HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.council.087-95
%,",.,',-,."',,
8.,
It,
if
Ik",
~~C;._
,&,,',-,,'.',
'%.
RESOLUTION NO, 87
Series of 1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE' OF
COLORADO, SELECT THE CITY OF ASPEN'S "ALTERNATIVE H" AS THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, ENDORSING CERTAIN COMMENTS RELATING TO THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO FORWARD SAID COMMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT .OF
TRANSPORTATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN.
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and draft Section 4(J)
evaluation has been issued by the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, ("CDOT")
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act
for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS sets forth ten alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
which are considered for transportation improvements to the Entrance to Aspen on State
Highway 82; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed/the alternatives considered in the
DEIS; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is a destination resort community which attracts countless
visitors throughout the year largely because of its beautiful high mountain panoramic scenery,
clean air, healthful environment, and historic community character; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen was formally designated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as a "moderate nonattainment area" pursuant to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 as its air quality is projected to exceed National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,,); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that air quality and a healthful environment
1
--
~".'
~.
'lfI'., .
II
<<\
c,>_"
are important components of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens and community of the
City of Aspen and that air quality and a healthful environment in and around the City of Aspen
are threatened by various pollutants, including PM" particulates; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is substantial interest in
promoting aesthetic and environmental quality of life in both residential and commercial areas
of the City of Aspen by ensuring that the air quality of the City of Aspen meets or exceeds
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all of the alternatives under consideration will
significantly affect the quality of the human environment in and adjacent to the Entrance to
Aspen project corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, except for the no-build alternative, all of the
alternatives under consideration, will require the use of and/or will adversely impact publicly
owned parks, recreational areas, open space parcels, recreational trail systems, and historic sites
on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and a recreational trail
system; and
WHEREAS, Joint Resolution #396 dated October 26, 1992, adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Town Council of Snowmass Village, and the City
Council of Aspen, Colorado, and endorsed by the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) regarding transportation into Aspen stated that:
. Alternative solutions that provide a balanced program of incentives . and
disincentives to individuals to reduce their use of the private automobile should
be utilized initially;
. Alternatives which encourage the use of mass transit shall have preference over
others;
.
The concept of a fixed guideway system between Snowmass and Aspen as an
integral part of the overall transportation strategy shall be pursued; and
2
e'
{'
w',',
(%
\\.,
'-'
01','"
\1i!
~
'\!
",lI,',,
@
~~,
.
Alternative solutions selected must combine to form a transportation strategy that
is enduring and one that the community can be proud of; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP") written by over 400 citizens
of the Aspen area and adopted unanimously in January, 1992, by the Aspen City Council, the
Board of County Commissioners, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Pitkin
County Planning and Zoning Commission, states that" Aspen cannot build its way out of traffic
problems anymore than Los Angeles was able to solve its problems with ever larger and wider
freeways" and includes the following adopted policies:
. seek to balance public and private transportation both within and without the
Aspen Metro area by increasing the number of available transportation choices;
and
. create a less congested downtown core area; and
WHEREAS, the Elected Officials' Transportation Committee, representing the City of
Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County, unanimously endorsed the community
goal of holding auto traffic in 2015 to levels at or below those in 1994; and
WHEREAS, the history of transportation in America demonstrates that the construction
of larger highways consistently increases both auto traffic and distant development; and
WHEREAS, safety improvements on Highway 82 are of paramount importance to the
City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen and CDOT entered into an agreement dated March 1,
1995, for a "Cooperative Process Contributing to the Entrance to Aspen EIS"; and
WHEREAS, said agreement set forth Project Objectives to guide the EIS process in a
cooperative and mutually advantageous manner and to establish concrete principles and
objectives for the transportation improvement project; and
WHEREAS, the City and CDOT jointly developed and agreed upon a Project Need and
3
#-
t;',..,
I)'"
<<
#:.'
