FORK RAILROAD PROPOSAL SPA
0
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 20, Series of 1985, the
Roaring Fork Railroad (hereinafter "Applicant ") did submit a
proposal for the Development of a portion of the Rio Grande
property and Rio Grande right -of -way; and
WHEREAS, aspects of the development proposal include re-
establishment of rail on the Rio Grande right -of -way from Woody
Creek to Aspen (Rio Grande site), terminal building, platform,
baggage handling, parking and trackage on the Rio Grande site;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (herein-
after "Commission") did hold public meetings on September 2 and
9, 1986, to consider the applicant's proposal to develop on the
City -owned Rio Grande site and utilize the City -owned Shapery
property, each of which have SPA Overlays, as well as the City -
owned Creektree open space, and did recommend City Council to
grant conceptual approval for the proposal in Planning Commission
Resolution 86 -10; and
WHEREAS, the City Council (hereinafter "Council ") is aware
of this proposal's potential impact on Pitkin County and has
expressed concern about the proposal's impact outside the
Council's jurisdiction; and
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
- - - -- 100 Leaves
WHEREAS, the Council supports the idea of a joint review
between the City and the County for both Precise SPA and 1041
Special Review, which review process will include joint meetings
between both City and County Planning and Zoning Commission and
between City Council and Board of County Commissioners pursuant
to the following meeting format:
o Meetings will be held at a mutually agreed upon time
and place,
o Staff will present separate memorandums which identify
City specific and County specific concerns,
o The applicant will address both City and County
concerns at the joint meetings,
o Due to the public hearing needs of Precise SPA and 1041
Special Review, all joint meetings will be public
hearings,
o Once the information needs of Precise SPA and 1041
Special Review have been addressed at the joint
meetings, the City and County bodies will separate and
consider the Railroad proposal separately, and
o - These joint meetings will occur first with the two
Planning and Zoning Commission and then with the City
Council and Board of County Commissioners.
WHEREAS, the Council has stated that final approval of this
proposal by this Council will be contingent upon the applicant's
ability to successfully mitigate impacts to the satisfaction of
Pitkin County (i.e., wildlife, neighborhood impact's, Hallam
Lake); and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its deliberations, the Council
concurred with the following conceptual findings made by the
l 2
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves •
Commission:
1. The Roaring Fork Railroad is a compatible and appropri-
ate transportation use on the Rio Grande site and may
provide the community not only with a desireable travel
mode between Aspen and Denver, but also may provide an
alternative transportation corridor to State Highway 82
in the Valley. The Rio Grande site was purchased with
transportation funds and planned to be used for
transportation purposes. The Commission realizes that
the Roaring Fork Railroad concept is inconsistent with
the 1973 Land Use Plan; however, the Commission is in
the process of updating the Aspen Area General Plan,
1966 and will resolve inconsistencies witn past plans
and reports (transportation, land use, etc.). The
Commission is therefore prepared to authorize further
study of the issues identified below. The Commission
recognizes however, that precise plan approval can only
be granted if the impacts of the project are mitigated
and the concerns of the community can be addressed.
2. to the application of the Growth findings respect
(` System to the project:
a) The development of the terminal, while it may have
a commercial aspect, represents an essential
community service which can be best judged through
review as an exemption from competition pursuant
to Section 24- 11.2(e) of the Municipal Code,
particularly if the terminal is used not only for
the railroad, but also for other essential
transportation purposes, as identified in the
community's ongoing transportation planning
program.
b) Given the language of Section 24- 11.2(e), the
Council directs the staff to evaluate the criter-
ion that to be eligible for an exemption a project
must be a "not -for- profit venture" and to explore
alternative criteria which may accomplish the
community's objectives.
c) As required by Section 24- 11.2(e), in order to
obtain an essential community facilities exemp-
tion, the applicant will be required to demon-
strate that the project has fully mitigated its
direct growth impacts, and identify secondary
3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
effects.
d) In addition to the requirements established by
Section 24- 11.2(e), the Council finds that in
order to be eligible for an exemption from the
quota system, the Roaring Fork Railroad station
components should be scored by stair and P &Z under
the provisions of the Commercial Development Quota
System to determine whether or not it meets the
competition thresholds contained therein. Should
the project not meet said thresholds, it shall not
be eligible for an exemption.
