HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950906SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. He
requested roll call.
Present were: Councilmembers Marolt, Paulson, Richards, and
Waggaman.
MOORE PROPERTY TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Hayor Bennett asked, who will lead this tonight?
Glenn Horn stated, I will. What we are proposing for the agenda is
to allow the applicant to make their presentation on the
transportation issues that were discussed at our last meeting, and
what other issues they want to address that have not been
addressed, so far. Then, we will turn it over to our Planning
Department to go through their checklist, and then turn it over to
discuss some of the technical engineering issues. So, with that,
unless Council has some different ideas, that is how we will
proceed.
Hayor Bennett stated, that sounds like that schedule would fit the
airport reality.
Gideon Kaufman, attorney, representing applicant, stated, why don't
we just take a quick land use overview of the plan to bring you "up
to speed" with what we are doing, and then, we have Bob Feldsburg
here, who is going to make a presentation on transportation. He
will be available to answer any questions.
Glenn Horn stated, I want to begin by talking about this project,
running through the site plan, looking at land use considerations.
Bob will hit the transportation and I want to begin by addressing
some of the unique locational considerations that affect this site.
We feel that this may be one of the best sites that is left in the
entire Roaring Fork Valley for development, due to the fact that
you have utilities readily available, a transit system in place,
trails, you are near the public institutional facilities that are
in the neighborhood; the schools, the pool, the hospital. It is an
ideal situation which you can build the community around. What we
are trying to accomplish with this plan is to create a sense of
community on the Hoore Property in keeping with the spirit of the
Aspen Area Community Plan, taking advantage of these significant
locational considerations that affect this property. We are going
to link to the Aspen Highlands, and you can see in our plan how we
are trying to link this property to the Aspen Highlands as a
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
natural thing, as we are doing that through the transit system, as
well as the lift and trail system affecting this property.
Horn stated, let's take a look at this Existing Conditions Hap
first. (Referring to site plans.) This is the top of the hill, on
the other side of that hill it goes down to Castle Creek. The
Moore Property actually goes over the hill, down towards the Music
School. It is a big property, about 210 acres. You have Maroon
Creek Road running by here, and the schools. I think the thing
that strikes you most about this property, is that it has two
different types of vegetation on it and two different distinct
areas in respect to its land use characteristics. In the green
(referring to site plan) you've got the woods and the hillside, and
the heart of the Nordic System on this property, a nordic system
that has been there for almost 30 years. In the past ten years it
has been set by tracks, but for the most part, this Nordic System
has been there and used by the community for 30 years.
Horn continued stating, then, you have the Headows, down below,
which take the characteristics of the large meadow here. This was
a major consideration in developing a site plan on this property,
and that is the meadows and the preservation of the meadows. It
has been important to the neighbors and the Castle Haroon caucus,
and I think it was one of the driving forces in the development of
this plan; the presence of the Meadows, the Nordic System, the
relationship to Highlands and the schools. I think that with
respect to compatibility and neighborhood compatibility, one of the
driving factors which affects this site plan is Headowood and Aspen
Highlands. The idea of linking these meadows and eventually having
an open space and trails connection that goes all the way through
from the Marolt Property all the way over to the high school, is
one of the things that drove this plan, as well as planning for the
community and the State Highway Masterplan and the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Councilman Harolt asked, is there a development on the Castle Creek
side of the mountain?
Horn answered, not on this property. There are a couple of sites
that we contemplated on that may be suitable for development, but
we can't get access to them. There is nothing over there. For the
most part it is hillside and a couple of flat sites over by some
houses on the other side.
Horn continued stating, this wasn't the typical planning process
that we embarked on this property as compared to some of the other
2
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
properties I have worked on. When I began working with Tom,
Carolyn and Travis Moore, who are representing a partnership of the
Hoore family, there are a lot of other members of the family that
are out of town, that are looking at Tom to take care of this
problem and deal with the State issues associated with the
property. There is a burden on Tom, Carolyn and Travis, as the
local members of the family that are here, to deal with other
family members. This is significant problem, and Tom has been
trying to deal with it the best he can.
Horn stated, when we began the planning process, one of the things
that we started to do, as a prerequisite to our planning, was to
deal with the Nordic Trail System. How can you preserve a Nordic
Trail System on this property and still accomplish the goals that
the family has for the development of this site, which I said
before, is highly suitable for residential development. Another
consideration we had is how do you deal with the schools. Tom has
had a long relationship with the schools, as did his father, and
the entire Hoore family, in working with the schools to try to use
their land to help the schools satify their needs. The schools are
located on what used to be Hoore land. There are also some
problems with the schools that we have dealt with in respect to
transportation, dropping off children. We are trying to address
their needs for an athletic field. That was another prerequisite.
A further concern goes to the family's ties to the Aspen Valley
Ski Club. Tom was very involved in the ski club for many years,
the alpine end of the club. More recently, Tom and Travis have
been involved in the Nordic end. For years, Tom ran the alpine
racing functions associated with the Aspen Ski Club and it was this
link that gave him the idea, along with Jerry Hines, to pursue a
lift connection from the schools to Aspen Highlands. We have one
of the greatest racing hills anywhere at Thunderbowl and Smuggler.
The idea was, how could we create a facility that satisfies the
administrative and office needs of the Ski Club as well as the
children's needs for a training facility. That is what made this
idea of linking the schools and the Hoore Property at Highlands
with a lift. That's where it came from. These three things became
prerequisites in the planning process; the Nordic Trails, the lift,
and dealing with the school traffic circulation problem, as well as
their need for athletic fields in developing our site plan; an
unusual process, for sure.
Horn stated, from that, we developed this plan (referring to Site
Plan ~2). This is probably the fifth or sixth go-around on this
plan that we had in the public process. There must be 25 or 30
versions that we have been through with the family and the planning
3
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
team involved in this project. We had to deal with some
environmental considerations as we wanted to leave the Headows
alone if we could and force development into the trees and into a
kind of aspen-grove type setting. This site plan has a cluster of
affordable housing on the lower end of the site. This is the entry
curb, so, right before the big curb by Tom's mom's house is a
cluster of single-family detached affordable housing. Two more
clusters on the upper end of the high school, one of six or seven
homes, and another of six or seven homes. Single-family detached
affordable housing. Lots vary in size from 8,000 square feet to
20,000 square feet. There is a fourth pile of affordable housing
on the northern fringe of the trees here, all single-family
detached. A total of 31 single-family detached housing, all
fronting on these open meadows where we have a total 130 acres of
common open space on this property; a really significant amount of
open space that will be both active and passive recreation. Then,
you get into the upper area here where most of the free market
housing is located. On large lots, in the trees, you are looking
at lots that range in size from anywhere from an acre to six or
seven acres in size. In the woods here, but an interesting thing,
it has the amenitites of being in the rural parts of Pitkin County,
but yet, it is in the Aspen metro area and accessible to all these
services which I explained in the beginning of the presentation.
Host of these lots are on slopes that are characterized between 20
and 30 percent, some of the lots are on slopes over 30 percent. We
have avoided those areas with our building envelope. There were
issues that came up with respect to avalanche danger, they have
been addressed by the applicant's consultant, as well as the
State's geologist, and resolved. There is some free market single-
family housing in the meadows, there are four lots that are located
on the flatland adjacent to Glen Eagles at Aspen Highlands
Subdivision.
Mayor Bennett asked, do they access from Glen Eagles?
Horn stated, no, they are not accessed through Glen Eagles,
although we have the legal right to access that way, we did not,
because we felt it would be better to internalize our impacts and
be a good neighbor to the Aspen Highlands Subdivision. They do
back up onto the subdivision and there is a large strand of trees
that separate these lots from the neighborhood itself and the
street.
Hayor Bennett stated, just for reference, what is the road, Glen
Eagles?
4
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Horn answered, Glen Eagles is between the back line of these lots
(referring to Site Plan ~2), and the front line of these, right
here. There is a road through there, but it does not appear on
here.
Councilwoman Waggaman asked, where is the road?
Horn showed Councilwoman Waggaman on Site Plan ~3, another version.
The existing houses are along here, the other side of the road and
they double up at a certain point. The road bends. This
particular version was made right before our last meeting. There
are four lots on the west side of the road, and you have lots
double-loaded on this red. There is an affordable housing area
with a 200 foot passive park between the affordable housing.
That's the spot where people put their skis on to start on the
Nordic Trail.
Kaufman stated, that was a major concession that was made to the
neighborhood, both Headowood, which has legal rights, as well as
Aspen Highlands. As a compromise with the neighborhood we put in
our own road system so it would not add to the traffic on their
roads, even though we have the right to do that.
Horn stated, we had the opportunity to use those roads, we even
felt to be most in keeping with the spirit of the Aspen Area
Community Plan, it might be a good idea to go ahead and link
Highlands Subdivision and Headowood and this particular PUD, and
develop a neighborhood that is all connected through the road
system, because it fosters that idea of community. We found
through the process that that wasn't a good idea, so we abandoned
that idea.
Councilwoman Richards asked, they didn't want community?
Horn answered, no, I don't think they wanted people using their
road system and there was a fear it would intrude into their road
system. In pursuing that idea that we saw the connection here, on
this road, from the top of this subdivision, the south end of the
trees, that would connect through to the Aspen Highlands
development, and it would come out onto the Smuggler area below the
City water tank and link to the internal road system at Highlands.
It is our proposal that this road connection will be served through
a transit shuttle system to Aspen Highlands, a Dial A Ride System
for this project that will be utilized jointly by the Hoore PUD and
the Aspen Highlands Village Development so that they will be
connected and so that people can travel internally to Aspen
5
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Highlands without going out onto Maroon Creek Road. It will also
make for a faster pick-up for transit and create the opportunity
for some sort of shuttle system to loop through Highlands and also
come through the Moore PUD.
Councilman Paulson asked, is that year around?
Horn responded, that is the intent.
Horn stated, in the same corner as we are running the lift, which
will terminate by the tall oak brush stands that are southeast of
the high school, the ski club facility will be here. That is going
to be developed jointly with Highlands' interest. What we are
looking at is a training room, waxing room, a locker room, and
office space for the coaches. That is the general idea for that
building. Children can't take their skis on the bus, that is a
State law. One of the services that will be provided for this
facility is a place for children to store their skis, so parents
won't have to take the children to school with skis when they want
to ski here. We envision that the lifts at Highland, on the east
side of the mountain will run later in the day, and facilitate
training programs for children. Based on dicussions with the
schools there will be changes in the way they will do physical
education programs, so there can be skiing programs at the school
utilizing this lift. It will also serve as the center for the
Nordic children, who now wax their skis and change their clothes in
a bathroom or storage room.
Councilman Paulson asked, just a quick question about storage of
Nordic equipment. Is that being planned at all?
Tom Hoore responded, no, it won't be a storage facility, it might
be good for maybe for a snowmobile and other equipment necessary
for alpine programs; fencing, poles. It will be pretty good sized,
but we don't anticipate putting any storage.
Horn stated, one of the things, in these conceptual plans we are
working on, actually detailed plans for that facility, is to have
an outdoor area as part of that building where there can be events
associated with the Nordic Skiing. It might be barbecue, a
finished area for a race, so there can be a gathering at the end of
a Nordic event there. That is being worked into plans; Tom has
been working with the architects on that.
Horn stated, I'm going to move on from this plan as I have covered
some of the general ideas as quickly as possible. One other issue
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
I want to discuss is, consistency with the proposal with the
direction of the Aspen Area Community Plan. I'm not going to
discuss transportation, I'm going to save that for Bob. There are
some other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; first, this
goes back to the appendix, John, you remember, the appendix of the
plan identifies documents that comply to the Aspen Area Community
Plan. One of the documents is the State Highway 82 Corridor Plan.
We feel that we are consistent with that, and that plan recommends
a conceptual site plan much like this, with development on the
lower end and upper end and preservation of the meadows. The one
thing the re-occurs in every plan for this area is preservation of
the meadows. That creates the character of the site. It also
suggests that land use density should vary between 3 units per one
acre and 1 unit per two acres. The average density on this site is
1 unit per three acres, it is three times less dense than the
development in Headowood and the Aspen Highland Subdivision.