\~<,-
1(1t
Intent Statement; and
WHEREAS, a four-lane highway into Aspen, with or without restricted lanes, would
induce additional vehicle trips into Aspen, and would violate the Project Objectives in the
following specifics: Community-Based Planning, Transportation Capacity, Environmentally
Sound Alternative, Community Acceptability, Clean Air Act Requirements, and Livable
Communities; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned agreement between CDOT and the City of Aspen
included the specifications for a cooperative public process including the Symposium held on
March 31 - April!, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the results of the Symposium (expressed in material presented by each of
five separate citizen discussion groups) led to the development of concepts which, taken
collectively, comprise "Alternative G" as described and endorsed for inclusion in the DEIS in
Resolution No, 42 of the City Council of the City of Aspen, adopted on June 26, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Alternative G has been refined and further developed beginning with an
Entrance to Aspen Design Charrette that was held during the week of August 6, 1995, and
culminating in the City-sponsored conceptual design and operations analysis for "Entrance to
Aspen DEIS Alternative H - Light Rail Transit;" and
WHEREAS, CDOT granted the City's request to extend the public comment period for
the DEIS until December 18, 1995, in order for the City to prepare the information suggested
by CDOT regarding Alternative H and to conduct a public outreach program; and
WHEREAS, the City, as part of its public outreach program to educate its citizens
regarding the City's proposed Alternative H, did mail a brochure entitled "A Transportation
Solution for the Community - Entrance to Aspen - Alternative H" (appended hereto as
Attachment "A") to all of the registered voters and local resident homeowners of the City of
4
itA"
~-
i&1t.",
!f
\:,
,'",Q,ft",
Iii;'
ii'
\,,^
Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen has carefully
reviewed the Draft EIS and draft Section 4(t) evaluation with particular attention given to the
proposed use of publicly owned open space, recreation areas, trails, and parks, and has
concluded that Alternative H should be evaluated to the fullest extent possible and thereafter
selected as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS (see Resolution appended hereto as
Attachment "B"); and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen has reviewed
the Draft EIS and draft Section 4(t) evaluation with particular attention given to the proposed
use of historic sites and resources that may be used or impacted by the alternatives under
consideration, and has concluded that Alternative H offers the greatest opportunity for
cooperative planning between CDOT and the City of Aspen to minimize harm to the historic
sites and resources (see Resolution appended hereto as Attachment "C"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation
Commission have committed themselves to community based planning and to cooperatively assist
CDOT in planning all necessary mitigation measures to minimize all harm resulting from the
implementation of Alternative H following its adoption as the preferred alternative in the Final
EIS; and
WHEREAS, the Entrance to Aspen Task Force, consisting of 25 invited citizens
representing diverse interests and different geographic areas of the community, was convened
by the Mayor to provide comments to the City Council on Alternative H; and
WHEREAS, said citizens' task force met weekly from November 7, 1995, through
December 12, 1995, at which time they presented their report of conclusions on Alternative H
(see report appended hereto as Attachment "D"); and
5
'It'
'",.",'"
v:
-'i.<
!I,;1,'It',,',,
\,),
,;
a""It",.,',
~r
'",
WHEREAS, said citizens' task force in their report as delivered to Council affirm that
Alternative H will serve the community in the following ways: (a) meets the character based
Aspen Area Community Plan, (b) serves the community and its diverse needs, (c) makes
financial sense, (d) has an appropriate configuration and alignment, (e) meets long-range goals,
including a valley-wide transit system, (f) is an environmentally appropriate response, and (g)
is a community compromise which is politically viable; and
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Advisory Board of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, a
duly appointed joint board with authority to implement the air quality provisions of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and the Pitkin County Code, has reviewed the DraftEIS
and the City's proposed Alternative H, and has concluded that (a) CDOT should be strongly
encouraged to further study Alternative H in the FEIS process, (b) Alternative H meets all of
the Project Objectives, (c) Alternative H is the most attractive alternative they have seen that
presents the best avenue for meeting the Board's goals, and (d) Alternative H should be the
alternative approved for the Entrance to Aspen (see Resolution appended hereto as Attachment
"E"); and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Advisory Committee of the City of Aspen, a committee
of private citizens appointed by the City Council of Aspen to advise the City Council on matters
related to bicycle, pedestrian and nordic trails within the City limits, has reviewed the DEIS and
the City's proposed Alternative H and has concluded that: "No Final EIS shall be adopted unless
a comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and nordic trail system is incorporated into the final design
(see report appended hereto as Attachment "F"); and
WHEREAS, the City's proposed Alternative H does not foreclose the ability to adopt a
comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and nordic trail system into its final design; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, a mass transit
6
'It'
If'
'c.."
""".',,,,
\%'
v
',,,,
"It
0"'"",,
i%.\...
system formed and constituted pursuant to Section 29-1-201, et seq., C.R,S., by the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County in 1983 to provide public transportation throughout Pitkin County and
its environs, at a regularly scheduled and noticed meeting endorsed Alternative H because it best
meets the Project Need and Intent Statements and Project Objectives (see letter appended hereto
as Attachment "G"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has expended considerable financial resources and staff
time to evaluate Alternative H in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed the City's proposed Alternative H
and all supporting documentation, reports, analysis, and board and commission comments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen did not object - as it could have - when the original Basalt
to Aspen EIS was segmented in 1992; and the City of Aspen later cooperated with the Basalt
to Buttermilk process and agreed to the solution of a four lane highway to Buttermilk; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS and draft Section 4(f) evaluation seek public comment and the City
Council has reviewed and endorses the comments prepared by staff and desires to offer its
special knowledge and expertise to CDOT; and
WHEREAS, the two-mile area covered by the Entrance to Aspen EIS lies primarily
within the city limits of the City of Aspen -- and the Aspen community has the right to decide
the character of its own front door and to determine its own destiny.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT
1.
The attached comments are hereby endorsed by the City Council of the City of
Aspen and the City Manager is directed to submit said comments to' the
Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, as part of the official public
7
It,
',A,,'
I'
<''<,
k.'
I ~,1~":,,,
\<',
,
".1,.,,:,'.'.,,',
I"
\\
record for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft Environmental Impact
Statement public review process.
2.
Alternative H, with its potential phasing options, is determined to be a refinement
of Alternative G, and as such, Alternative H includes the significant benefits of
Alternative G, while better meeting the Project Objectives and fulfilling the
Project Need and Intent Statements incorporated in the DEIS.
3.
Alternative H, with its potential phasing options, should be evaluated to the fullest
extent possible to (a) consider every significant aspect of the environmental
impact which Alternative H may cause and (b) to include all possible planning
with the City of Aspen to minimize harm to publicly owned parks, recreation
areas, or historic sites resulting from their use,
4.