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by City
Council on October 14, which was continued to October 27 and
November 10, December 3 and December 8, 1986 to review the
Roaring Fork Railroad Proposal and Council did pass a motion
granting conceptual SPA approval subject to conditions stated
below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado, grant conceptual SPA approval to the. Roaring Fork
Railroad proposal, subject to the following conditions:
1. A study shall be submitted analyzing the RFR proposal's
potential for reducing vehicular traffic on State
Highway 82 including Main Street if train service
terminates at the Rio Grande.
2. The applicant shall submit as part of the Precise SPA
plan a minimum- maximum commuter rail service operating
plan including capital and operating costs, sta-
tion /park and ride locations, time schedules, fare
schedule, projected ridership, proposed operating
entity needed RFTA subsidy, availability of commuter
rail vehicles and other pertinent information which
will assist the City, County and RFTA in determining
the value of commuter rail service.
3. The applicant shall submit as part of the Precise SPA
plan a transportation study of the combined impacts of
4
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
O - -` 100 Leaves
the RFR proposal and proposed City uses for the Rio
Grande Site. This study shall include impacts on
streets and intersections surrounding the site and
traffic impacts on Cemetery Lane. Impacts on the
Trueman property parking lot and Puppy Smith Street
shall be specifically addressed. How circulation and
baggage will be handled on the Rio Grande site shall
also be detailed.
4. The applicant and staff will identify what land use
options will be displaced by the Roaring Fork Railroad
proposal on the Rio Grande site, including the Shapery
Property, Creek Tree Subdivision, and Rio Grande right-
of-way.
5. The Precise SPA plan shalt include an economic feasibi-
lity study including disclosure of the current and
proposed RFR capital, operating costs and other
pertinent information for the purpose of evaluating the
applicant's ability to construct and operate this
proposal. Included in this study will be an economic
analysis justifying the need for an 18 car train and an
update of the status of agreements with entities
) outside of Pitkin County (D.& R. G., Union Pacific,
Stapleton Airport, proposed Denver International
Airport, Commercial Airlines, Amtrack and any other
entities involved in the Roaring Fork Railroad propo-
sal).
6. The applicant shall relocate the Rio Grande trail to
Council's approval.
7. The applicant shall, with the assistance of appropriate
public entities, estimate costs and propose pri-
vate /public cost sharing, which includes compensation
for use of public land, for all of the public improve-
ments, relocations and alterations associated with the
proposal including, but not limited to the sewer trunk
line, Rio Grande Trail, Snowdump, Impound Lot, Rio
Grande Playing Field and all other impacted utilities
to assist the City, County, RFTA and appropriate
• special districts in evaluating public expenses of the
project.
8. The applicant shall prepare an engineering study as
part of the Precise SPA plan of the effects of the rail
system on the sewer trunk line and methods of mitigat-
ing problems, if any, as acceptable to the Aspen
5
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS •
.� 100 Leaves
Consolidated Sanitation District.
9. The applicant shall work with all public and private
utility companies to develop an acceptable utilities
plan.
10. A drainage plan addressing all the improvements of this
proposal on the Rio Grande site, as acceptable to the
City Engineer, shall be submitted as part of the
Precise SPA Plan.
11. The following environmental studies and mitigation
plans shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Department as part of the Precise
SPA Plan:
a. A noise contour map along the right -of -way that
will illustrate the noise impacts on property
throughout the City for evaluation by the City.
b. Air pollution resulting from the combined effects
of trains (per operating plan) , transportation
uses associated with the railroad (taxi, limos,
buses), and uses on the Rio Grande site (parking).
c. Water pollution hazards both operational and
during the construction stage as discussed in Tom
Dunlop's August 18, 1986 memorandum.
d. Disruption of mine tailings and dumps.
e. Solid waste generation and management.
f. Impacts of vibrating (detailed information needs
to be determined by Tom Dunlop).