Horn continued stating, the Castle Maroon Plan. This really was
the quiding document and the most important planning document that
influenced this plan. The Moore PUD was submitted in June of 1993.
The Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted in January of that year.
From a year, to a year and a half, before January of 1993, there
were regularly scheduled meetings in the Castle Haroon neighborhood
of everyone that lived in those two valleys. Tom and Carolyn were
at every one of those meetings. The future of this property was
discussed at length as part of that process. Tom went to those
meetings because he understood the needs of the estate and the
needs to do something on this property, and sought to prepare a
plan that was consistent with the direction of the Castle Haroon
Plan. There were specific recommendations regarding the land use
and a very important recommendation with respect to transportation.
The plan set certain perimeters on transportation for the Castle
and Maroon valleys, particularly Maroon Creek Road. The
neighborhood did not want to see significant improvements to the
roadway that would increase the width of the road. They said, you
could make other improvements, turning lanes and things like that,
but they wanted to limit the amount of asphalt that was going to be
laid down in that valley, specifically to bike lanes, and those
sorts of transportation improvements. There was another part of
that plan that said that future development of this kind in the
valley should not occur until there was a phased improvement
program in place, for the improvements the Castle Maroon
intersection and the turning movements of cars in that valley. We
took the land use recommendations, as well as the transportation
improvement. We have laid out a land use plan that is consistent
with what the neighborhood anticipated seeing. Tom shared a
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
concept with them in the process of adopting the Castle Haroon
Plan.
Horn stated, the transportation; we feel we have put in place a
transportation package that meets the guidelines of the Castle
Maroon Plan and Bob is going to talk to you about that.
Horn staed, character; an important component of the Aspen Area
Community Plan. There are three considerations that set the
character. The character of the Headowood neighborhood, both the
housing in the meadows; character of Aspen Highlands; the character
of the meadows themselves; and then, the characteristics of the
heavily wooded area on the hillside. Those were the things that
drove the character of this plan.
Horn stated, with respects to growth, as we discussed at our last
meeting, the growth anticipated on this site is consistent with the
growth projections of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the State
Highway 82 Corridor Masterplan.
Horn continued stating, housing; we discussed that in the past. We
went through the whole thing about 60/40 and how that
interpretation was made. The point I want to make about housing
is, there have been other projects in this community that offered a
mix of free market housing and affordable housing. We are proud of
this particular plan in that there is no other plan in the Aspen
area that has ever been proposed in which you would have 31 single-
family detached housing units on open space like this. They are
not shoe-horned into a development where you have attached housing,
where you are in an area where the families are going to be
constrained. I think this is probably going to be one of the best
neighborhoods in Aspen area for a family to live in. I would like
to live in this development as someone who has a couple of
children, and is always running over to the school. Ail these
affordable housing units are located on the meadows so the children
can walk out from their houses directly across the meadows to the
schools. It is one of the strongest traits of this plan. Open
space and environment; I think the plan speaks for itself as to
what it has done with open space and we spent a lot of time
addressing the environmental concerns with regard to avalanche and
30 percent slopes which are the major environmental concerns.
Councilwoman Richards asked, can you make one thing clear for me?
After the playing fields, the recreation areas, how much of the
meadow will remain?
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Horn responded, let me show you so you can get a perspective of
that. (Horn showed the Council on Site Plan ~2).
Bob Feldsburg, transportation consultant, presented stating, this
project started without the benefit of us being involved back in
1993. We got involved because we were working on the Highlands
Project, and it was clear that the transportation issues were
intertwined and the overall picture needed to be dealt with from a
perspective of all the activity occurring out there. That's how we
got involved in this transportation planning process with this
project.
Feldsburg stated, as we got into it, it was clear that the issues
that we kept hearing from the neighborhoods focused a lot on the
intersection area itself, the Highway 82 Maroon Creek Castle Creek
Intersection Complex. It became obvious to us that there were a
lot of activities that were causing those issues. It wasn't one
particular activity that was out there. We've got the hospital,
we've got the County Health, we've got employee housing out there,
the ski area itself, and very importantly, the schools, who played
a major role in the transportation picture. We wanted to get a
better understanding of what the components of the problem were and
we took a couple of approaches to try to understand better what was
happening out there. One was a purely analytic approach. A very
intensive data collection program has begun and there are now
permanent traffic counters in the roadway at the Haroon Creek and
Castle Creek Intersection. 24 hours a day, 365 days out of the
year, we are counting vehicles. A very expensive data collection
program was undertaken, a lot of temporary portable counters were
used to get a better understanding what the various components of
the traffic were; school, ski area, Castle Creek Corridor.
Feldsburg stated, the other approach we took was pragmatic. We
went out there and we stood there and watched things operate, which
tells us a whole lot more than the analytical approaches that one
can take. There were video tapes made and sent to us at different
times, so we could see under different conditions how things were
functioning.
Feldsburg contined stating, I'm not going to bore you with a lot of
detailed numbers, but we should probably set the stage a little
bit. With the assistance of graphics, Feldsburg stated, this
represents the composition of traffic on Maroon Creek Road at the
Highway 82 intersection on a typical week day. We have done this
on weekends, we've done it for peak hours and I have some of that,
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
as well. It happened to be Harch 14, 1994, when we first started
getting continuous data. We have subsequently gone back and looked
at February and Harch data of the past year, and the same basic
trends are occurring. I think it is important to look at the
makeup. It was a shocker to us. This is on a daily basis, and
these percentages will change on a peak hour basis. On a daily
basis, what we have for traffic at the intersection is Castle Creek
Corridor traffic. It is not Maroon Creek traffic. It is pretty
much evenly split. School traffic, on a daily basis, is
representing 30 percent or one-third of the traffic. The rest of
the activity represents about a sixth. The school ought to be a
target for as many improvement programs as we possibly can, because
that is a big element of the traffic.
Feldsburg stated, if you look at it on a peak hour basis, this one
deals mostly with Haroon Creek itself (referring to graphic). The
point we are trying to emphasize here, this orange line represents
school traffic, it is traffic throughout the day on Haroon Creek
Road. You can see what happens with school traffic peaking in the
morning, dropping off, and then, peaking again in the afternoon.
The other traffic on Maroon Creek, mostly Highlands, its peaks a
little bit later in the morning, it is not nearly as dramatic a
peak, tends to be even throughout the day, peaks again in the
afteroon, then drops off later on in the day. You have this big
impact during peak periods, and again, it is that school influence,
which again tells us whatever we could be doing to try and either
spred that or mitigate that impact, we would be better off in terms
of operation.
Feldsburg stated, we took that information and we spred it into a
pie-chart. He showed on the graphic, stating, this is the morning
peak. We found that the morning peak is consistently higher than
the afternoon peak. The afternoon peak represents about 80 per
cent of the morning peak. You take this and you spred it and now
you see some changes over that daily pattern. Now Castle Creek is
representing about a third of the traffic in that intersection at
the morning peak and the school is representing over half of the
traffic. So, those two have flipped roles. Ail this other
activity on Haroon Creek is still representing about a sixth of
that peak traffic. Again, this kept triggering back to us, and why
a lot of the thought process that Glenn just talked about in terms
of school circulation and school programs to mitigate traffic were
put into the plan.
Feldsburg stated, the problems that we saw, they were practical
problems that we saw at that intersection. The left turn cues from
10
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Highway 82 onto Maroon Creek Road, there is a storage lane that at
times isn't long enough and traffic can cue into the through lane,
which means, the intersection is processing no downvalley traffic
because the left turners are cueing back and blocking it.
Feldsburg stated, the space between the two intersections, between
Castle Creek Intersection and Highway 82 Intersection of Maroon
Creek is 150 feet. The situation is such that there is no
capability for a vehicle turning left off of Highway 82, and then
wants to turn to Castle Creek to basically cue, or get out of the
way. It tends to block Maroon Creek traffic, particularly when the
weather is foul and people are afraid to drive on the shoulder
because of snow or mud conditions. Because of that spacing, we get
cues that are stopped at the signal leaving Haroon Creek Road in
the back past that intersection, which can also block the Castle
Creek Intersection, as well. And a poor right turn merge as you
are leaving, heading towards town from Haroon Creek Road onto
Highway 82. You are on a curve there, there is a substandard
acceleration lane as it exists today. It doesn't meet State
standards today. That, combined with the fact that it is on a
curve, and it appears to be even shorter than it actually is.
Feldsburg continued stating, on Haroon Creek at the school, the
problems that we observed are, all the activity was entering the
school with that lower entrance road, making left turns, and at the
same time they were competing with all the return school traffic
which was coming down the hill. They had to wait for themselves,
or the other parents, coming around to be able to make their left
turns. There is no room to make left turn storage areas there
today, so, people heading up the road towards Highlands or the
residential areas, basically can't get around those left turns and
the school bus activity.
Feldsburg stated, the next step was to look at the projections. We
felt we had a good understanding, at least, practically and
analytically, on the problems. We went through a standard process
of trying to project what the traffic generation for this project
would be. We are basically talking about 285 trips a day in and
out of the Hoore Property from the residential aspects of this
project. About 25 to 30 in the peak hours. Those are the kinds of
numbers we are dealing with. We have put them in a perspective of
what are the long-term projections in that corridor with other
activity that is going to occur. This composite here represents,
assuming that the Moore Property goes in, and assuming that Aspen
Highlands Village goes in, as well. You see a pie-chart similar to
the other one. First thing I want to caution you about is this
11
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
happens to be the same size as the one I showed you before, but
they are not really the same size. That is probably a graphical
error on our part, but the fact of the matter is this pie should be
10 to 15 percent greater. There will be an increase, and we have
said that throughout, if we combine all these activities in the
corridor, it is about a 10 to 15 percent increase in overall
traffic.
Feldsburg continued stating, if you look at the compone of the
Hoore Property, this happens to be morning peak hour, again, we are
talking about 25 to 30 vehicles per hour. It represents 2 percent
of the pie. On a daily basis, the Hoore Property represents 3
percent of the pie. We are talking about a very small increment
from the Hoore property itself. If we take the entire pie and we
apply it to the operations that are out there, we find that with
that 10 to 15 percent increase the intersection stays within the
level of service. It doesn't mean that it doesn't change, it will
get slightly worse because there will be an increase in traffic,
but it doesn't degrade to the point of changing to a lower level of
service over what exists today.
Feldsburg stated, keeping that in mind, there were two components
to the plan that we tried to deal with. The first one was, reduce
that traffic demand. You can always deal with these things from
two sides, one is the supply side, and we can always build more
roads and add more lanes and always buy more buses. The other
approach is the demand side. If we can reduce the demand we don't
have to worry about any of the improvements to increase that supply
as much and sometimes it is a much more palatable and acceptable
approach anyway. We tried to attack it from both sides. The
demand side, we talked about the transit. Glenn talked about the
fact that there is an internal roadway system that allows us to
integrate a demand-responsive transit service that could be
combined with the Highlands project, and provide for very
convenient, internal transit circulation. A very convenient
demand-responsive service. The other element is a commitment to
participate in enhancing the transit service in the Haroon Creek
Corridor, bus stop improvements that Glenn outlined in the plan
that would make it more convenient for people to utilize transit
service along Haroon Creek Road and a commitment to expanding that
service to fifteen minute type headways during those peak periods.
I think it is much more appealing than the half hour experience
that historically has been out there.
12
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Feldsburg stated, the school circulation pattern, which not only
addresses the demand side, but some of those traffic impact
problems we talked about. The ski storage facility, so that we
don't have people having to drive just because they have to bring
skis, it is a very common problem.
Feldsburg stated, from the physical side, supply side, we had to
recognize that those decisions on the wall behind you (referring to
the EIS drawing) are yet to be forthcoming. I think progress is
being made, but at the same time we have to recognize that those
are not immediate decisions, they haven't been made yet. We think
that any solution to that, we should be participating in, as it
relates to this particular intersection, and needs to be part of
whatever that decision is. Our objective was, what can we do in
the meantime; relatively short term inprovements, relatively
inexpensive, to address these problems that are out there today.