The preferred alternative should not contain a "four-lane platform," because - in
addition to other detrimental effects - any four lane would (a) increase vehicle
miles travelled, (b) add greatly to future automobile congestion in the City of
Aspen, (c) harm the environment, (d) violate the historic character and scale of
the Aspen community, (e) hurt the valley's tourist based economy by making
Aspen less unique and attractive to visitors; (f) erode the community's liveability
and quality of life for residents, and (g) ignore the desires of the elected
representatives of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
5.
Based upon the analysis and evaluation performed to date by CDOT and the City
of Aspen staff and consultants, the City Council believes that following the
additional analysis and evaluation suggested above, Alternative H should be
selected as the preferred alternative for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen
Transportation Improvement Project.
6. Provided (hat the preferred alternative selected in the Final EIS best meets the
Project Need and Intent Statements and Project Objectives of the EIS, the Aspen
City Council hereby commits to the adoption and implementation of appropriate
and adequate transportation management ("TM") strategies necessary (a) to
minimize harm to the environment, publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and
historic sites; and (b) to achieve the community goal of holding entrance-to-Aspen
automobile traffic in the year 2015 to levels at or below those in 1994. (See
Attachment "Hn).
7. All previous motions, resolutions, and ordinances of the City Council of the City
of Aspen, or portions thereof, that are inconsistent or in conflict with this
resolution are hereby repealed and of no further effect.
8
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December, 1995, by the
~~_ City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado.
~Lv. <;', I?~
John . Bennett, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held December 18, 1995.
~)xi~
Kathryn S. och, City Clerk
~,.'""
');",.
%8'
~t,. ,
9
ATTACHMENT A
4 Transportation
lution for the
CotnmJLlni-ly
Entrance to Aspen
Alternati've H
,
The community compromise to
end 25 years of debate.
"Our last, best chance in
century to solve the Entrance
Aspen, transportation dilemma. "
-Aspen Mayor John Bennett
What is Altemative H?
The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) is
evaluating alternatives to address our traffic problems
between Buttermilk and Aspen. COOT's other alternatives
focus on building a four-lane highway.
Instead, AlternativeH provides: (I) light rail transit from the
airport to downtown Aspen; and (2) a new divided two-lane parkway
from Buttermilk to Cemetery Lane. At Cemetery Lane, inbound
traffic would turn right along Castle Creek, then left over a new
bridge to join 'Main Street. Cars would exit Aspen easily on two new
lanes of one-way traffic along the S-curves. This solution to the
Entrance to Aspen debate...
. preserves the Marolt Open Space
. splits the traffic between the S-curves and the straight alignment
. reduces congestion and future traffic coming into town, and
. provides excellent alternatives for both commuters and visitors
Light rail will provide quick, easy and fun access to Aspen.
Downvalley commuters and visitors can park at one of the transit
stations outside the city and board a train into town. Peak hour trains
will run every 10 minutes for the !lip into Aspen.
~
. ~. ~
.~ ~ e
"""0"~.'.
Y{i~;;<~;,;.;;;"--
,)./~ '11," character of the central em'e
- . , would be preserved and [ealw-e
light rail transit and in-town
Slll/U/e buses.
~ . .
CJ)
00
g
u
CJ)
r:q
~
CJ)
::tj
CJ)
r:q
00
I--l
-
"e"
IX
r:'
It preserves our
precious open space.
Alternative H creates far
less impact on the Marolt
proper~. The inbound
lanes would skirt the edge
of the open space instead
of cutting directly
through it like other
alternatives.
It reduces traffic and
noise on the S-curves by
at least 50 percent.
The inbound and
outbound lanes would be
split, creating less traffic,
less noise and less air
pollution for the residents
of this neighborhood.
It uses light rail transit
to enhance our
community, while
providing 'iuiet, reliable
,.\
transportati,!1~"
rail could
from one of
stations, maklli y
andfun to get ili'\'town.
It reduces the number
of cars coming into
town. With the emphasis
on light rail transit, fewer
cars will need to drive
into town.
It is pedestrian-friendly.
There would be plen~ of
room for sidewalks and
bike lanes, making the
entrance into town much
nicer for pedestrians and
bikers.
It can move more people
to and from Aspen than
the other alternatives.
Afour-lane highway
would be congested by
the time it is built because
cted increase in
, rnative H
eople, not
It fer for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
Alternative H provides a
safer environment for
pedestrians and bike
riders, reducing conflicts
with motorized vehicles in
town.
There are no hidden,costs.
The other alternatives
would require the
construction of more
parking garages and
expensive underground
lots inside the ci~ limits.
Ci~ taxpayers would
have to foot the bill for
these garages.
Ail attractive h'aJl1sit
system will keep Aspen
a competitive resort
destination. What would
San Francisco be without
its trolleys? A light rail
transit system would be
innovative and fun, It
could become an Aspen
signature that both locals
and tourists would love,
,
It takes you where you
want to go. The system is
designed to allow easy
connections to all four
area ski mountains and
could be extended
downvalley.
1#1.111U;lG~
OJ 1!li!d~~ I
F-IVd ;;BVlsod B"n
pt'Nssv/J-j.'>J!::f
p<JJ.!oSDJd
An
That
Manage
Aspen's Transportation
.and Parking Plan was a
ood start towards solving
en's automobile
stion problem.
the increased traffic
forecast for the next 20
years means that even a
four-lane highway will
not accommodate the cars
of the future,
The other alternatives
could also require city
taxpayers to finance
parking structures costing
$50 million or more. A
system that looks beyond
the automobile as a
transportation
makes sense,
I
-
-"l1li111
What Can lOu Do?