12. Identify legal, noise and air pollution impacts
associated with extending the Roaring Fork Railroad
track network onto the Creektree parcel.
•
13. The applicant shall submit, as part of the Precise SPA
Plan, a site plan, landscaping plan and building design
techniques to mitigate visual impacts of the develop-
ment.
14. The applicant shall submit a Stream Margin Review
application as part of the Precise SPA Plan for the
6
• RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
j -- �� - - - - � 100 Leaves
construction of roadbed, rails, trails and any other
improvements within 100 feet from the high water line
or within a flood hazard area in the City of Aspen.
15. The applicant shall investigate reducing the number
and length of tracks on the Rio Grande site.
16. The Applicant shall indicate how many employees will be
generated by this proposal and how employee housing
requirements will be addressed.
17. The applicant shall explore the potential for shared
use of the terminal structure facility, especially uses
which are part of the Rio Grande Plan.
18. The applicant shall submit an Emergency Response Plan
to the satisfaction of the Public Safety Board.
19. The applicant shall estimate what portion of the
train's passengers will stay in Snowmass and determine
how the Snowmass passengers and baggage will be brought
to Snowmass -- will they travel to the Rio Grande and
then utilize State Highway 82 through town to their
destination or will Snowmass passengers de -train at
Woody Creek and avoid travel through Aspen.
20. The applicant shall identify how the Roaring Fork
Railroad would deal with an airport shut -down due to
snow, showing ways to alleviate the problems caused by
temporary loss of airplane service to and from Aspen.
21. The applicant shall identify construction impacts and
develop a construction impacts mitigation plan which
shows timing /phasing of construction.
22. The applicant shall not represent the City of Aspen as
a partner in the RFR proposal.
23. The applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the
City Council, a detailed plan which addresses safety of
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles along the railroad
right -of -way. The applicant shall identify applicable
federal and state safety requirements affecting the
train operation within the City.
24. The applicant shall detail the fire hazard potential to
the landscape along the right -of -way and measures to
mitigate it. The applicant shall identify federal and
7
REOORD OF PROCEEDINGS
0 100 Leaves
state requirements related to fire safety along the
railroad right -of -way.
25. The applicant shall submit as part of the Precise Plan
package an improvements agreement providing commitments
to and financial guarantees for completion of the
project, completion of trail realignment and any other
improvements which are part of plan approval.
26. Should the RFR discontinues service between Aspen and
Denver or discontinues as a business, an agreement may
provide for:
a) Commitments to and financial guarantees for
restoration of the project area to its pre - project
condition, or
b) Transfer the fixed assets (tracks and stations) of
the RFR to the City at the option of the City
Council.
27. City electorate authorization for City Council to grant
Rio Grande right -of -way, Shapery property and Rio
0 Grande property for use by the Roaring Fork Railroad
shall expire if construction of the Railroad is not
commenced on or before January 1, 1992.
28. The applicant shall submit as part of Precise SPA a
study of impacts and mitigation of impacts for both
Hallam Lake and the Art Museum.
29. The applicant shall submit a complete Precise Plan
package addressing all conditions imposed and commit-
• ments made in the conceptual review, and address any
other information deemed necessary by the Planning and
Development Director as identified in a pre - application
conference to be held prior to submission of Precise
Plan.