We recognize today that it isn't something that would preclude
whatever decisions are made in the Entrance to Aspen process.
Still, there are these responsibilities to try to do something in a
short term, immediate process.
Feldsburg stated, keeping in the spirit of the Haroon Castle Plan,
we looked at what kind of improvements we could be doing here and
along Maroon Creek Road to improve those situations.
Feldsburg stated, on Haroon Creek, the school circulation plan,
completely revised so that we have eliminated that left turn
inbound conflict with all those people returning coming back
downhill. There won't be conflicting traffic anymore with a
revised circulation plan that Glenn showed you.
Feldsburg stated, we made commitments to do the minor windings
necessary to get left turn storage lanes at those entrances so that
left turn vehicles are out of the through lane and not blocking
traffic. Hore importantly, out of place so they can safely sit to
make their left turn movement.
Feldsburg continued, what we have tried to do is look at the issues
that were the biggest problems today, operational.
Feldsburg stated, the left turn, coming from town, Highway 82 and
Maroon Creek-Castle Creek. The left turn, coming from town, we
have extended, we have doubled the length of that left turn storage
lanes, and that is based on some peak numbers that we looked at
through some videos that were taken for us. We have extended this
left turn lane to about 450 ft. We will have storage to
13
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
accommodate both our existing and our projected peak hour numbers,
without it blocking that through lane heading downvalley. That
also brings it up to State Highway Department standards in terms of
the tapers and that sort of thing.
The other elements that we have as part of the Highway 82 basic
improvements; this right turn lane. Right now it comes in and
tapers in right on the curb. We have extended that to twice its
current length, as well, about 450 ft. with the proper design
taper.
We have done a little bit of extension on this right turn lane,
simply to bring it up to State standards, about 200 feet, and then
the taper.
Feldsburg showed by graphics where they were going to provide
sufficient width, so there could be a left turn lane to make the
movement into Castle Creek and a lane continuing on to Highlands.
To do that we do some widening in the south side of the
intersection.
It is just a cleaning up of this so there are specific lanes for
turning movements to be made and not blocking through traffic, and
making it clearer to motorists.
One of the elements of our program has been to go ahead and put in
a "smart signal". It is a fully activated traffic signal, so if we
made these lanes and improvements, it is constantly adjusting it,
and it is all done through a $5,000 traffic intersection
controller. It used to cost $30,000, but now it costs $5,000.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, if we wait four or five more years it
will only cost $1,000.
Feldsburg stated, to do that is not cheap for the whole
intersection because by the time we talk about the equipment
upgrades and the controllers, we are probably talking in the range
of $80,000.
In terms of financial commitments, the Hoore's have committed to
$350,000 towards these, and other transportation improvements. I
think combined with the Highlands project, it brings commitment to
about 1.3 million dollars to be applied to these and to start up
"kick-off" improvements for whatever decision comes out of the EIS
process.
14
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Horn added, there is an additional financial element to that. It
is the circulation improvements at the school. A lot of those
improvements take place on the Moore Property; the cost associated
with that is $475,000 to improve the traffic circulation at the
school to create a safe situation and adequate parking where people
are not parking in the drop-off lane.
Councilwoman Richards stated, the $350,000 is specific to the two
intersections and the $475,000 is specific to the schools?
Kaufman stated, it is not just turn elements, as anyone who has
been out to the schools knows, there is a real safety problem
between the cars. So we are going to have a campus where the
children get off the buses that is car free.
Councilwoman Richards stated, this project is doing a lot for the
school district and for the school campus. It would seem fair to
ask for some commitments back from the school districts, as well.
One of the things we talked about on the RFTA Board, at the
beginning of the school year, last year, that really never went
anywhere; that is you have a school bus waiting at the forest
service, and all the parents could drive their children up to the
campus, just drive them up to the forest service office, and one
bus leave the forest service office and go to the school. Rather
than, fifty or sixty parents and cars. If they really can't make
the bus, fine, let's accommodate that. Let's have one bus at the
forest service that leaves the forest service at 8:25 and it is a
drop-off point.
Hayor Bennett stated, what if we charge the "kids" to park their
own cars?
Councilwoman Richards stated, and a paid parking program for the
"kids" on the campus. I think that both of those two things would
be reasonable to ask back from the school district.
Horn stated, I can respond to that. We have had a lot of
discussions with the school in terms of what we can do. That idea
is similar to the idea of having the school bus at the airport
intercept lot, so that people can make the shift from one building
to another and get the children on the bus. The school is
interested in pursuing some ideas like that. They do have some
certain liability issues that they need to deal with in terms of
where they pick up the children and where they return the children.
The are open to exploring those sorts of options. We are willing
15
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
to be involved with the school to help explore those different
ideas.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I am trying to get beyond the
exploring phase on this. This was an exploring discussion a year
ago and it seems you are making very hard and fast commitments
of improvements to campus and housing and things like that, and it
should seem that there is a commitment back.
Horn stated, there are some political considerations we have to
deal with with the School Board. They have to decide, as an
elected body, what they are going to do. They seem open to
pursuing this. I think the intercept lot is a natural.
Feldsburg stated, that is pretty much it. In summary, we are
talking about the Moore Property representing 2 to 3 percent of the
total traffic through that intersection area. We have a plan that
attempts to minimize traffic through these programs we have been
talking about. It brings up the school program, and granted, this
is not a long term answer, but I think it is an approach that
spends reasonable amounts of money to produce some reasonable
benefits in the immediate future until some decisions come out of
the longer range planning process.
Councilwoman Richards asked, is there a price tag on this
intersection?
Feldsburg answered, there has been a price tag on that and it was
about $600,000, including the cost of the signal.
Councilwoman Richards stated, so, your contribution is $350,000,
and the Highlands Project is the balance on that?
Horn answered, it is a million three hundred or a million three
fifty.
Hayor Bennett asked, how does that get divided up?
Horn replied, there is $350,000 from the Hoore Project.
Hayor Bennett stated, I understand, but where does it get spent?
$600,000 or so is on this intersection?
Feldsburg stated, that I don't know.
16
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Horn stated, I think the commitment that I understand was that 1.3
million would take whatever it is to do this, and whatever monies
were left over would be starter monies to get the long-range plan
increment.
Horn stated, we got caught up a little bit in a predicament in
that, the Planning and Zoning Commission said, we want an
independent commitment to improving this intersection. Then, the
other side of it is, people are saying, it is only fair to ask for
your equitable fair share. So, we felt that we had done more than
our equitable fair share based upon these traffic impact figures
that you see, also in combination with what we are doing at the
schools to make circulation improvements. It doesn't get you all
the way there, but it gets you certainly more than our equitable
fair share.
Councilwoman Richards asked, there are two different terms used;
commitment to increasing the ongoing operations of the RFTA service
in that area, to increase it during peak times. What does that
mean, I mean, who pays for increased operations?
Feldsburg responded, the intent is that the applicants would be
paying for that service. The details of that, what has been
committed to in this project, as well as what the Highland Project
has, a detailed transit plan will be developed with RFTA at time of
detailed submission so it will be down to specifics and exact
routing and exact frequency and types of buses, and that sort of
thing.
Councilwoman Richards stated, but it is more than just a request to
RFTA to use the Pitkin County Transit Tax to take the service from
two to three. Where does the money come from?
Horn responded, it is covered in your resolution, as well as our
General Submission Resolution from the County. If there needs to
be a detailed transit plan that explains how the service is going
to be provided to serve this project, and who is going to pay for
it, we have to do that.
Kaufman stated, one of the things we should keep in mind is, that
one of the inefficiences that exist now; for example, we have one
bus that goes up Castle Creek that comes back and goes to Maroon
Creek. One of the things we have been talking to RFTA about is
bifurcating those, so someone is going to be more inclined to use
17
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
the bus if they are going from Highlands straight into town as
opposed to going to Highlands, out to Harolt, out to the hospital,
and all that, and have to come back in. That is part of the plan
that we are working on.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I think it is great to go that way, I
just know that RFTA budgets are so tight.
Horn stated, there is one other thing around those lines. Bob has
talked about how we represent a small percentage of what is going
on at the peak hour. We found that it might be better to attack
the school problem more than the traffic generated by the Hoore
Property because you can have a better success rate in looking at
how you can get people that are taking their children out there for
the quality time of the day. That is what we have heard back from
parents. The time they spend with the "kid" from their house to
school, in the car, in the morning, is the quality time of the day.
Stan Clauson of Community Development stated, I wonder if I could
take a minute or two to recall for the Council some of our
deliberations on that intersection. With the unique opportunity of
having Bob here, I think it could add a lot of value to the
discussion.
Clauson stated, the intersection that Bob has detailed would
provide for some overall assisting improvements, as well as the
mitigation to any more Highlands traffic. When we looked at this
initially, and looked at the cost of it, and this was some three or
four months ago, we thought that it would not be a signalized
intersection and no matter how smart a multi-faced controller is,
it stops the traffic for a period of time and does cause backing.
That is why we have additional storage lanes for turns, but one of
the problems is the backing up of traffic that occurs with the
stopping of traffic at these signalized intersections. We thought
that given the level of expenditure which was then thought to be
somewhere around $100,000, it might be worth a look at what a
roundabout would do for this intersection. To that end, we
explored with Lee Orston, the roundabout expert from Santa Barbara,
the possibility of doing a feasibility study when he came out here
and did some preliminary investigations. He made a proposal, and
that resulted in a request for proposals that was generated jointly
by the County and the City. That request for proposals came before
Council and BOCC in a joint session. It was decided after
reviewing it, that we would wait until after the charette to make a
final deterination about issuing it. At that time we were
18
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
operating under what was Alternative G, which showed a lightrail
corridor but showed it not in the center medium.
Clauson added stating, it was conceivable that you could have a
roundabout here and the lightrail off to the side. What the
charette designed, and it is behind you there, was a lightrail
corridor in the center medium, and they did that for various
reasons relating to particularly 7th and Hain and the Cemetery Lane
intersection, and then, it just stayed in the medium. Obviously,
there are alternatives, but the consequence of that was that the
roundabout no longer made such good sense if you had the transit in
the center medium. So, the intersections that they are showing,
which is in the insert below the Castle Creek Road Intersection and
the Maroon Creek Road Intersection, is a great separated
intersection with a little roundabout for the the Castle Creek-
Maroon Creek Intersection. Given that, if we are really onboard
with the grade separating, and that is kind of the final thought,
then, an interim improvement here makes sense. On the other hand,
we have never finely and firmly put to rest the concept of issuing
the feasibility study for a roundabout. I want to ask Bob if there
was value in considering even a temporary roundabout which might be
replaced by some more permanent construction as part of the Highway
82 RMS in lieu of a more advanced signal? That brings us up to
date in terms of the deliberations we had, and may put a final stop
on what we want to do.
Feldsburg stated, I'm not a roundabout expert, and I can't even say
I'm convinced yet to be an advocate. Assuming it would work, it
boils down to more of a bigger issue, and that is, a commitment to
the long term picture. If, in fact, we have kind of identified
something that is beginning to look like this, whether it looks
exactly like that or not, then your concern ought to be, spending
excess amounts of money for a temporary solution. I don't know
what the roundabout costs us, I know the one in Vail is running
about nine and a half, I'm pretty sure that is the current figure.
So, we are talking about two to three times the kinds of
expenditures we are talking about with these short term
improvements. That would be probably the biggest thing in the way,
in my mind. If we are making a million and a half, a two million
dollar investment, probably two million dollars in my mind, by the
time we are dealing through the State design process on a State
highway system, realities are that it should last more than three,
four or five years. That would be my sense to it, and that is all
assuming that we could design one that would work well with 20,000
19
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
cars a day on Highway 82, and 10,000 cars a day utilizing Haroon
Creek Road.