The deadline for public
comment on these
alternatives is December _
18,1995. This is your last ..
chance to let CDOT know
that you would like light
rail to be considered along
with the highway
alternatives. Help decide
Aspen's future by sending
the enclosed card to
CDOT.
Or write your own letter
and send it to:
Ralph Trapani
Project Manager
Mount Sopris
Transportation Project
CDOT
202 Centennial
, lenwood Springs, CO
1601
uel
UUld A:J-~um.uUIoJ Tl8IV u<>dsy-
"U09nl/oa puv uOHsaBuOD sV:;J/lF8.1
rVlp S.lolntUtUOiJ puv S.lOl!S,U1 1S:I-U8f!SB./ Joj
tu8lslis uO.J:f-v~odsuv.9 PrJtVJBDtU.1 Ifa:mvfv9
v ap!aoJd OJ s?['iJas fi}!UlIUaUO;J 2~1"
][918 OJ 'ugdsy
~ugl~D 'Sa,')!
UGdsy JO WY
(ie
(e
e
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO, SELECT THE CITY OF ASPEN'S
"ALTERNATIVE H" AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE
TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
a duly appointed permanent commission of the City of Aspen in accordance with Section 8.1 of
the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen with authority to, inter alia, make its special
knowledge and expertise available to any official, department, board, commission, or agency
of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado, or the federal government; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and draft Section 4(f)
evaluation has been issued by the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, ("CDOT")
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act
for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS sets forth ten alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
which are considered for transportation improvements to the Entrance to Aspen on State
Highway 82; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has proposed a new alternative which is not included in
the DEIS and which is commonly referred to as Alternative H; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has expended considerable financial resources to evaluate
Alternative H in accordance with' the National Environmental Policy Act and Department of
Transportation Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has carefully reviewed the City's
proposed Alternative H and all supporting documentation, reports, and analysis; and
(
It
(e
Ie
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has carefully reviewed the alternatives
considered in the DEIS; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that all of the alternatives under
consideration, including the City's proposed Alternative H, will significantly affect the quality
of the human environment in and adjacent to the Enlrance to Aspen project corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that, except for the no-build
alternative, all of the alternatives under consideration, including the City's proposed Alternative
H, will require the use of and/or will adversely impact publicly owned land of a public park,
open space parcels, historic sites on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places, and a recreational trail system; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Action Plan of the Aspen Area Community Plan, adopted
by joint resolution by the City Council of the City of Aspen and the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County on February 2, 1993, states that it is the community's intent
"to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and commuters
that reduces congestion and pollution;" and to create a less congested downtown core area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission endorses the Project Need, Project
Intent, and Project Objectives as adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and set forth
in the DEIS; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS and draft Section 4(f) evaluation seeks public comment and the
Planning and Zoning Commission desires to offer its special knowledge and expertise to CDOT.
NOW, 1'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
The Department or Transportation, State of Colorado, be informed that the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, has reviewed the DEIS and draft Section 4(f)
evaluation for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project and
(
'e
(e
has concluded as follows:
1. The no-build alternative should not be determined to be the preferred alternative
in the Final EIS as the no-build alternative fails to meet the Project Need, Project Intent,
and Project Objectives adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and included
in the DEIS.
2. All of the alternatives considered and evaluated in the DEIS and the City's
proposed Alternative H will significantly affect the quality of the human environment in
and adjoining the project corridor; however, the City's Alternative H best meets the
Project Need and Project Intent Statements and the project objectives as identified in the
DEIS,
3. All of the alternatives evaluated, with the exception of the no-build alternative and
including the City's Alternative H, will require the use of publicly owned lands and no
prudent and feasible alternative exists to using such lands; however, the City's proposed
Alternative H offers the greatest opportunities for cooperative planning between CDOT
and the City of Aspen to minimize harm to the publicly owned lands resulting from their
use.
4. For all of the foregoing reasons, Alternative H should be evaluated to the fullest
extent possible and thereafter selected as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
5. The Planning and Zoning Commission is hereby committed to community based
planning and to cooperatively assist CDOT in planning the joint uses of publicly owned
lands to minimize all harm resulting from the adoption of Alternative H as the preferred
alternative in the Final EIS.
INTRODUCED, RE~D AND ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City
, ~ J
of Aspen on the day of j t{~~, 1995.
~~ ff xYaU-~J
Chairperson
(
tit
(e
.
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
ShOJi. on 'iYl , lOJUuJ.lo
Deputy City Clerk
.- .-,--,-.-7.-T'~---' . ~":-'C.::('-' .- _....-._,.".-..;.~{,.;;-..