Dated: /0-den . 1986
J%
William L. Stirling, Mayor
8
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CJ 100 Leaves
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting to be held
L�ivu,r/�
on the day of
1986.
c ZILr)lii e
Kathryn S Roc , City Clerk
TB.111
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager (�
FROM: Tom Baker and Steve Burstein, Planning Office Tw
RE: Conceptual SPA, Roaring Fork Railroad
DATE: December 4, 1986
SUMMARY: The staff recommends approval of City Council Resolution
No. 40, Series of 1986, Resolution of the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado Granting Conceptual Approval of the Roaring Fork Railroad
Proposal SPA.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At Council's December 3, 1986 Special
Meeting for the continued public hearing of the Conceptual SPA
Approval of the Roaring Fork Railroad, Council directed staff to
make a number of changes to the draft resolution and prepare a
final draft for Council approval at their December 8, 1986
regular meeting.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission met on
September 2, 1986 (regular meeting), September 9, 1986 (special
meeting) and September 23, 1986 (special meeting) to discuss the
Roaring Fork Railroad Proposal SPA. As a result of those meetings
the P &Z adopted Resolution No. 86 -10 recommending Conceptual
approval of the Roaring Fork Railroad Proposal SPA.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 6 for, 1 against.
RECOMMENDATION: The staft recommends Conceptual Approval of the
Roaring Fork Railroad SPA.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution 40, Series of 1986,
Resolution of the City Council of Aspen, Colorado Granting
Conceptual Approval of the Roaring Fork Railroad Proposal SPA.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
NOTE: Changes in the Resolution are indicated by bold for
additions and eress -eut for deletions.
tb. 33 8
AGENDA
Aspen City Council
December 3, 1986
5:00 p.m. Continued Public Hearing
Conceptual SPA - Roaring Fork Railroad
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager /yr-
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office (� n
Steve Burstein, Planning Office T��.
RE: Conceptual SPA, Roaring Fork Railroad
DATE: November 25, 1986
NOTE: Please bring your October 14, and November 10, 1986
packet material regarding the Roaring Fork Railroad.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At Council's November 10, 1986 continued
public hearing on Conceptual SPA Approval for Roaring Fork
Railroad, the Council reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission's
resolution recommending approval of the project. The Council
recommended a number of changes to the draft resolution. The
Council reviewed the resolution through Condition #5 and at that
point continued the public hearing to December 3, 1986.
BACKGROUND: Staff has responded to Council's recommendation by
revising the resolution (Attachment A) through Condition #5
(which is now Condition #6). Staff has done this to ensure that
Council has adequate time to review changes. Although staff has
revised the resolution through Condition #5, the staff anticipates
that Council will continue through the resolution (Conditions 6-
25) before reviewing any revisions.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: In addition to the conditions included in the
resolution, there is one possible condition (issue) which staff
originally suggested but P &Z rejected. Since this condition has
bearing on an issue which is being raised by members of the
public, we have chosen to address it at this time. In staff's
original memo to P &Z we included the following:
Train Service to Woody Creek or Airport - It is the staff's
' pi" view that the most significant potential benefit of train
service to Aspen is the potential for a second transportation
corridor in the Valley. Terminating train service at the
airport or Woody Creek would, in the staff's view, only
exacerbate the automobile related problems associated with
State Highway 82. The applicant should quantify the addi-
tional impacts to State Highway 82 which would be created by
terminating the train at the airport, Woody Creek or other
location Down Valley.
•
There are members of the public who have suggested that the
Roaring Fork Railroad should have its terminal at the Airport /ABC
Transportation Center concept does not work. Additionally, staff
is on record as identifying the commuter rail option as potentially
a significant community benefit. If the RFR terminal is at the
Airport /ABC we feel it is unlikely that commuter rail will be
available to the community, as the applicant will not agree to
extend the commuter rail beyond the Airport and the community
will be unable to finance this option itself.
The staff is aware that there are members of the public who do
not want the Rio Grande right -of -way put back into active trans-
portation service. The staff is also aware that the applicant
has brought forward a development proposal to bring train service
to the Rio Grande site, not the airport.
Currently, the staff's opinion is that terminating train service
at the Airport /ABC is of little value to the community (although
of value to the resort) for several reasons: first, it precludes
the realistic option of commuter rail and of a second transpor-
tation corridor in the valley; second, it uses State Highway 82
to transport passengers to and from the terminal; and third, the
Transportation Center concept does not work.