Councilwoman Richards stated, how much of the actual 82
Intersection would work with the different proposals that CDOT is
coming out with for 82? If they were to reject an Alternative H
and just be building what they intend to build, it seems an awful
lot of these improvements would fit in or would be retrofitted, and
I'm just really questioning who should be spending the money on
this intersection. It seems that CDOT should be.
Feldsburg stated, I think that is a good point, Rachel. I think,
as I recall, reading all those alternatives and how they basically
assume that creates signal lights at intersections at these
locations. So, these lights and improvements would typically be
implemented if they are going to bring it up to their own
standards. That is part of your answer. On the other side, I deal
in the real world everyday of trying to get improvements
implemented on State highway systems, and the fact of the matter
is, that way they are getting done, it is primarily through local
fundings. That is hard to bite, but that is reality. Any major
improvement that we have been involved in later, has a very high
percentage of local funding whether it a interchange, roadway
widening, or even safety improvements.
Mayor Bennett stated, the difference here is that CDOT, as you
know, is toward the end of a major EIS and is committed to
rebuilding interest. This is something they are already committed
to doing. Feldsburg stated, you use that word "committed" pretty
loosely. Mayor Bennett stated, I certainly grant that. Feldsburg
added, I think technically these kinds of improvements would
typically be included in your inspection improvement programs.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, the problem is, CDOT can take an
awfully long time before it brings its asphalt trucks up here.
Councilwoman Richards stated, this is probably something, Gideon,
you can't answer yet. Is the expected time lines of going through
the rest of the County process, when you will be doing leveling,
and starting to install water plumbing, when are people going to be
living in the houses? Even on a quick schedule, it seems you are
probably three years out before people live in houses.
Kaufman responded, our quick schedule is to start to put the
utilities and the road system in next summer. Then, you would have
people building houses there the following summer.
20
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hayor Bennett stated, that is still three years.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I'm just trying to think, when will
CDOT be happening at the same time.
Hayor Bennett again stated, that is three years until people start
moving into their houses.
Councilwoman Richards stated, this is just a total conjecture on my
part, but it seemed if we were out by a year, or 18 months, that
would probably be liveable for the community rather than expend the
money and have it have to go back and be redone.
Kaufman stated, Rachel, the only thing I need to point out to you
is, that in the Castle Maroon Plan, which is part of the Aspen Area
Community Plan, the requirment of that particular neighborhood and
caucus, is that these improvements be implemented before
construction begins. When the construction begins, it is not when
people are actually living there, it is the construction. That
plan anticipates when these improvements will be put in. It is
final approval as construction begins.
Councilwoman Richards stated, that term you used, phased
improvements to the intersection. I keep thinking, what if you
could get that 20 percent improvement with the school traffic in
advance of this, and then, the construction traffic and the school
traffic, basically, balance out.
Kaufman stated, our only problem is, we have control over a certain
phase, but we don't have control over the School Board. As you
look at the percent of increase the Hoore family generated to 2
percent in peak hours, and what we are proposing, it is greatly in
excess of that. There are obviously a lot of components. You have
a hospital out there, you have affordable housing, you have City
projects, as well as contemplating everything. There are a lot of
people that should be stepping up to the bat, but there is only one
or two that are doing that. We can only deal with what we can
control.
Hayor Bennett stated, there are some other things we think we can
do to this intersection we are already talking about. They will
cost a lot of money that might smooth it considerably.
21
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Tom Hoore stated, what we talked about before on the construction
schedule, if we can schedule, we can control this construction so
we will not have these major impacts at peak hours.
Hayor Bennett stated, that is an important point, it could make a
big difference.
John Worcester, City Attorney, stated, I have one quick question, I
think it has been answered, but I'm not quite sure and I want to be
sure that I understand this. It seems like your transportation
plan is tied to the Highlands Project, as it should be. Hy
question is, what happens if the Highlands Project is not approved?
These commitments, are they necessarily tied to the Highlands
Project and what will the commitments be if the Highlands Project
is not approved?
Horn answered, the program is set up in that we anticipate having a
certain level of service in respect to our mass transit, and we
anticipate doing that in conjunction with Aspen Highlands. Our
application is clear that we will provide the same levels of
transit service, independent of the Highlands Project if Highlands
doesn't occur. That has to be part of our detailed transit plan.
With respect to this intersection, as I said before, we can't
commit to independently resolve the issues of this intersection,
but we think we are doing more than our share.
Attorny Worcester stated, is is clear to say that you are
committing to ~350,000 worth of improvements whether Highlands is
approved or not?
Horn answered, yes, with respect to physical traffic related
improvement, but not necessarily transit.
Kaufman stated, while Bob is here, maybe we ought to focus any
other questions for him.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, not a question, but more of a
comment; this intersection is a festering wound to our community
and I think it is exciting, even the thought of getting some
remedial measures done will help us for now. I can really
visualize just the improvement in the merging lanes and whatever.
I don't have a question, I just probably don't have a background in
highway engineering to have a question. When we talk about putting
in money to do something ahead of time versus, yes, maybe we do
waste money in the long run, but in the short run, I think once
again, we are searching for ways to get some credibility with the
22
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
community and the community feeling that there is some reality that
everything isn't going to take twenty years. It is interesting to
try a roundabout, even that small one, because all I keep hearing
on roundabouts is, no one has tried them enough to see if they work
or not. Even using the small one would be a way to know whether
they are going to work or not.
Hayor Bennett stated, to say that nobody knows whether they work is
not really accurate. They are used all over the world, in the
Pacific, and all over Europe. They work very well on intersections
with much heavier volume than this. Obviously, they work. The
issue is, do they work in America, can American drivers somehow
navigate them. I'm more concerned about fitting all the pieces of
the puzzle together in a coherent whole. This is a million three
between you "guys" and Jerry Hines; what we are hearing is a
million three committed to transportation improvements here.
Hayor Bennett continued saying, I've said before, we have,
literally, literally, a once in a lifetime opportunity to do
something incredibly exciting for this valley that solves the
biggest problems that we have. I don't want to waste a million
"bucks" on something that is a three year quick fix, and then you
rip it out and build what you wanted. If we are going to rip it
out, I'm going to make sure we get the maximum for our "buck". It
is like to quote Everett Dirkson, a million here, a million there,
and pretty soon you are talking big money. It is of course talking
billions. For this whole town, I think millions will do. If this
is a million three that can go to the solution that the community
wants, we shouldn't waste it on something that is short term. I'm
not saying that this is wasting it, but I want to make sure that it
is not wasting it before I go building these particular
improvements. That is something we and the County are going to
have to decide down the line, and we are going to have to make
absolutely sure we leave ourselves the flexibility to make that
decision.
Kaufman stated, we are not contemplating the whole million three.
One of the things I want to make clear is that there is $500,000 or
$600,000 that is necessary to implement these. The balance of the
money will be utilized for whatever things that might come up.
There is still $700,000 or $800,000 in addition, that will be made
available. I just want to make sure that is understood.
Mayor Bennett stated, I do, and I thank you.
23
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Councilman Harolt stated, it appears to me that the school
represents 50 percent of the entire impact with regards to the
intersection. I guess my point is, we are trying to make a car
free downtown Aspen, which is an almost an impossibility. Haybe a
car free school campus would be a lot more practical and easier to
do than a car free downtown Aspen. With regard to inter-mobile
lots, etc., within the school system.
Horn stated, we spent a lot of time thinking about it. It gets to
the thing that Gideon is talking about, the problem is, we don't
have control over it. If I was the superintendent on the School
Board, I would say something like, honor roll students only drive
their cars. It is a tough one. The parents are a big part of it.
Councilman Harolt stated, it may not be so tough. If some more
figures that I have been digesting are true, over half of the
students at the school system are out of district students. That
tends to bring up another problem; whether or not the bulk of those
people can be rejected. They certainly should be willing to live
within some sort of guidelines to rule over their driving habits.
Kaufman stated, it gets very emotional. I have had, because of
this conversation with single parents and working parents, we
laugh. But to them, that really is 15, 20, 25 minutes where they
interact with their "kids" You are going to have a very hard time
having people give that up. It sounds silly, but I can tell you,
there is a lot of emotion that goes with the time someone has to
spend with their "kids", and it is not that easy just to tell them,
well, you drop your "kid" off over here.
Councilman Harolt stated, somehow, maybe this could turn into some
kind of a disciplinary situation for the schools; that they have to
play their role in civic affairs and become responsible for their
actions.
Mayor Bennett stated, I agree with you, Max, we don't always agree
on transportation, I agree 100 percent on this one. Bob, can you
recite the figure again, the peak hour of the school is what
percent? Feldsburg answered, it is about 53 percent or 54 percent,
the existing. Mayor Bennett stated, I want to say, Max, I
thoroughly agree with you on this one, and, as you said, if we
built an inter-mobile center here, and had a trolley system, for
example, running to Highlands with a stop at the school, it could
block off the roads that turn into the schools and landscape the
parking lots. There would never need to be another automobile up
there. Haybe, leave a delivery for the food trucks, and that is
24
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
it. Ultimately, I think that is exactly what we ought to be aiming
at; a car free campus.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, it will save the parents fifteen
minutes they can use with their child at night, maybe, or else it
will be so crowded they will have a half an hour quality time.
Councilman Harolt stated, I go out there and ride my bike at the
parking lot at the school and there are twenty buses lined up, and
parents are driving all over, with the buses. It just doesn't make
any sense.
Councilwoman Richards stated, what I am wondering is, whether we
can look at these two intersection improvements as you have
presented them, which I think represent the whole ball of wax, and
maybe prioritize them to say which ones would you do, for the
greatest bang for the buck. So, if we were trying to conserve some
of that money, but improve traffic flow, what would be the first
two things you would do, what would be the next two things you
would do, so that we can look at it. If there is any one number
that makes a 45 percent improvement, maybe we could hold off on the
others and prioritize that whole range of improvements that you
have there.
Feldsburg stated, I'm sure we could; I haven't tried to quantify
the benefits of each element in this plan, but I'm sure that one
could sit down and logically do that.
Hayor Bennett stated, the light is probably high on the list.
Feldsbury stated, the signal would be high on the list, and
extending the left turn lanes would be high on my list. I also
happen to think that the safety improvements up the Maroon Creek
Road, the school entrances, would be high on my list.
Councilman Harolt stated, on a temporary basis, whether or not
Hoore or Highlands is approved, we have to do this to this
intersection. I mean, regardless of what happens. That has to be
done at other intersections.
Clauson stated, it stikes me, what we have is a good proposal for
mitigation. Really, the issue is one of, could this mitigation be
provided all at once, immediately, as suggested in the Castle
Haroon Plan, or should some portion of it be deferred while
planning is going on as part of the Entrance to Aspen.
25
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Clauson continued, I feel, first of all, with respect to plan, it
is a plan, it is not a code. So, we would be consistent with the
plan in general, by saying, we could incrementally implement some
of these improvements. That is, target a few intersection
improvements that would immediately, in relatively low cost,
provide some mitigation and also, some general improvement for the
intersection. Defer the expenditure somewhat until it was clearer
how things were going with the drafting. It is a problem we had
with the Haroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge, as well, with the feeling
that we didn't want to waste any money, but on the other hand, we
had an immediate pressing problem that needed to be addressed. It
is a very similar issue, so if we could have that, I think staff
could work both on the City and County side, with the applicants.
Horn stated, I agree with what Stan is saying about, it is a plan
and not a code. The statement is very clear in the plan, that what
Stan is talking about can be done. It says, to phase improvements
to the corridor to coincide with growth pressures that are
anticipated in that corridor. I think what Rachel is talking about
and what Stan is talking about is something that can be done.
Haybe there is a trigger set up where an improvement goes in at a
certain point. In the event the ultimate solution is not reached
at a certain time, you go forward with some more improvements. I
think that is consistent with the direction of the Community Plan,
and we could probably take that back to the County and work
something out.
Hayor Bennett stated, it is a common sense approach.
Amy Margerum, City Manager, stated, we shouldn't forget, that
intersection is in the City. I would imagine the funds are not
going to go to the County Commissioners for a City intersection. I
don't know how the County is going to deal with that in their
approval process, but I imagine, City Council will see it again,
because the County can't make decisions on the intersection.