e
e
e
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO.j>
Series of 1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO, SELECT THE CITY OF ASPEN'S
"ALTERNATIVE H" AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE
TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is
a duly appointed permanent commission of the City of Aspen in accordance with Section 8.1 of
the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen for the purpose of (a) ensuring the preservation of
Aspen's character as a historic mining town because of its importance to the economic viability
of the community as an international ski resort and cultural center, (b) promoting the cultural,
educational and economic welfare of Aspen through the preservation of historic structures and
areas and the preservation of the historic character of the community , (c) encouraging productive
and economically attractive uses of historic structures, and (d) supporting the implementation of
the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and draft Section 4(f)
evaluation has been issued by the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, ("CDOT")
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act
for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS sets forth ten alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
which are considered for transportation improvements to the Entrance to Aspen on State
Highway 82; and
I
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has proposed a new alternative which is not included in
the DEIS and which is commonly referred to as Alternative H; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has expended considerable financial resources to evaluate
L
Alternative H in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Department of
e Transportation Act; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully reviewed the City's
proposed Alternative H and all supporting documentation, reports, and analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully reviewed the alternatives
considered in the DEIS and notes that the Maroon Creek Bridge, Holden Smelting and Milling
Complex, and Colorado Midland Railroad have been identified as historic sites and/or resources
that may be used or impacted by the alternatives considered; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission finds that, except for the no-build
alternative, all of the alternatives under consideration, including the City's proposed Alternative
H, will require the use of and/or will adversely impact publicly owned historic sites on or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; and
e
WHEREAS, the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan of the Aspen Area
Community Plan, adopted by joint resolution by the City Council of the City of Aspen and the
Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on February 2, 1993, states that it is the intent
of the Aspen community to "ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and
compatibility with historic features"; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission endorses the Project Need, Project
Intent, and Project Objectives as adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and set forth
in the DEIS; and
WHEREAS, the DEIS and draft Section 4(f) evaluation seeks public comment and the
Historic Preservation Commission desires to offer its speci?:,V kriowledge and expertise to CDOT.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
s
e
e
e
it
The Department or Transportation, State of Colorado, be informed that the Historic Preservation
Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, has reviewed the DEIS and draft Section 4(f)
evaluation for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project and
has concluded as follows:
1. The no-build alternative should not be determined to be the preferred alternative
in the Final EIS as the no-build alternative fails to meet the Project Need, Project Intent,
and Project Objectives adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and included
in the DEIS.
2. All of the alternatives evaluated, with the exception of the no-build alternative and
including the City's Alternative H, will rt'..quire the use of and/or will detrimentally
impact historic sites and resources and no pmdent and feasible alternative exists to using
or impacting such sites and resources; however, the City's proposed Alternative H offers
the greatest opportunities for cooperative planning between CDOT and the City of Aspen
to minimize harm to the historic sites and resources.
3. For all of the foregoing reasons, Alternative H should be evaluated to the fullest
extent possible and thereafter selected as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
4. The Historic Preservation Commission is hereby committed to community based
planning and to cooperatively assist CDOT in planning all necessary mitigation measures
to minimize all harm resulting from the adoption of Alternative H as the preferred
alternative in the Final EIS.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City
of Aspen on the /::<./[, day of ~:L3AIPc:Fr , 1995.
/~/=~h4'7~'
Ch' rson
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing ,is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Historic Preservation
I I '
I
Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
/dot; MJ/#'-t/
heputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT D
'_ Memorandum
DATE: 13 December 1995
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Entrance to Aspen Task Force
RE: Alternative H Comments
e
Background
The Entrance to Aspen Task Force consisted of 25 invited participants
whose names were submitted by members of the Aspen City Council. The
Task Force was convened by Mayor Bennett on 7 November 1995 and held
five meetings prior to developing their comments. They were also invited
to attend a presentation on 15 November by Otak, Incorporated, consultants
to the City of Aspen on Alternative H.
Consensus Comments of the Task Force
At their meeting of 12 December, the Entrance to Aspen Task Force agreed
upon the following comments with respect to Alternative H as a
transportation solution for the Entrance to Aspen. The Task Force submits
these comments to the City Council for their consideration and inclusion in
public comments on the Draft EIS. These comments were adopted by
consensus of the group.
Alternative H will serve the Community in the following ways:
I. It meets the Character-based Aspen Area Community Plan...
.. The couplet will reduce the perception of congestion.
.. The S-curves are maintained as an historical element.
e
.. The smaller road through open space will produce a quiet
entrance.
--
e
e
.. Size is in keeping with the scale of Aspen.
.. The following issues need to be addressed through continuing
study: appearance of overhead wires, new noise, urban feeling,
additional traffic signals and/or grade separated intersections.
2. Serves the Community and its diverse needs...
.. It appears to be the best svstem--consisting ofLRT, highway, and
demand management--to serve the diverse user groups in the
Aspen Area. These include commuters, visitors, locals,
commercial traffic, etc,
.. However, we ask that the City and CDOT analyze in the FEIS the
ways various user groups will use and benefit from the system.
3. Makes financial sense...
.. We need to do something now in order to preserve the financial
viability of Aspen as a resort community.
.. We expect that the funds available for Highway 82 construction
already committed by CD aT would be contributed to this system.
.. On a schedule of comparative values, it meets the issues of non-
tangible costs, including parking requirements and RFT A
expenses.
.. Substantial RFTA savings would be achieved, as indicated in the
TDP study prepared for RFTA.
.. Even if it accomplishes everything except "financial feasibility,"
then it is worth it.
4. Appropriate configuration and alignment,..
.. Light rail is the appropriate technology for the Entrance to Aspen.
.. Transfer facilities should be carefully studied to encourage
ridership.
2
a
..
<> Transfer facilities should be carefully studied to encourage
ridership,
.. Split alignment improves safety.
.. Bus phasing option is not acceptable.
5. Meets Long-Range goals, including a valley-wide transit system...
.. While we believe Alternative H stands on its own, CDOT should
not preclude expansion of the LRT system to Highlands,
Snowmass, and Downvalley.