The Council and P &Z are in the process of information gathering
to determine the advantages and disadvantages of the R.F.R.
proposal. The analysis of this information will assist Council
and P &Z in deciding whether or not the current proposal will be
beneficial to the entire community. If, for example, we discover
that commuter rail is unworkable, then we may view Woody Creek as
a logical terminus for the Aspen to Denver train and trade off
the S.H. 82 impacts for the Rio Grande trail and site impacts.
The staff's concern is that we avoid the study of unrealistic
options which do not offer the most potential benefit to the
community and, therefore, only delay the analysis of the R.F.R.
proposal.
Regarding alternate alignment studies, the applicant has stated
several times that the R.F.R. is not interested in bringing
people to the Airport: their application is for bringing train
service into Aspen. If the Council feels some information about
terminating rail service outside of Aspen is necessary, then
staff recommends that the following condition be added to Council's
resolution: The applicant should quantify the additional impacts
to State Highway 82 which would be created by terminating the
train at the airport, Woody Creek or other location Down Valley.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
NC CO p — - • 14 IS
3 -f b g"S.
^
�_ —_ --_--'—__----_
^ fter these many weeks of s./e rhetoric and emotional is. over the railroad
debate, the issues involved have finally become clear to me. Aspen is a very
special place as is the rest of the valley we live in. One of the elements of
this community that we can be most proud of is the unanimity of resolve we havp
demonstrated to protect and maintain the character of our town and the
surrounding environment through 'growth management, zoning, sign controls,
` !historic preservation, etc. One of the greatest threats to this character over
the years, and the most difficult to deal with kas been the growing number of
automobiles with the conjestion and polution that accompanies them. The idea uf
1
the train has been a breath of fresh air to all of us that have longed for an
alternative to the dependence we have on the highway and automobiles. Lite the
-,m4.
ai� ort a rail terminal to connect our valley with the outside world should be
cheered on by all of us. However, like the airport, a rail terminal must
function as regional transportation center, where all means of travel-- air,
—,* ,° ,
railroad, light rail, and highway can be focused to then dispyrse the travelers
.
Hp
to 'Their final destination. The place for this very busy and conjps+ed place /s
certainly not the center of town. We finally have developed a focal point in
thO4 community away from the mountain" The open space toward the river has
g|Vin us a public area for art, culture` recreation, in every *ay an opportuni t/
for future to develop a balanced year-round community. Let's not blow it b/
ng a noisy, smelly, railroad terminal right in the middle of our most
s iMp,Hrtant open space. We need the railroad, but let's not sacrifice the
fragile character of this great little town to get it" I strongly urge everyone
a^t
J e for the railroad in the county election, and against it in the separate
.election. Let's take advantage of all of this terrific creative energy and
|
�
' the momentum going for an Aspen — Snowmass light rail system and a
ble down valley commun+er train that can work along with the new railroad,
� function together out of a properly located transportation center that
works for our whole valley community and not just part it. The train idea is a
great one, but the cost and environmental damage created by the last mile and a '
half of it is just not worth it. Tom Wells
_ ^auLi
\ Y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Baker, Planning Department
Steve Burstein, Planning Department
FROM: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer e`
DATE: December 3, 1986
RE: Railroad - Council Review of December 3
1. Item 6. Two trails: equestrain dirt trail and paved trail.
Since this item identification did not make the resolution, are
you going to generate a separate document of issue identifications
to use as a punch list?
2. Item 7. Similar comment to above. Additional issue
identifications," . alterations associated with the proposal
including . . ." - add Rio Grande Parking Lot and Spring Street
extension to list.
3. Item 8. I think applicant has valid concern re "final word"
of San. District. In recent electric undergrounding projects,
the City had to negotiate with San. District vis -a -vis their
"demands." As a checks and balances concern, applicant may need
to retain own sewer expert to negotiate with San. District. City
or County engineers or administration may become involved since
City and County issue easements and permits for right -of -way
activities.