Haybe the funds should be in a City pot, and you all can decide who
you want to do that intersection.
Hayor Bennett stated, I have written that down in my list of issues
to go back to at the end of this whole discussion. It is a very
good question. We can't even make a decision without CDOT, so it
is going to take both the City and CDOT agreeing with whatever
happens.
Councilman Marolt stated, I wouldn't expect people to make a
presentation with regard to banning automobiles from the school; I
26
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
realize that would be murder. I would think that is something that
is thought out and taken care of within the City.
Councilwoman Richards stated, are the commitments to the
improvements to the school campus being made for School Board
support of the project or for just plain transportation mitigation?
I know there are benefits to the School Board, the affordable
housing elements and the campus traffic elements. You might not
have the true leverage to ask for a car free campus, but would they
be sympathetic, do you have some "ear" for what you are giving
them?
Kaufman answered stating, I think the answer to that is, that the
Moore family has had a long history with the school. The Moores
set out three criteria, preserving the meadow and school system and
fixing a park. So, we found this to be an opportunity for the
Hoores to be able to correct the problem that the school had. It
didn't have any strings attached, or anything, it came from the
heart; a desire on their part to solve a problem that they were in
the unique position to do.
Councilwoman Richards stated, it just seems there should be more of
a partnership, and what you are putting forward to help solve some
of the transportation problems, they could look forward to measures
on their own campus, to help solve them as well.
Councilwomen Waggaman, I want to support what Rachel is just
saying, because the Hoores have been so good to the schools, and
they have, and the Hoores are now being forced to do a tremendous
amount of traffic mitigation because the school has so much traffic
going out there. It sounds archaic, but it would seem a simple
courtesy on the part of the school, to try and do what they could
to help the Hoores mitigate the traffic situation.
Mayor Bennett stated, I agree with that, I want to help convince
them. I just want to point out a final thing, we are talking three
years before people move into their houses, and this EIS should be
done in five to six months, so, hopefully, hopefully, things won't
be as uncertain in six months as they are today. Should we move
onto other issues?
Kaufman stated, what I thought we would do now is go through the
resolution, using that as a format, since we have dealt with
transportation. Mayor Bennett asked, is that agreeable to staff?
27
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Staff answered affirmatively. Kaufman stated, should we just go
through paragraph by paragraph and raise the questions that we
have?
Brian Stowell stated, I am here to help generate some discussion
and some clarification from the water standpoint, and one of the
things we looked at, right off the bat, was that the reference was
to the Thomas Moore Property. Although Tom Moore is the lead agent
here and the one who has been responsible for communicating with
staff and City Council the actual reference is the James E. Moore
Family Limited Partnership. That was agreed to by the City
Council.
Stowell continued, again, after the airport clause, again, we have
reference to Tom Moore. One concern that I had here was that we
make sure that this resolution accomplishes what the Moore family
needs, which is, to allow this thing to go forward to detailed
submission. It was my understanding that the County was asking for
a resolution that would approve water service to the Moore
Property; not a water service agreement which I understand has to
come by ordinance later, but approved water service. The way that
this read it was a little more generic and less specific, it just
talked about substantial compliance with the City of Aspen Water
Policy as set forth in Resolution #5. Could we add in there, after
Resolution #5, Series of 1993, this language; "and, therefore,
agrees to extend water service to the James E. Moore Family Limited
Partnership Property, so long as all the following conditions are
met."
Attorney Worcester stated, I don't see any problem with that.
Stowell stated, on the next page, this first number one section,
seems to be a little bit outdated in that it is requesting a formal
water service extension application, which we have done. That has
now been pending before the City for approximately a year.
Cynthia Covell, Attorney at Law, accompanying City Attorney
Worcester stated, was that an application or was it an initial
request for service? Stowell responded, we have the request for
consideration.
Attorney Worcester stated, what we need to see is the revised
application.
Stowell stated, it is something that goes beyond just the technical
issues that you address?
28
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Attorney Worcester stated, that addresses the technical issues.
What we have is a plan that has some deficencies, and we have
negotiated those changes, but we need to see a plan that addresses
those, resubmitted.
Hayor Bennett asked, is this a technical plan, is that what you are
talking about?
Covell stated, so, are you proposing to say an amended application
for water service? Stowell stated, that is what I would propose
tonight.
Stowell stated, I think some of these have been pretty well
addressed the first time around as far as plans for security,
estimated engineering cost; no doubt has been raised since then, it
is probably just superfluous language, but if we use amended
application I think that will accomplish it.
There was legal discussion between Stowell and Attorneys Worcester,
Covell, regarding open space elements and general submission
issues. Kaufman stated, it is a difficult process, you know when
you go to detailed submission, there are going to be changes.
Mayor Bennett stated, if our Community Development Department and
our attorneys are happy with this, and I haven't heard any
objections from that side of the room.
There was discussion between Stowell and Attorneys Worcester and
Covell, and Phil Overeynder of City Water Department regarding
water issues. Easements, water service agreements and language,
water rights and tap fees were all discussed. Stan Clauson and
Leslie Lamont of Community Development also participated in the
detailed discussion. 2-D, 1990 Agreement and 2-E, 1990 Agreement
were discussed. Amy Margarum, City Manager, stated she felt the
language that was in the resolution was clear.
Hayor Bennett stated, why are doing this at this meeting? This is
a complete waste of the City Council's time. This is always, in
ten cases out of ten, worked out lawyer to lawyer before these
meetings take place. I would like to get on to the substantive
issues, and we can leave this to the end of the meeting or until
tomorrow, but frankly, I have to go soon, and I don't know about
other City Council members, but we have important, substantive
things to talk about rather than legal issues. I put up with this
in the beginning because I thought it was going to be a couple of
29
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
minutes, it seems to be growing and ongoing. I would like to move
on.
Councilman Paulson left the meeting at this point.
Stowell stated, the main concern is, John, that City Council is
prepared to enter into this resolution, and we wanted to make sure
that it was worded properly.
Hayor Bennett stated, I agree, but that should either happen before
and after this meeting, not at this meeting. It is important, but
we are sitting here like "bumps on a log" listening, and it is just
pointless to use all of our time.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, it is not that it is unimportant, but
it is not our expertise.
Horn stated, here is my feeling on design guidelines. I have
looked through them and we had an architect look at them who is
going to be designing the architectural covenants for the project,
and we don't have a problem taking these design guidelines and
incorporating the design guidelines we feel are affective in
dealing with this project into our architectural standards. What
really establishes the character for this development, both from a
land use configuration and design approach will be the Headowood
Subdivision and Aspen Highlands Subdivision. They are the adjacent
approved properties. I think that these guidelines may be
particularly affective in the meadows, down below. When you get up
into the trees, I have my doubts as to whether certain ones,
particularly the building orientation builds to the lines and
inflection will be particularly affective in the size of these lots
and the orientation of the property. That is my reading on the
design guidelines. What I would like you to do is authorize us to
work with the staff in developing architectural convenants for this
project that incorporate the design guidelines which we feel are
affective in addressing the character of development on the site.
That is my initial reading on how they would work out.
Clauson stated, staff has no objection to that. Hayor Bennett
stated, so, this is something you "guys" and our Community
Development Department can sit down and hammer out? Horn stated,
what I would like to do is hammer out with Stan and Leslie, and
should we hit an impass on something, obviously, we would go back
to the elected body to work it out. I think we can work this out.
30
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hayor Bennett stated, I think you can, too, and that is completely
reasonable to me.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I would just like to try and limit it
to the three items that you had suggested, Glenn, so we don't
overburden staff or yourselves. That would be the orientation, the
inflection, and build to lot line. Horn asked, what do you mean by
that. Councilwoman Richards replied, in terms of reviewing what of
Ordinance 30 should apply or not apply, you have just said that you
thought that the lower meadow, they would all work fine, that the
upper half, it is just those three items that seem to be of issue.
Horn stated, they are problematic. Councilwoman Richards stated,
I would just like to limit the discussion to those three at the
upper end.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, Rachel, I would not like to make that
judgement at this point. I think they probably need to look at it
more, but I do think the direction is to limit the amount of time
that staff has to take with it.
Horn stated, what I would like to do is have a proposal of what the
guidelines are going to be and staff could review it with us.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, another thing I would like to ask
that, for instance, the Haroon Creek Club standards were things
like, deep overhangs where you wouldn't get reflections, broken up
roof lines so they blend into the landscape. Those might need to
be rolled into your others, I think it would be good for you to
take a look at that.
Tom Hoore stated, I would like to stress flexibility, we don't want
to have something that doesn't fit up there. We want it to be
flexible enough to make it look good.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, Tom, I'm not trying to restrict you
in that way. These others look flexible, but look like some things
that were of value to you.
Mayor Bennett stated, I think we are in agreement.
Horn stated, the parking lot. You are talking about taking a look
at the parking lot locations. We are creating a lot of parking up
there with the school lots and what we were thinking is, maybe we
should get together with the school district and talk about these
lots that we are going to create and see whether we could take some
31
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
of the spots in the school district lots that we are building and
designate them for the use of the neighborhood as park and line
locations. I'm not sure if they are going to buy off on it, but we
will certainly go to that and see whether we can designate certain
spots for this concept.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, once again, that falls into what we
just said in transportation. I would think, after all the Hoore's
have done, it is the least the school can do.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I think that looks good, but let's
try to put them on Maroon Creek Road near the bus stop. It won't
do that much good to have them on the back side.
Horn stated, the bus stops are right near these lots. That is the
way we set it up.
Clauson stated, with respect to C and D, I think that Leslie
(Lamont) had provided a substitute paragraph.
Lamont stated, with C and D it was very general and wide open and I
was hoping we could tighten it after our discussion. Based upon
the conversation that you had, I thought that, maybe, we would keep
the language of C, but add onto it at the end, something like this,
"based upon the commitment of $350,000 towards physical traffic
related improvements without the Highlands Village Development or
as part of the one one million, three hundred fifty thousand
combined with the Highlands Village. You talked about the $350,000
would go towards traffic related improvements, but if there was any
money left over, and if you combined with the Highlands, that would
then be the money you would use to help with the planning and
implementation process.
Kaufman stated, I think that is fine, as long as we define, "to the
greatest extent possible", it is troublesome. As long as we are
defining the monetary commitment, then, that's fine.
Lamont stated, maybe they will take out "to the greatest extent
possible", because the $350,000.
Hayor Bennett stated, I think it still raises the issue of who gets
to spend the $350,000 and I would like to say, $350,000 in 1995
dollars because maybe this goes ahead immediately, maybe it doesn't
happen until 1998, when $350,000 would be considerably less.
32
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Attorney Worcester asked, would it be easier for everybody
concerned just to give the City the $350,000 to put in a separate
account.
Kaufman stated, no, because we are in a County land use process and
we can't commit. It is only recently that the City and the County
were willing to discuss the fact that the intersection is in a City
situation. I don't feel comfortable, based on our general
solution, to commit where that money goes. I feel that the City
and the County are going to have to have some discussions on it,
we're concerned about being a ping-pong ball.
Mayor Bennett stated, I have a feeling you are correct, counselor.
Kaufman stated, I don't feel comfortable committing to that at this
point.
Tom Hoore stated, it seems to me that we don't need to put the
$350,000 in. As soon as you do, you limit it to your physical
improvements. So, maybe, leave the $350,000 out and let us
participate without the greatest extent possible, and go with that.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, maybe, it is better to leave D in
there.
Lamont stated, I was thinking that we would eliminate D.
Kaufman stated, the real issue is what the $350,000 gets used for.
I thought you were looking for flexibility.