'" LRT should be implemented immediately, however, phasing
options with the Alternative H configuration should be considered
in the FEIS.
6. Environmentally appropriate response...
" Least impact on open space.
" Address air quality objectives.
.. Minimizes impact on historic properties.
7. A community compromise which is politically viable...
.. Alternative H is the community response to the Entrance to Aspen.
Citizens participating in the Task Force Final Resolution
Yasmine DePagter
Hans Gramiger
Susan Hineline
Howie Mallory
Bonnie Murry
Frank Peters
Les Holst
Roger Hunt
Jamie Knowlton
Fred Smith
Charlie Tarver
Ed Zasacky
3
4-
..
it".
@'
\
>""
'e:'
'~,
~.
\'\,.
-
.'~
ATTACHMENT E
RESOLUTION NO....1
Series cif1995 .
'A RESOUJTION OF mE CLEAN AIR ADVISORY BOARD 'OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, AND PITKIN COUNTY,. RECOMMENDING' . THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO, SELECT
THE CITY OF' ASPEN'S "J.\LTERNATIVE H" , AS THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE HIGI;IWAY82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the City Council ofthe . City of Aspen has declared that air
quality. is an important component. of the health,. siJiety and welfare of the
citizensandcorrununity of the City, of Aspen and that the air quality in and
around the City of Aspen is threatened by various poUubm,ts; and
wHEREAS, the Clean Air Advisory Board of the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County' Colorado, is a duly appointed joint board of theGty of Aspen and
Pitkin County with authority to implelTIent the air quality provisions of the
Aspen Murlicippl Code and Pitkin .CountyOjde;and
WHEREAS, a DraftEnviroruhel1tal ImpadStatement ("DEIS") and draft
Section 4(f) evaluation has been issued by the, Department of 'I'ranspOltation,., .
State of Colorado; ("CDOT") pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Department of Transportation Act for the State Highway 82 Entrance to
Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and '.
. '
, ,,-
wHEREAS, the DEIS setsfortl1 ten alternatives,includingtheno-adion
alternative, which are considered for transportatio:n improvements to the,
Entrance to Aspen on State Highway 82; and '
, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has proposed a new alternative whkh is
110t included in theDEIS corrunonlyreferred to as Alternative H;and .
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Board has carefully reviewed the alterna,tives
c011sidered inthe DEIS and the City's proposed Alternative H;and
. '
.' . ,WHEREAs, the Clean Air Boarcl finds that all of the alternatives uncler
consideration, includingtheCity'spr()posed Alternative H,willsignuicanHy .
affeGt the quality oHhehuman environment in andadjacenttothe E;ntrance to
Aspen project corridor; and . .
Printedon: Rec:Y~led Paper
<<e'
I'
W",
~,
..It"
. """,,-- ....
~~-,
"<,
"I'e"
. ["
~'
WHEREAS, the Cle~n Air Board wishes to ensuretlLat air quality in'
Aspen arid Pifkin County are healthful fClrits residents and visitors; an(i
. WHEREAS, l11.o11itoring data has shownthis are<!to experiel1Ce viol<!tions
of federal he<!lth standards for PMlO air pollution and studies done by the
. Colorado Dep<!rtment of Health havefOl:ind 83% of this pollution to,befrom
vehicle traffic; and " .
WHEREAS, the severclpossiblealternatives for the Entrance to Aspen vary
greatly in the amount. of traffic that will result betWeen Buttermilk and Aspen, and
within Aspen, as well qS clong Highway 82; and
. '
. ' '.
wHEREAS,theCleanAirAdvisory Board believesthattheselected , ,."
, . alternative should be the one that bestreducestraffic in and arou,nd the Aspen
. Pitkin County metro. area; and . ,
, '
WHEREAS,. the Clean Air Advisory Board strongly supP9rts the project ,
objective adopted by theGty of Aspen, Pitkin County and CDOT, of providing an
<!lternative that keeps traffic from growing above 1994 levels to maintain clean air,
corrunuJ1itycharacter and viability as <!resort, and consistencyWitlL the Aspen
Area Corrununity Plan and SIP efforts tCl redace traffic; and '
WHljREAS,lhe altel'natives pl'esented in the DBIS would cause signifieant
consequences in and around Aspen, arid these air quality and cost impacts are 110t
disclosed, and
, .
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Advisory Board has reviewed studies done by
CDOT and the City of Aspen, and deterrnined that all alternatives presented in the
DEISgreatly increase traffic over today's levels, and this Board has not seen
anything in the alternatives presented so fa,r in theDEIS that meets the project
objective of keeping traffic from growing, and that ai'e not in fact primarily auto"
, oriented; arid
WHEREAS, Alternative H is' a comprehensive alternative that includes
greatly imptovedtransitservice in and around town;fast,atttactive,Jow fare,light
rail service for the Highway 82route with frequent service to and from downtown
Aspen, incentives fOr use of transit combined with other options for local trips, .
precisely the goals of improving air quality and providing good alternatives to
auto use that are this Board's goals; ,
, '
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VE,D THAT the dean Air AdVisory
, Board of Aspenand Pitkin County strongly encourages CDOT to further study
Alternative H in the FEIS process; the CAAB further,states that Alternative H
Printed on RecycledPaper.