4. Item 12. Should we have View Plane from Art Museum?
5. Item 20. Will construction activity impact the elementary
school (noise)? The electric undergrounding project had problems
with impacting school activities.
6. Item 23. Qualifications of applicant's consultants to make
comments relative to any particular elements of review.
7. Item 25. Help with constructing aesthetic floodwall at Art
Museum? This would be more visible from train than from Art
Museum.
8. Rail bus to discharge Snowmass employees at Woody Creek?
CR/co /Railroad
_.__.. .._.._._�_ __ _ _ ern !vim l T ... J T 'I ..i.
, ' JAN 2 8 1987
HOLLAND & HART ill
id C. OFFICE
DENVER OFFICE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 2900
555 SEVENTEENTH STREET 1875 EYE STREET, N. W.
DENVER,COLORADO 80202 800 EAST MAIN STREET WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20006
TELEPHONE 12021466 -7340
TELEPHONE 13031295-8000 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
T TELECOPIER 1202)466
TELECOPIER 13031295
TELEPHONE 1303) 925-3476
WYOMING OFFICE
MONTANA OFFICE
SUITE 500
SUITE 1400
175 NORTH 27TH STREET 2020 CAREY AVENUE
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101 CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82001
TELEPHONE 1408) 252 -2166 TELEPHONE (307) 6322160
TELECOPIER 1406) 252 -1609 TELECOPIER 1307)77B-13175
JAMEST. MORAN January 27, 1987 5 E. DENVER OFFICE
SUITE 1250
7887 EAST BELLEVIEW AVENUE
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
TELEPHONE 1303) 741 -1226
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
Myler, Stuller & Schwartz
106 South Mill Street, Suite #202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Roaring Fork Railroad
Dear Sandy:
We represent Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Josephson who own a house
in Pitkin Green. The Josephson's property fronts on Willoughby
Way; its rear yard abuts the old D &RGW right of way or Rio Grande
Trail. Their land used to be owned by Flavy Davis and sits
between the lots owned by Ray Lavender to the west and the Honor-
able Fitzhugh Scott, III to the east.
I understand that you represent the Roaring Fork Railroad
(RFR) which has applied to the county to lay track and operate
trains on the old D &RGW right of way. RFR has also applied to
the city to lay track and locate a passenger terminal on the Rio
Grande property owned by the City of Aspen.
The purpose of this letter is to let you and your clients
know that my clients, and others similarly impacted, intend to
vigorously oppose RFR's plans to operate trains on the Rio Grande
Trail. Mr. and Mrs. Josephson would not actively oppose railroad
service which terminates at Woody Creek or at Sardy Field.
We have studied City Council's Resolution No. 40, Series of
1986, and do not believe that RFR can satisfy the 29 conditions
attached to conceptual approval if those conditions are addressed
thoroughly and objectively. Our clients intend to see that such
is the case and will do what is necessary to test the validity of
the City and County review processes. This includes seeking
judicial review if that turns out to be necessary and appropri-
ate.
,
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
January 27, 1987
Page 2
In addition to the issues and impacts which were identified
in Resolution No. 40 (1986) and in the Baker and Burstein, Plan-
ning Office Memorandum to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission,
dated August 29, 1986, our clients in cooperation with other
affected citizens are investigating legal grounds for challenging
RFR's project. These include such questions as:
1. Whether adjoining landowners and other citizens had the
right to rely on local governments' representation that
the Rio Grande was acquired for, and restricted to,
non - vehicular public recreation uses?
2. Whether railroad operations on the Rio Grande Trail
would give rise to an action for damages on inverse
condemnation or related grounds?
We understand that RFR intends to seek public financing for
its railroad project. I am informed that Mr. Michael Sarsynski
of Thomson McKinnon Securities is a member of RFR's board and may
now be working on a prospectus or offering circular in RFR's
behalf. I don't know if the information that has been relayed to
me is accurate or not. However, it does seem to me that, if RFR
is going after public financing, the existence of substantial
public opposition having both the energy and resources to vigor-
ously oppose the RFR project is a material fact that ought to be
communicated to the prospective investor.