Horn stated, we are hitting the crux of the problem, we are in a
predicament. I think that the City Council must have as much
flexibility as possible in dealing with this $350,000 and the other
money that is out there. We are stuck in this position where we
feel committed, both to the County land use process, and the
neighbors. There are certain things that have to be done. I think
this idea that Rachel was hitting on where we come up with a
sequence or a prioritized way in which we can spend the money, so
we can phase certain improvements that are addressed to the needs
of that neighborhood that are consistent with the plan. Haybe we
are not going to "blow" all this money before you come up with the
ultimate solution. So, there can be some progress made at that
intersection, and then, we can take a shot at seeing whether or not
that is going to satisfy Castle Haroon neighbors and the County
process. I don't think the County is interested either, in
spending money on something that is going to be ripped in a little
33
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
while. I'm not sure how we are going to get there in terms of
creating this priority list.
Clauson stated, I don't know that we have to create the priority
list in this provision, here. I think it is probably valuable to
identify the exact amount, rather than say, "to the greatest extent
possible". So, we identify that the $350,000 has been committed
for planning and implementation of traffic related improvements,
period. That doesn't say they will be implemented immediately, in
one shot or phase, or whatever, but there would be good planning
that would underline the interpretation of the agreements.
Hayor Bennett stated, but who gets to decide? I think we have to
specify that, even if it is a joint City/County approval, I think
it has to be specified.
Clauson stated, then, we might add another line that wouldn't be
offensive to the applicants, to say, that said improvements may be
phased based on an agreement between the City and the County for
implementation.
Kaufman stated, the only concern that we have is that, I don't want
to get back to the County and have the County say to us, sorry, we
have not complied with the general submission requirement. Again,
it is that situation. I am hopeful that there will be some
resolution. What I don't want us to have happen, is that we are
torn here, we can't comply with our water service agreement because
you have certain language; we can't comply with our general
submission language because they have certain requirements, and we
are stuck in the middle. We are happy to commit $350,000 that will
be spent on the implementation and planning process, but I'm just
concerned that the County is going to say, is that we put language
in that says, depending upon the City on how we spend it. I
understand your dilemma, but I hope you understand ours.
Hayor Bennett stated, this is within the City limits, this is a
City intersection.
Attorney Worcester stated, the County is not going to be able to
approve any project that you have to approve of, because they are
going to have to come forward with a development. They are going
to need a development order in order to do any development within
the City limits.
Mayor Bennett stated, so, what's the harm in saying that? I agree
with you, so let's reflect that in the language.
34
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Councilwoman Richards stated, how about, "to be expended only upon
the explicit support of the Aspen City Council''e
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, I see what John's saying. I think
what John is saying is, before it can be built, we've got to
approve it, regardless.
Attorney Worcester stated, maybe what you can say is, that the
improvements are within the City limits, and they certainly can't
object to that. That all improvements within the City limits will
require City Council approval. How can the County object to that?
Horn stated, I think you are onto something with your legal
jurisdiction for a development order. If, in fact, we need a
development order in accordance with the regulations the way it is
coded, then, no matter what the County does, you are in the
situation where you issue the development order.
Mayor Bennett stated, I don't think there is an issue here. I'm
willing to bend to the point of saying, joint City/County approval,
but I'm not willing to go any further than that. If you want to
drop the City out of this somehow.
Kaufman stated, nobody is asking for that. What if we went along
the lines of the City jurisdiction, in otherwords, then, at least
it gives us an argument to say to the County, it is the City's
jurisdiction.
Councilwoman Richards stated, as long as we don't get to a point
where they say, we would like to use the $350,000 to repave Haroon
Creek Road and let CDOT do the intersection at some future time.
Hargerum stated, I think we also have to remind our joint Planning
Office in the County planning process, to make sure through the
County land use process, their conditional approval of final
submission recognizes that this intersection is within the City
limits and that they can't use it to pave Maroon Creek Road. We
need to make sure that the conditions on their detailed submission
clarify this.
Councilwoman Richards stated, should we then, add the language, it
is planning and transportation solutions, and name those two
intersections. Perhaps, naming the two intersections.
35
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hayor Bennett stated, I object to this; I don't want to get
specific. I want to say, as approved by the City and the County.
I think it is crazy to limit ourselves in some way.
Clauson stated, I think that will be affective, and Gideon, I will
remind you, the City and County sat down to do this arcade for the
roundabout; it was a joint effort. It looks like now it is a new
point, but nonetheless, they were perfectly ready to sit down and
look at an alternative design and approach to the problem. So, I
think that they would in the future.
Hayor Bennett stated, if this creates a major dilemma, I, for one,
am very willing to sit down with you "guys" and maybe more
importantly, with the County and hash it out. Haybe we can come to
an agreement.
Kaufman stated, as long as we get that kind of commitment, that's
fine.
Covell stated, what type of language?
Lamont stated, can I read it back? "The applicant shall agree to
participate in the planning implementation transportation solutions
related to the Entrance to Aspen (EIS), based upon the commitment
of $350,000 as approved by the City".
Horn asked, does that take care of C,D, and E? Are those all
wrapped into one, now?
Lamont stated, my thinking is that we would then eliminate D.
Kaufman asked, how do you have E, then, if you want the flexibility
for using that money. Lamont responded, my thinking for E was that
that's where we would identify and prioritize the incremental
improvements, then deferring major improvements. Going back to the
idea that you have the neighborhood plan that you are going to have
to satisfy. They want to do some things, but we don't want to put
out the major expenses right up front. So, my thinking is that E.
would be where you would come up this idea of what is the priority.
Clauson stated, I think we can simplify it even further. I think
that C, D, and E can be combined together.
36
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Mayor Bennett stated, I think we can eliminate E. Councilwoman
Richards stated, it sounds like a separate set of commitments to
different monies and different roads, and I think they are all one.
Kaufman stated, the only thing we want to add is, as required by
the BOCC.
Horn stated, let's go back to C, D, and E. We had a concept that
we are talking about here, I think we need a second sentence to
enbody this concept so that it doesn't get lost in the record of
this meeting. I wish I had the language, but someone is going to
have to take a crack at a second sentence to add in there.
Mayor Bennett asked, what do you mean? Horn stated, we talked
about this concept of phased improvements. What we have talked
about is planning and implementation and then, I think we need a
second sentence that says that this may take the form of phased
improvement program consistent with the direction of the Castle
Haroon neighborhood, in which we establish when certain
improvements will take place prior to the ultimate improvement
envisioned in the EIS. Something along those lines. I want to
capture the concept that we are talking about. That there is a way
that the monies that we are talking about can be spent in the short
term to address phased improvements to that intersection, short of
blowing the whole thing, before we have a final EIS.
Hayor Bennett asked, do you want to just add the word, phasing, the
plan on phasing any implementation of transportation solutions?
Horn stated, I would do something like, this may take the form of a
phased improvement program implementing some of the specific
improvements required by the Board of County Commissioners as part
of the general submission approval. Something like that. We know
what the improvements are, they are listed out in document. Haybe
what we can do is say, attach those improvements.
Hayor Bennett stated, to me, it is a very fundamental point. We
are not accepting, necessarily, those improvements. They may be
the right improvements and they may not be the right improvements.
This may be the final record of decision in six months, in which
case, those improvements no longer maybe make a whole lot of sense,
if we can get funding for this and get it off the ground. They may
or they may not. You did use the word, may, so, maybe that
sentence is O.K., but I don't want the next sentence to give away
37
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
what the first sentence just gave us, which is approval over
whatever the improvements are.
Horn stated, let's look at it this way. Let's say that in the
event that we get to the point where there's going to be initiation
of the project, and there is no agreed upon long-term solution to
the Entrance to Aspen; the applicant, upon approval of the City and
County, may begin implementing the phased improvement program
outlined, something like that.
Kaufman stated, what you have to keep in mind is, even if this plan
is adopted, it is going to be at least 5, 6 or 7 years out. There
are certain basic things, such as the smart light, and such that
Georgeann was talking about that need to be done, maybe not the
whole thing. I think there is an understanding here that if the
plan goes forward; and the plan is not one year away, and I think
we are all in agreement, there is going to be a one year gap
between the implementation of these improvements and the system and
it doesn't make sense to spend money. Having experienced this
process, all of us, it is more than likely that this plan is going
to take awhile and there is going to be a need for some kind of
phasing for the neighbors and "stuff" like that. I think that is
the only theory we are trying to capture here; not to waste money,
but to acknowledge that there's a gap between when impacts take
place and this new plan gets implemented that there may be a need
to do some sort of phased improvements. That's what we are talking
about.
Hayor Bennett stated, I agree with all that, and to complicate
matters further, if this plan is approved, it will be phased, and
we will certainly argue for key intersections to be at the very
early stages of the phasing. We are trying to guess the future, it
is difficult. The last language that you had, Glenn, makes some
sense to me.
Horn stated, I just took a shot at something here, I don't think
you have to agree on this now, but I just want to throw it out and
then work on it with staff. "In the event the long term solution
to the Entrance to Aspen has not been agreed upon, and/or
implemented, the applicant will meet with the City and County and
agree upon a phased short term improvement plan to the intersection
utilizing the monies?
Mayor Bennett stated, I don't know about others, but I have a
couple of issues I would like to raise. I have no idea how the
rest of the City Council feels about the affordable housing issue,
38
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
but what I want to do is explore the possibility of you "guys" of
requiring a dozen of your 40 free market units to include ADUs. It
wouldn't cost you anything and it would bring the number of
affordable units up to 53. It is 31 now. If there were 53 units
in this development, as I read it, it would comply with the 60
percent affordable housing.
Horn stated, I understand what you are trying to do, but it doesn't
get there that way, though. Mayor Bennett asked, why not? Horn
responded, you have to multiple average household sizes with the
number of houses to generate how many people are in the free market
units and how many people are in the affordable housing units. You
total them together, and then, you figure out what percentage the
people residing in affordable housing units are of the total pie.
You won't get there with just 12 ADUs. But, I understand where you
are going in terms of let's just try to get more people living
there.
Hayor Bennett stated, we're looking for a painless approach that
doesn't cost you anything and isn't going rile the neighbors.
Councilwoman Richards stated, it might well be a benefit to the
homeowners.
Tom Hoore stated, you said it wasn't going to cost us anything, but
I think it will cost us dearly, if you are requiring it. Haybe
some people don't want people living in their house with them.
Hayor Bennett stated, they don't have to have people living in
their home.
Margerum stated, the requirement on an ADU says you have to dwell
there but you don't have to rent it.
Tom Hoore stated, I understand all that, but my point is, it costs
so many dollars to do a project, and we have to consider what the
marketability is on each and every lot. If we keep restricting
these lots and homes to different things, pretty soon the
marketability won't be as good. But if I have to say, O.K., you
have to do this, then, people might not want to buy the lots as
they would have if they had some free choice.
Mayor Bennett stated, I guess I would say two things, Tom. One,
I'm only suggesting 12 out of 40. They still have lots of choice.
39
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Kaufman and Tom Hoore conferred privately and asked for some time.
Mayor Bennett concurred.
Kaufman responded, a request like this has other ramifications to
it. For example, we just went through all transportation. Once
you change the plan to require ADU units, that could affect
transportation as well. It could be a thing that the P&Z says or
the Board of County Commissioners says that says a significant
change. We can't address that right now.
Hayor Bennett stated, I made that suggestion with full knowledge of
the ramifications and ready to waive the additional mitigation.
Kaufman stated, unfortunately, the City Council can't do that. We
can't just address that, right now. We need to sit down and think
about that because it is a significant change to our application.
It increases the number of people on the site, it affects the
transportation, so we are just not in a position to address that at
this point and time. There are too many issues involved. We would
either have to come back, but we can't commit to something like
that.
Mayor Bennett stated, I understand.
Lamont stated, based upon your idea, I talked to Tim Halloy today
about that and where the County would be, on the idea of that. Tim
thought that it is something you all talked about in the past,
whether you would have EDUs or CDUs within your free market units.
He recommended and asked that if we did want to incorporate this
into the resolution that it would not be a requirement. You
encourage the applicant to explore with the County the provision of
ADUs. Then, the question is, this is in the County, the County has
two programs like this. They have the CDU, Caretaker Dwelling
Unit, which is very similar to our ADU Program. It is not required
to be rented, it basically works as a guesthouse situation. If you
have an EDU, Employee Dwelling Unit, then, they all require to rent
those units.