'I)"
v
I
. \\,-,
h""4,,,ltr
Wi
\,
"
. "a
t1.,.
meets all of the project cibjectives;thatAltermitiveHis the most attractive
alternative we have seen, one that presents the best avenue for meeting this
Board's goals; and that Alternative H should be the alternative approved for the
Entrance to Aspell. . '
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Clean Au' Advisory Boatdof the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County on the 13th, day of December; 1995.
,(t..--;/
,:1"
Chairperson
/--Z)/-
;If/'
Printedon.Re?,c1ed Paper
/a
Ii.
'e""
/e
f:I
ATTACHMENT F
September 12, 1995
Mayor and City Council
City of Aspen
130 S, Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
, RE: Public Comment for the Entrance to Aspen DEIS
Project STA 082A-008
.
...-
-~----
ASPEN, PITKIN
PLANNING & ZONING DEPA"IITMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear Mayor and Council:
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC) has reviewed the DEIS Alternatives, including
Alternative H, on August 17th and September 7th. The NAC unanimously approved the
following motion. We hope that this comment will assist you in preparing a response to
CDOT: '
"No Final EIS shall be adopted unless a comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and
nordic trail system is incorporated into the final design."
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely
/J.1'~ ;<'
/ // dJ..J '-fi~:f/' __. I J/ f' !/_
.' " ;.r~ ," -l 'ie.WO H~" f-/-.I:
Neighborhood Advisory Committee
AI Blomquist
John Busch
Larry Fredrick, chair
Hans Gramiger
Roger Hunt
Bob Wade
cc: Ralph Trapani, Project Manager, Mt. Spans TranspOrl:.'tion Project
130 SOUTH GALEJ\;A SJ'REE'J' . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAX 303.920.5197
I'rintodonrecydrdp"por DIRECT FAX LINE: 303.920.5439
e
e
e
ATTACHMENT G
IK!@ , !JiiilfNj(tli !;f:OJfJi]E1: 'lJ'!mitlB\!J8)fl"f tMJJE~'&CV
!JMi3L~I!EIVJ, if;;IiJ!UJiQ'SIMIiI(D
December 15, 1995
Mr. Ralph Trapani, Project Manager
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Mount Sopris Transportation Project
202 Centennial
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Trapani:
The Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RFT A) wishes to thank CDOT, and you, for the effort
involved in the development of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EADEIS). The willingness of CDOT to work
cooperatively with the community to develop an integrated multi-modal transportation
alternative in keeping with its scale, natural beauty, and unique character, is greatly
appreciated.
The community involvement process undertaken by CDOT has been extensive and
unprecedented. Yet, as a result, it is believed the EAFEIS will better reflect the
community's earnest desire to develop an innovative and enduring multi-modal
transportation solution which will yield the greatest benefit in terms of its impact on the
environment and quality of life.
To this end, the RFT A Board of Directors wishes to endorse Alternative II, and its
potential phasing options, because it best meets the Project Need and Intent and Project
Objectives. Because Alternative H has been developed by the community it should be
fully evaluated and carried forward into the FEIS as the preferred alternative,
'51 Service Center Drive Aspen, Colorado 8161 t . Tel: 970.920.1905 J-:ax: 970.920.2864
Mr. Ralph Trapani, CDOT
RFT A Entrance to Aspen Draft Environmental Statement Comments
Page 2
It
Additionally, the RFT A Board of Directors requests that the FEIS identify and quantify
all potential service, equipment, facility, and cost impacts upon RFTA, throughout its
entire service area, related to the alternatives which are analyzed. In the Highway 82
Basalt to ButtermiUc Record of Decision (BBROD), CD aT committed to purchasing 15
buses for RFT A and constructing park and ride facilities throughout the Highway 82
corridor, in order to mitigate air quality impacts associated with tbe preferred alternative.
Any service and cost-related impacts on RFTA, above those already contemplated by the
BBRaD, should be clearly delineated in the EAFEIS, Because ofRFTA's severe
financial constraints, the RFT A Board of Directors ajso requests that CDaT commit to
mitigating tbese impacts.
Consistent with the BBROD the Board also requests that CDOT commit to providing safe
pedestrian access to and from aU passenger facilities in the Entrance to Aspen corridor.
AdditionaUy, CDOT is requested to provide RFTA with priority treatment during
construction to minimize schedule delays for buses and provide an added incentive for
commuters to use transit. To the extent that construction delays require RFT A to increase
service levels and costs to maintain reliable schedules, it is requested that CD aT mitigate
these costs.
Again, thank you for your assistance in developing the best possible multi-modal
transportation alternative for the Aspen community. Please let me know if you have
questions.
Sincerely,
~ '
\CW~{t~~1j!Jiw
Dan Blankenship \/
General Manager '
e
e
e
ATTACHMENT H
Sample TDM Package Supportive of Alternative H
Trip Reduction Strategies for the Entrance to Aspen
The Transportation Management (TM) forecasts within the DEIS were performed independently
of the characteristics of the physical alternatives themselves. During the FEIS process, the
preferred alternative will need to be developed in conjunction and fully integrated with a
comprehensive package of supportive TM measures, To the fullest extent possible, the
incremental and cumulative effects of the TM measures need to be modeled and quantified, in
order to provide a range of results and an assessment of key variables and sensitivities.