If you think that my clients' opposition to RFR is misplaced
or unenlightened, I'd be happy to hear your views.
Yours very truly,
James T. Moran
JTM /tli
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Josephson
W � Ii . ' • LLL,,,
-Ari
w A r9 � r� �/�y" tt b 12 174 4 or
b7'n)-A A'7 EA 4 � p
I ;kr
yM�, \iz f\�d+b — �� o
. mv_\,M1 \C s
21, (. Cyunt VI \Eli
) , d n pyU��
U J
I� Uat {c; Cr . Tvwr 1,14‘ n m � I ✓ }, P ev L (1
c ", 54 , tier:- � ) Z�h*+ 1 i1ti tan, Kt 0
Z• O�a� — � 0 7
L
°i d \; — " r 42 ,�,,� 7n,,, ?fa') �Guw — L S d ft,v; n PH i vh •
C 0 Ir rI - tv S / Od kJ
_ A ,r ac))
tiY \)
,y
pp��
15 b � jle�, f, (� 7 Mtn 4 / 8 . �N r i , h 1. �
-4- t4-42n 2 f c �P
LI, , ,v!- l4 i 7 " lc) s ^) 411
„tit c,c 14 e� 1 i J �z Pr' — IJ Ih a Oft;P,n C24iddiInn
P, I L c 4 .1.1
1 bitolS
— Ivw, P2). t t rr iL -c+i4 (n tilt _ A ( r_ )-
I
I2. 0 ( fbI kiv,r. . siviIr icy,*
'a
E {
W \ \\ c „\, h 10. e1/4 t� (Lin -1 ,1l ,, I I�clIA ti .,
J L-
1
- 1 - Y ii. 1A— 12 l i Vir l /1 sfyh.)' k I ' -- Iw o �r AA 5 1 (; w ble fy,
J
it e 0. 7 co, ,hL?
I
Vhvnl r 0 '��ti i v,, I rut r11, r � +e IitiV
1
.( i A h U
1Z , n -t .. "_s7 t k n 0 OA. AL. tic
\ LAnd Ilk &IL.— ce,. Z - nron(5 . . , e1, - I,1 rt{rtion
L ] r +i f� _ A p •
1 5. C rhf - J P)( -Q . — htt-(c % "_. if d ntT i i s ,�.�,u4,C,
I�
_c,� 'dZ kv I,,), (( bo v ,„ -bt Vir - 6Lr) Ilwn/'` .2,_t _
R. (v ril%m‘i fi 4)1 f � � p 1
6v''c"✓ ,� Al � lC�. � q q k � � � � 911111 �v✓;'w'T'v'�.,1M
,
i O^ i •1 ttt J
— 5N,kA curl i„ ii
I . 4 ;7 { { p
q r C 4} ,fit,, u'( ;^) G.. 3 y 4' 1 r p u 4
1 V�1
•
I E ^v;,,,jc (4;,, A?`�'� _ ,? A,/ �,,: ._ : ,: I n , '"N 7 bl : if
' 4Y ,^!k
J
I
2bOVD Guyl�__ M4,,A, rX -it ` L(CIA , I, 1 i,u- r- -. °��kV(,,a
j r r :IL 5miI: C ,A Wy TO Gm:keyr,n, 1D'a
I
1
PhNI.kie $)jj 40 h "_ fo
c v 1 j' „ I + i! v ' � , �1
If" (4 I .1, L I b b ? / j ' h i by y
■. - t 1p y 3w,',� I
1 ,111 SreAl,
F l� y
Whtu R„ Fv�r fif1, 1 11 1 I� J i fL�� '\_,
.