Mayor Bennett stated, I'm talking about the former, not the later.
The former, under today's rules, and I say today's rules, lest the
City and the County change those rules.
Lamont stated, Tim basically expressed what Gideon just said. He
said, we would like the opportunity to look at additional traffic
impacts and mitigation.
40
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, we just put in this Aspen Area
Community Plan requirement of 70/30, and now we are just going to
blow it off. It would seem that we could put in some kind of
language that says, under the considerations of all the other good
things that the community benefits that are going on in this
project that aren't in the Aspen Area Community Plan. That we can
make these be a request marketing tool, etc., etc., but not be
absolutes. That way we don't completely cave in, so the next
person that can come in can say, well, you caved in on them. In
this case, we will say, if you want to put in your ski school and
ski office and a lift, then, we will consider, or what have you.
Kaufman stated, John, to make you feel better, we preserved the
right to have the individual owner come in. The benefit of that is
number one, it doesn't affect traffic right now because it has to
go through special review. It also means that people have the
ability, and my experience, as your's, is that chances are, out of
the forty, we are going to get percentage. Tom's concern is, if
someone has the choice of doing it, they perceive it as a benefit,
whereas, if you tell them they have to do it, and so forth. Hy
guess is that we will get there, we didn't preclude it, but it
means we don't have to go through a whole traffic analysis. I
think we'll get the numbers there, hopefully we'll make everybody
happy.
Hayor Bennett stated, you could get 40, as it is.
Horn stated, I don't know how Tom feels about this, but maybe what
we could do is ask for actually the approval of the caretaker
units of the free market lots, and then, if we had them approved,
it would be at the discretion of any owner whether they wanted to
build them.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, so then, it becomes a selling point
as opposed to a selling restriction.
Tom Moore stated, I can see that, but what concerns me is that we
had Bob Feldsburg here and we have done all these traffic things,
and we've tried to mitigate and keep our percentage down to 3
percent of what is going on out there, and our fair share of
whatever, and before you know it, in one sentence you obscure those
numbers.
Hayor Bennett stated, that is not our intent, I understand.
41
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Councilwoman Richards stated, what if we were to put language in
here that actually is more of our intent rather than what we are
asking from you, that said that the Aspen City Council would
support accessory dwelling units in the free market lots, because
they would increase the affordable housing mix of this project.
Hayor Bennett stated, let me just add, "and that, these are
conditions, and that, the applicant urge buyers to consider
building". It is voluntary, if you urge buyers to consider
building ADUs within the limits of the final County approvals.
It just means somewhere on the brochure there is a footnote that
says, ADUs are encouraged.
Kaufman stated, rather say, "explain the benefits" The City
Council stated "explain the benefits" was great.
Hargarum stated, I was going to suggest; Gideon said, that probably
the best thing that would benefit the Hoore's and get to what you
are saying, is that the County now preclude the applicant's option
to have caretaker dwelling units. That will help these "guys" and
the experience is when you give people options, at least 50 percent
of them build these caretaker units, they love them.
Mayor Bennett stated, I like that. If they do that, and we explain
the benefits, we will get more than if we require our 12.
Horn stated, if one of you wants to come to the meeting when we go
to detailed submission and explain what your feelings are, that
will help.
Hayor Bennett stated, maybe we write a letter for the record, from
the City Council. Horn stated, that would help. Mayor Bennett
stated, can we draft such a letter?
Hargarum stated, my feeling is we would send referral comments from
the City to the County on the applicant. Mayor Bennett stated,
good idea.
Overeynder stated, just as a caution, along with the traffic
increases and also increase the water consumption. It wasn't the
way we analyzed it. I only anticipated that that would be involved
in the final agreement. We just simply have to estimate the
quantity and anything that drives cost or a pro-rated share based
on something that includes that water consumption, so the findings
we are making here to support this resolution are consistent.
42
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hayor Bennett stated, again, this wouldn't particularly affect you,
it is more for our friends across the highway in the School
District. What about a requirement that you request, or work with,
or explore, and I'll admit, maybe this isn't the place for this; I
would like to see language urging the School District to stop
talking and to start acting on limiting traffic, their own traffic,
not your traffic.
Councilman Harolt stated, murder, but it should be done.
Kaufman stated, I don't disagree with that, but I don't know if
this is the appropriate time. Hayor Bennett stated, it may not be.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, in our relationships with the School
District, we do our bit to bring it up.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I wondering if you could work
something that was kind of like, "in light of the improvements that
this will make to the school campus, and in light of the traffic
impacts of the school campus, we would request that you talk to the
School District about trying to limit the traffic increases"
Tom Hoore stated, I've been doing that for better than three years,
I think, it doesn't seem to do anything.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I think we have a couple of other
items coming up where we might be able to discuss traffic impacts
as well. I wondering whether sending the message out in more than
one avenue would make a difference.
Councilman Harolt stated, I think we have to set up some kind of a
vehicle to make contact and have dialogue with the School District.
We don't seem to have this at the point.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, I would be happy to volunteer.
Councilman Harolt stated, I wouldn't mind being on it. I think
that the School Board and the School District is having their lunch
with us.
Hayor Bennett stated, do any of you have any thoughts on whether
this language has any place in this?
Attorney Worcester stated, I think it does. Let's say, "in light
of improvements to campus and traffic impacts caused by the school
43
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
campus, applicants shall initiate discussions with the School
District to limit traffic impacts or to impose traffic demand
management".
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, wouldn't it be stronger if we send
something like, "the School District is requested, or required"?
Councilwoman Richards stated, the bottom line is, that as these
improvements are made to the School District campus, the intention
is, that they will act as traffic mitigation. What if these
improvements are made to the School District campus and then, they
end up seeing a traffic increase of 10 percent because they can
accommodate cars more easily. Isn't there a way to state, as these
are made to the School District campus, it will not allow a net
increase in automobile traffic to the campus and that they will
work to lower that number.
Kaufman stated, this is our compliance for water. Tom has talked
to them. I just think the City Council is a better vehicle for
doing this and use this as a basis for it. I don't think it is
really fair to put the onus on Tom and try to get the School Board
to do things.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, I agree with you.
Margerum stated, I guess I agree with Gideon. I don't think it is
appropriate to put the burden on Gideon, but I think it is
appropriate for you all to put that burden on the County
Commissioners. That way it would be a vehicle as the County
Commissioners approve this project, that the County Commissioners
try to tie, somehow, those school improvements.
Councilwoman Richards stated, the project as a whole includes
parking lot improvements and traffic improvements. Maybe there's
no way to ask them to do more than they are doing now, but there
should be an ability to say no net increase to the school campus
shall be generated by the traffic that are contemplated by this
water application. I don't want to be approving something today
that allows them to increase their traffic by 20 percent.
Kaufman stated, but we can't control that. Councilwoman Richards
stated, but you are building for them, Gideon. Kaufman stated,
what are our options, to go back to the School District and say,
we're not going to build this thing for you unless you do this,
then, we have to go back to rescore our whole general submission
application, we start the whole process again. It seems to me that
44
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
there's a fundamental lack of communication or ability for the City
Council, Board of County Commissioners and the School Board, and
what you are really doing here is putting the burden on us and the
three elected bodies ought to get together and work on this, not
Tom Moore.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, we're changing the circulation to
improve it, are you actually putting in more parking places?
Tom Moore responded, oh, yes. My mom gets people parking all the
way down her driveway at a summer performance at Dance Aspen.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, so, the Dance Aspen is more of the
problem than the school? Hoore responded, no, but it is part of
the problem. Councilwoman Waggaman stated, if her driveway isn't
filled up during the daytime with students then, more people are
parking at night to go to the performances. I don't know what you
do with your County submission on this, but it is back to Aspen, it
is at a certain point you just turn off the faucet.
Horn stated, we weren't all that concerned, we don't have to deal
with the Dance Aspen thing, that is part of the issue, but the
thing that motivated us to deal with these transportation issues is
that we wanted to address the safety concerns of what was going on
in that inadequate parking and dropoff. There was a dangerous
situation with the children. That is what motivated us more than
anything; cars double parked dropping people off. It is a really
bad situation.
Mayor Bennett stated, I think I agree with Amy. The most we can do
here is ask them to talk to them. What is that actually
accomplishing, I'm not sure. The County can do more, we can do
more, they want other things from us, and we have more leverage
over them in other areas. The alternative would be to say, talk to
them or initiate a discussion is nice, but I'm not sure anything
comes out of it. The alternative would be to just flat say, we're
not going to do this unless the school agrees to some limit. That
would have teeth in it. Obviously, you don't want that because
that puts you in an uncomfortable place, but that would have real
teeth and that would force the School Board to think, well, gosh,
on one side we get all these transportation improvements and the
sports fields and housing and all this wonderful "stuff", but we
have to limit our "kids" driving to school, at least just a little
bit. On the other side, we lose it all. Which are we going to do.
I think the school would react in the obvious fashion. It would
finally get them off their "duff". I don't know if we are prepared
45
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
to put that kind of draconian line in here, but that would have an
affect, nothing else really would.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, can we put that in our referral
comments to the County and recommend that they do that? Mayor
Bennett stated, certainly. Councilwoman Waggaman stated, it is
their application. It is more related to that, and bring in our
reasons, in light of the fact they are using 50 per cent, etc.,
etc. It really doesn't have anything to do with water, it is not
like more students were coming. Hayor Bennett replied, exactly.
Hargerum stated, the only thing is, and John is right, the only
thing that will have any teeth, is to say, this project is
inconsistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan as it increases
traffic.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, but it is not increasing it, it is
maybe the same 55 percent that it already is. Not the increase,
but the existing.
There was discussion at random at this point. Councilwoman
Waggaman stated, I think it is neat that Tom has talked to them
this much about it, but I don't think we can require him to talk
more.
Hayor Bennett stated, let's put it in our letter, in our referral
comments. Do we need to touch on some of the agreements or lack of
agreements, I know some of these are on your mind, Tom, from the
lunch we had today, because you mentioned several of them?
Location of the water site, school distribution system, the
Headowood Interconnect, the Headowood pump station, should we be
touching on these tonight? It is my understanding that there is
agreement on a lot of these things.
Attorney Worcester stated, I think these issues are either resolved
or should be resolved before the water service agreement is entered
into.
Councilwoman Waggaman asked, are any of them not dealt with?
Overeynder stated, there are two items I would like to bring to
your attention that are dealt with, but I want to make sure,
because they require further action by City Council. I want to
inform Council what those are. First one is on the Headowood
Interconnect. Our proposal was, when we originally looked at this
application, it was proposed that this be funded in the same way
46
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
that we look at any other development proposal, without the prior
water service agreement and without the prior agreement with
respect to the easement. Our recommendation, after discussing this
further with the Hoores because of the history here and the fact
that there was representation and their understanding was, that
this would be completed at City expense. We feel that is the
appropriate thing to do.
Hayor Bennett stated, that's the 12 inch interconnect? Overeynder
stated, that's $90,000 to $120,000 expenditure. That's not
currently contained in the Asset Management Plan as an expenditure,
so we have to amend this to include that. Council would have to
appropriate those funds.
Mayor Bennett stated, are we in agreement with this? Let's go on.
Overeynder stated, the second issue was on the well water
distribution system. This doesn't take any particular action from
Council at the present time. The way the agreement is structured,
we are proposing to provide for the use of a common trench for a
creation of a well water distribution system which would take water
from the Thomas Reservoir at the Water Plant and distribute it to
Headowood, the Hoore Project, the high school playing fields, and
Iselin and Maroon Parks. Under this arrangement, we would propose
there would be a 50/50 cost sharing agreement for the cost of the
entire system. What we talked about previously was an undetermined
amount, and the amount we used in the Feasibility Study for Water
was $30.00. That would be the cost factor in a limit in Hoore's
participation.
Mayor Bennett asked, are we in agreement? Tom Moore stated he was
not in agreement. There was more discussion at random. Hayor
Bennett stated, so, conceptually, you are in agreement, but you
want to make sure the numbers are what everybody thinks they are?