Likewise, the projected costs and revenues associated with the TM measures need to be included
in the FEIS analysis. The FEIS must result in a preferred physical alternative that has a clearly
integrated TM package with a recommended implementation strategy, phasing scheme (with
appropriate' triggers), and resource implications (including financial and other needs, along with
estimates of revenue generating capacity),
The City Council commits to the implementation of appropriate transportation management
strategies as they become necessary in a phased TM program integrated with a preferred
alternative that best meets the Project Need and Intent Statement and the Project Objectives of
the EIS, A sample TDM package is presented below for further discussion, analysis, modeling
and refinement during the FEIS process:
Regional Ridesharing Program
411 Enhanced free real-time ride matching service
lII> Downvalley vanpool program
1\11 Guaranteed Ride Home program
1II Employer assistance/incentives
lII> Transportation Fairs (summer and winter)
III Visitor information hot line
1Il Retailer discounts for non-SOV users
CI Automated commuter information centers
Enhanced HOV Incentives In Coni unction With Multi-Modal Center
1\11 HOV preferential access to multi-modal center (lane, ramp)
1\11 HOV preferential parking at multi-modal center
1Il Free or discounted parking for HOVs
1\11 Free or discounted transit fare for HOV occupants
lII> HOV exemption from congestion pricing
@ Enhanced downvalley ridematching (real-time custom trip planning)
@ Information on travel alternatives provided to resort visitors in advance
0IIl Continued free, preferential in-town parking for HOVs with upper-valley origins
e
e
e
In-Town Transit Service Improvements
@ Smaller, more frequent buses
@ City-wide dial-a-ride program
1Il Guaranteed Ride Home program
III Cross-town shuttle/trolley service
Downvalley Transit Service ImDrovements
III Continued transit subsidies
III Additional targeted user-side subsidies
ow Transit Check program for visitors
01il Creation of universal debit pass or billing program for parking and transit
01il Electronic transit information systems at major transit stops
II\l Airport to lodge baggage service
II} Secure bicycle storage at major transit stops
Parking Management
1II
>I>
1II
011
<<I
Increased parking fees
Continued free, preferential carpool parking
Broaden fees/surcharges to all private commercial spaces
Cap or reduce on-street parking spaces
Near-band radio system and variable message signs communicating in-town
parking fees and parking/transit arrangements from multi-modal center
More restrictive Residential Permit Parking Program
ow
Employer-Based TDM Programs
ow Carpool/V anpool financial support
1II Incentives to encourage the carpool-to-transit connection
<<I Preferential parking for carpools/vanpools
I\l Increased employer-provided bus passes
I\l Frequent user incentive/award programs
iii Telecommuting programs (home and downvalley satellite work centers)
<II Teleconferencing
I\l Flexible or compressed work hours
III Parking charges
III Transportation allowances
@ Altered construction project work schedules
<II Secured storage for tools
011 Employer-provided pool vehicles for midday trips
e
e
'.
-
.
.-
:rraffic Calminf?: and Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements
I)
~
\D
More auto-limited and pedestrian-friendly downtown
Improved pedestrian/bicycle lanes and zones
Community bicycle programs, including bicycle lockers, access to showers,
allowing bicycles on light rail
Free loaner bicycles
Plowed bike paths in winter
\D
l!I
!=ongestion- Pricing
l!l If and when needed, implement congestion pricing on SH82 within the Aspen city
limits via automated vehicle identification system, WIth all revenues dedicated to
transitltransportation improvements
Ii) Conduct full-cost accounting and fair allocation of public costs and resources to
level the playing field between private autos and transit
lAind LJse Strategies
@ Zone by impact, not use (e.g., revise "home occupation" zoning rules)
III Support Transit-Oriented Development and neo-traditional planning
@ Continue upper-valley affordable housing programs to increase the percentage of
Aspen workers living in the Aspen area
,
.
8 January 1996
Mr. Ralph 1 Trapani, PE.
Regional Construction Engineer
Department of Transportation, Region 3
202 Centennial Avenue
Glenwood springs, CO 81601
ASPEN, PITKl:\
Pl.-'.;.i.\I.\G & ZO;.;I:-;C DEP.-\RDIE\T
CO\I\IL.\1n DE\HOI'\I~\ J DEP.\RDjE\T
RE: Eilltrance to Aspen DEIS Comments
Dear Ralph:
The Entrance-to-Aspen consolidated comments provided by the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County contained a resolution from the Aspen City Council which referenced a report
from the Entrance-to-Aspen Task Force, a citizens group organized by the City. . Along
with the report were included a list of names of those Task Force members participating in
the drafting of the report.
The list of names inadvertently included the name of Mr. Hans Gramiger. Mr. Gramiger
attended meetings, but did not participate in the drafting of the report. He has specifically
requested that his name be stricken from the list of Task Force participants as provided to
the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. I regret any inconvenience which this error
may have caused you or Mr. Gramiger.
Very truly yours,
/--- . r -' /":' ':
-'''- ...1./ I I ;
eJt~
Stan Clauson, AICP, AS LA
Community Development Director
CITY OF ASPEN
cc: Mr, Hans Gramiger
Amy L. Margerum, City Manager
130 Snt:TH G.-\LE:q STlmT . ,.l,)~'E'\, Cl)LOR,-\Do81611 . Pll\l\E 303.LJ20jOlJ!1 . F..\\ 303.l120.11Q7
.~
1''''_1<',1,.'''' ,':','r"
DlliH I F 1\ L\l': :;,13.'!2rJ).~3l;