Cr. r^J,m4M _ f OOO ry i irrt
2 �ir1. 'hrv+, � d� 1�
‘„IQ r 0
Ir ( F+
t� r
r-e a ��c•— t vVc k
, 4 4 I n y1
4
4 1 — \Dvr4 .z_
i . A' } 1 \Au C h C o >¢ ( i a G',f'nA,L N r YjAm,,jj
1 1) A y r~). t7 p )0, c { . k „\,)
nr\ ltrdu‘ • +ho,
A LK4e7 - bo)
N
UiN19 r1, ., t
p J � V II 1
2 'iv the , 54h U -'L 75 rr. cd{ 1-10 r.; 1(
R °V C'npry SPrdr Lti 1614 0:v
' 3'‘Xl4' rAgANS (
CD e)tr
J,
+Y te)i : ) t j kb(
poi,
fi s + ✓" Q C� Mn I e ✓ 0+ f .
- - Y f)3 s i'i
tid �tif i JL iy ;I .
a21
-fit
L CII( \l On ; < ( u vvirlQ,11 n4 4,2-ut^ f 1( 'k 4 1 -, q .
11/1heckn J j ( )t i/rnuroz , L $13- 1.4,
24
1,V'ia -H\,t f kor f ,Y.
B
c I -tvlsi 151'1
is
1
o and 1, W r,nr Iryvra P t7
i
5 �Tril 1441
r, GY
11 (e 4 L4J &) nm
C04t -: 511tn to ?fed,
w Nn'r1 v V
H o 1 O ' C o/1 ±0
,(( — 1Y h Ic ha kL • ri 1. 1s y�vy i FP
1 ka f Li M dty� 5-4.""J „• Nom G7>v Al J
T� V1' �L'LU ' til rr» J r ir h I54 ,6� (-1 /1ii/%1 N i
Jro v�
C41
U [ �
Y1 twain A ) / 7 l nloJ ; i —1 (I, tot, cti ^a
Lou? is kai7Yil. n1 I
BALL\(�k ,
1 (n, - < ^ yy �, t 641 1 C t- ‘ 61 - ('��
0 JJ k � ''11
a to «fir, fs is° J- tciijtvra
' lJ40 Itii +4L .
t -k4 to fo . p .r y{r;.aM
h t c -e,j-tr (i p
f � 0 � q hT , � 'u�1 / � hJ�9�w v 1
I�ro ij�v+i "^�U� . � , �� ^ M �i ^rv '
G✓"iAr"Hj 67 4,np vv4 nysjr,
tJJ� S MI (v
1
e.�AA uvc, A. TO Fps( ut wl�ti ,r� " � d&I Q ) ')
FDIArK Chh'i\
5o hti 1:05 a b h
b
Ar
G ?C y k, id U n2. k MA.1( 1 /14f
(Aar p.e, — 5 , n (,e , / n.
1/1) ,�Mfl O ,v%G
yo
112 t r
r e { L 151N � d 7 f � � I
.14'. r, ni,Au
Tv Pall )uti.l ] r
15/0.4 4Nwh krLJ � .J I i ' 1 * 1 � (ili v7-I) *L, I ✓'
�er Icrl'V�iruis — �iC:>" kit3 1 4 "l)U kt/ T'`M.'
Ex; tv� Ls.. ok� 5 �� J�^�'� t in (✓ •lu� �,; J�
' iicpth
M 1- /; , ' 5 —It _ try 10)11;06cv/
0 '� l 47str4 \��, (.1 .H , v � �� '�' ti c .1 4 -C �e2 tir„
G p ) o
D■ ■ws - , 11099r -4 1‘,* . cers3 , 5 f N Alf 1 „ 1' , TD9 1 : 5 0
i ;ri": f p. n '" /41J ' 5rtl..,trl��
(L (i(1Q,5n1;t01 +0 5rrtivw,......
— S �G.�t
f ig, Na n ) ,D't —
C)\ati n '` �» l
1 k Jt � - „ kw' U3'� — Oft M fI n G ,JPo �1h ��� v.
u
7 QY H11H ���;� .. ) , g4t1 fr y nm
r11\ t (Arj
LA heyhA M / ✓ rn`4N,wv+ 21: (oaf in f4fbs;i j avi / fr 6 rAi