Stowell stated, what Tom is referring to is there is a few other
things in the memorandum that we saw today that varied a little bit
from what we had talked about. I don't think they are significant,
and I don't think it would behoove the City to site through a
discussion about those, right now. I would propose that we get
together with Phil, and John, and Amy and talk about it.
Attorney Worcester asked, what memorandum are you talking about,
Phil's memorandum? Stowell answered, yes.
47
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hayor Bennett stated, there is a point to this. Let me jump to the
bottom line. I want to bring out the one issue we haven't touched
on tonight, and I brought it up with Tom and you at lunch. That
is, the price of the open space. This is a negotiation and in my
mind, at least, it is very much connected. Legally, according to
our council it can and should be connected. So, I don't think it
is out of place for this issue to arise. Please, correct, me if
I'm misquoting you, I don't want to misquote you; it is my
understanding from our lunch today that you were likely to accept
the last City offer of approximately a million, three. I hope,
exactly a million, three, if I've got my numbers right. If these
other issues were resolved, I guess I would like to know, are these
other issues resolved, subject of course to checking exact numbers
and making sure we are all on the same page. I would like to know
tonight, that we have a final, complete agreement.
Tom Hoore stated, the elements of one-third, one-third, one-third,
and the pump station issue. If I could get those resolved, I
probably would agree.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, in a way, it sounds like we have 2-3
loose threads here, that they all sort of need to hammer out in the
next couple of days, before we can finalize.
Councilwoman Richards stated, maybe we should come back to one more
meeting in a week from now, or something like that. I would like
to see it all resolved, put together all in one piece. We are so
close.
Attorney Worcester stated, why don't we put in on Honday night's
agenda, and that way you will have a final resolution from us and
final language.
Hargerum stated, the one-third, one-third, one-third, it is my
understanding that that has been finalized. They have agreed to
pay one-third, the school district is the unknown quantity there.
The question for the City Council is, if the School District won't
pay one-third, are we going to pay two-thirds to get that loop in
there?
Hayor Bennett asked, is it operationally essential, or just
appropriate. Kaufman stated, appropriate, not essential.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, John gave a direction there, if it is
not essential and the School Board won't pay for it, then, let us
48
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
not do it. Are they inconvenienced in any way by the fact if we
don't do it?
Attorney Worcester stated, all this says is that, if it goes
forward, whether we pay for it or the school pays for it, he has
agreed to pay one-third of the cost.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I don't think we are in any
disagreement on this point. Councilwoman Waggaman stated, are you
comfortable with that one, Tom? Tom Moore responded, there's not a
problem. The one we are still looking into is the pump station.
There is another $60,000 that makes a difference.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, simplify it for me because I know I
have read it, and it's all here, but what are the two sides on that
issue?
Hayor Bennett stated, we have point and counter-point. Whoever
wants to start can start first.
Stowell stated, let me make a point. The original capital
improvements project the City embarked on back in the 1980's
included the Headowood Interconnect. The understanding that Tom
had at the time he was dealing with the City for the easement
agreement, is that it was a full package. It included the pump
station upgrades that we require. Now it has been presented that
that may be a separate component, that the City feels that the
developer should share the burden in providing the money for it,
and we are trying to say that was originally in the same context as
the Meadowood Interconnect. The City has said, you can show us
that was the case, then, we will revisit that issue. We believe
there are some plans that will indicate that that was contemplated,
as part of the original project. We will try to present those to
the City.
Overeynder stated, the counterpoint to that is that presently staff
is deeply involved in that capital program that was set up. Bob
Gish explained the basis of that program the first day he came to
work; he explained it clearly as being one of completing the
interconnect line and not related to any improvements in the pump
station, unless they included increased pumping capacity. To the
extent that there is evidence that says that the intent was to go
further than that, for the City to complete that work, as well as
the interconnect, then, we're comfortable saying, that is part of
the negotiations.
49
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Mayor Bennett asked, was Bob part of that? 0vereynder stated, Bob
was part of that. Hayor Bennett stated, so, there is a difference
in memories.
Councilwoman Richards stated, when do you think you can present
these plans?
Tom Hoore responded, I have been trying since our last meeting to
get Rich Cassin's numbers handed to me. He says he has the bid and
he has all the "stuff". I spoke with him about a week ago and he
said that he would have the information as of last Friday. I have
called him back everyday since then, but still have not heard back.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, couldn't it be then, that the
agreement rides with the City's position, unless you show this
other information. It sounds like it is incumbent on you all to do
the research to find it, and when you prove it, we accept it.
Tom Hoore stated, maybe the easier way to do this is to just have
the City take over and finish all of those projects, and then, we
won't hear about the money on the ball fields.
Councilwoman Richards stated, I think my concern with that is just
that we can't mix apples and oranges on those issues, because the
precedent we set for future water line extensions and the
precendent we set for other water service applications. Those just
can't go together.
Councilman Harolt stated, I can't understand, this proposition, why
they would approve and update in the transmission line, and that
would not include the pump. I would think that would be a package.
0vereynder stated, I think this would be very quickly cleaned up by
a phone call, between myself and Rich Cassins, to say, was that
included in the project, or wasn't it? The critical point to me
was, that it just wasn't explained as being as part of the package.
Coucilwoman Waggaman stated, he just can't reach this gentleman,
and you think you can?
Attorney Covell stated, because this is a City project, that the
City requested, probably the City is able to get more action out of
this "guy" than somebody else.
50
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
Hargerum stated, we can find out what was in those original
documents.
Hayor Bennett stated, let's find the answer and re-visit this issue
when we have the facts.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, the question is, if we find this and
we find that we aren't supposed to pay for it, then, you are
telling us that is a deal-breaker or are you telling us if that's
the case, you will have to live with it, too?
Tom Hoore stated, I would probably have to live with it.
Councilman Harolt stated, I understand here that we are committed
to a deal with the Hoores, and I was under the assumption that we
had a written contract, signed, sealed and delivered. We were in
the process of trying to determine whether or not we were willing
to hold up to the stipulations of the contract.
Attorney Worcester stated, we do have an agreement. There are two
issues, I'm not entirely sure that the agreement addresses this
particular issue, whether the pump station is involved or not. The
other issue is whether it is a legally binding contract, since City
Council never approved the water extension. The City Charter
requires that City Council approve all water extensions. But it is
true that we have a signed agreement with the Hoore's to provide a
minimum well water.
Hargerum stated, I just want to point out that the whole incident
that instigated the City Council's new water policy, was that
Meadowood Interconnect. The Council was very upset at that point
with their attorney, who negotiated with the Hoore's, but didn't
really tell the Council what he negotiated. That is part of our
problem here, and that's why staff feels that the City should pay
for that Headowood Interconnect, because we have that obligation in
terms in whoever negotiated with the Hoores was not clear, and it
wasn't written down, and things were said back and forth that
probably shouldn't have been said, but that person said them. I
think we are making a huge concession by paying for that
interconnect, because the Council's direction to staff; staff was
very nervous about making that recommendation, was that we never
want to do this again. When developers come in, they pay for the
infra-structure, the City should not be in the construction
business of constructing the water lines. Already, there has been
a huge concession made on the part of the staff, recognizing the
commitments that were made to the Hoore family. We should, in this
51
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
one case, not as precedent, go ahead and pay for that interconnect.
Councilman Harolt stated, I think we certainly have to stand behind
the scenes of our past, I don't have any question about that. It's
my understanding, and my estimation, that the Hoore's have
certainly fulfilled their portion of the contract.
Councilwoman Richards stated, why don't we leave it as finding out.
Phil, you said one phone call down there, hopefully, will give us
the information, and it sounds like it is something we can have
wrapped up on the agenda Honday night. I agree, I would like to
see the contract on the purchase be able to be settled at the same
time as well. I have to go to the County Open Space Board tomorrow
anyhow, that's something that is another part of it, too.
Attorney Worcester stated, I've never suggested that we don't honor
that contract, I just hope an obligation can take all the legal ins
and outs of that contract.
Councilwoman Waggaman asked, are there some more loose ends on more
pieces? Are there more pieces?
Covell and Stowell mentioned easements. Mayor Bennett stated, I
apologize, there is another in these notes I'm going from; that is
the sewer along the upper lots of well water.
Attorney Worcester stated, I think it is fair to say it is
recognized that that needs to be addressed but they can't until
they do some more engineering.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, how can we make a final agreement if
it hasn't been worked out?
Stowell stated, one thing I thought we were operating under here
was that we would address the first stage, which is the resolution
approving water service to the property, but we had several
technical issues we needed to work out with staff, and those would
be resolved before the final water service agreement itself was
entered into.
Hayor Bennett stated, I just want to resolve anything that is
concerning Tom because of his comment to me at lunch today, that
those issues have a direct bearing on his willingness to accept the
million three purchase price for the open space. I don't have to
tell you, but this is an exceedingly complex deal. We've got other
interests, you've got other interests, the County has a lot of
52
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL HEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
things, and the School Board does. There is a lot of things
intertwined here. I would like to tie as many of them up as
possible.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, I think what I am hearing from the
Council and from everyone else here, is a willingness to proceed
with this. We all want to make it happen and happen as soon as
possible and happen to the fairness of everyone. We are so close.
Attorney Worcester, this issue that we are discussing, is this one
that can be resolved before we get final? The sewer line and the
water line? Can I get this commitment, that it will comply with
State water quality regulations?
Tom Moore asked, would it? Attorney Worcester stated, right now as
I understand it, as designed, it doesn't. There isn't a separation
between the sewer line and the water.
Attorney Covell stated, I think that he agreement that the parties
made at our meeting a couple of weeks ago was, that the issue has
to be resolved before the water service agreement is signed. It is
either going to get resolved by something that is acceptable to
Phil by having these two lines in the same easement, or if no such
thing is acceptable to Phil, then, they are going to pump their
sewage and that's not their first choice, but it's the fall-back
position that is acceptable if we can't work it out some other way.
I'm not sure it is a real issue at this point.
Hayor Bennett stated, we might be done.
Councilwoman Waggaman stated, we can't pass this resolution until
Honday when we have all these little pieces in writing, is that
what we are saying? I want to thank you all for your incredible
patience.
Horn stated, I was really leery of going through this process when
we started it, and I want to thank the staff and the Council on
behalf of the Moore's for accommodating so much of this. It has
gone smoother than I anticipated, so thank you very much.
Mayor Bennett stated, thank you for that comment. Let's all thank
each other. Tom, thank you for your patience.
Councilwoman Richards stated, we were just saying, Tom, that we
were going to try and wrap everything up in the agreement on Honday
night (September 11, 1995), including the open space purchase and
53
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
the price. Based on the conversation with Phil, and hearing that,
we are looking to include that on Honday night. Just so it doesn't
come as a surprise.
Councilwoman Waggaman, it doesn't say, but one of the reasons we
are so willing to try to make it work, it is a good project.
Hayor Bennett stated, I just want to say something else for the
record, very quickly, also reflecting our conversation at lunch
today. I haven't brought it up tonight, because of what you said,
Tom, and that is, the possibility of our eventually someday in the
future, asking to release from the deed restriction he holds, the
portion of this open space (referring to EIS drawing on wall) so
that something like this could be built, if it is underground, if
it doesn't substract in any significant way from open space on the
Moore Open Space Parcel. And, this becomes the community
alternative, and there's support behind it and the other reality of
actually building it. Tom's remarks to me were, that in
circumstances he would not oppose that, but that he was adamantly
opposed (those were your exact words) to any linkage between that
and this water deal. I respect that, I respect your word, and I
specifically did not bring it up for that reason, but I wanted to
say that for the record. Thank you, again.
Hayor Bennett asked, is there a motion to adjourn?
MOTION
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adjourn meeting. Councilman Harolt
seconded. Hayor Bennett stated, if there is no further
discussion, all in favor. Vote was unanimous, motion carried.
There was an Executive Session scheduled on the agenda but was
deferred to a later date.
Heeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.H.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
54
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL 5~EETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
55