Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.010-89RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I~EGARDING REVIEW AND COM~T FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 EAST OF BASALT TO ASPEN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/4 (f) EVALUATION Resolution No. 89-10 WHEREAS, on October 24, 1989, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") at a duly constituted public meeting reviewed and commented on the State Hiqhwa¥ 82 East of Basalt to AsDen Draft Environmental Impact Statement/4(f) Evaluation (hereinafter "DEIS"); and WHEREAS, the Colorado Department of Highways (hereinafter "CDOH") has circulated the DEIS for the purpose of soliciting comments as to areas of concern which need to be addressed or addressed more appropriately in the Final Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, 30 day extension the CDOH; and WHEREAS, the the City Council of Aspen requested and received a to the original review and comment period from Commission is aware that the Council plans to hold a City wide election on the Entrance in January or February of 1990; and WHEREAS, the CDOH projections of 34,000 vehicle per day on the Castle Creek bridge in 20 years is alarming and points to the danger of looking to the four-lane highway to solve our transportation and transportation related problems; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the Community must continue to look for solutions in addition to an improved highway: rail, bus, car and van pools, trails and more; and Resolution No. 89-~ Page 2 WHEREAS, the comments contained in this resolution are intended to give the CDOH guidance regarding areas of the DEIS which the Commission finds deficient or would like to emphasize. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that the following comments be submitted to the CDOH as part of the official public record for the State Hiqhway 82 East of Basalt to Aspen Draft Environmental Impact Statement/4(f~ Evaluation public review process: 1. County Resolution and Letter - The Commission supports Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 89-32 and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners letter to Mr. Larry Abbott dated October 10, 1989. The Commission would like to emphasize that they support a "cut and cover" treatment for the Shale Bluffs area as preferred to the treatment identified in the DEIS. Further, the Commission finds that a commuter railroad should be part of the mitigation plan and the rail alternative should be established prior to construction on SH 82. Preferred Entrance to Aspen - The Commission finds that their preferred alternative is a scaled down existing alignment. Specifically, the Commission would like to see an alternative which is as unobtrusive as possible from Castle Creek to Seventh and Main. This alternative should be more in character with Main Street than with the highway design coming into Aspen. Maroon Creek to Castle Creek - The Commission finds that the Resolution No. 89-10 Page 3 Community would best be served by a narrow cross section from the Maroon Creek bridge to the Castle Creek bridge. A narrow cross section for the bridge and the roadway may reduce the taking of open space land and the two residential structures in the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. Commuter Rail/Mitigation Plan - It is the Commission's understanding that the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires the mitigation of all negative impacts. The Commission finds that the Community will suffer considerable negative physical, social, economic and biological impacts from construction on the only arterial in the valley. Based upon the delays experienced on Phillips curves during those improvements in 1986, it is clear that traffic delays/congestion will be enormous and a considerable disruption to the community for a decade or more. Therefore, the Commission feels very strongly that commuter rail from Aspen to Carbondale/Glenwood Springs should be part of a valley wide mitigation plan. Non-Automobile Travel Enhancements - The Commission finds that facilities for non-automobile travel are vital to the Community's future. Facilities, such as park and ride lots for transit riders, and car and van pool riders; trails for pedestrian, bicycle and cross country skiers; and right-of- way accommodations for future Community efforts to divert people from the automobile. More specifically, the Commission would like the CDOH and the Community to work Resolution No. 89-l0 Page 4 together to allow the Community to acquire additional right- of-way, as part of the CDOH acquisition efforts, along the highway corridor. This increment of right-of-way could be offered to the Coml~unity at the marginal cost of acquisition and would then be available to the Community for future transportation opportunities (rail, cable, trails, etc.). Traffic Mitigation Efforts - The Commission finds the document detailed in many respects, but lacks the comprehensiveness which this community expects from transportation planning documents. For example, the DEIS does not accurately reflect the social and environmental distress caused by the current level of development and the City' and County's struggle to deal with them and reassess future rates and type of developments. Additionally, the DEIS does not address the impact which Traffic System Management (TSM) measures will have on traffic projections. The CDOH probably is not aware that RFTA has approved a planning/marketing position to implement TSM measures such as car pooling. As you know, the Roaring Fork Valley, which has only one major corridor into and out of Aspen, is ideally suited for car pooling. The DEIS should take these factors into consideration. The impact of settlement patterns is also one which should be addressed. Although these impacts have a much longer horizon, the affordable housing efforts that the County and City are committed to and are implementing should Resolution No. 89-10 Page 5 be factored into the EIS traffic projections. Finally, the potential of commuter rail or dedicated busway between Glenwood and Aspen should be addressed. All of these measures change the traffic potential of the highway, but none are addressed in the EIS. Given the present issues the Community is dealing with and the Community's concerns for development and growth, the growth projections (which were developed by the Planning Office) and the resultant traffic overstated. Wildlife - The EIS does not wildlife impact or mitigation. comments about "working with Wildlife" is unsatisfactory. mitigation community measures can avoid Basalt bypass. for wildlife the problems projections may be greatly give much information about The Commission finds that the Colorado Division of Information regarding is needed so that the which occurred on the Interim Solutions - The EIS does not provide for or allow for interim solutions to the safety or congestions, i.e., slow vehicle lanes where possible. This should be provided for in the EIS. Bicycle/Pedestrian Travel - The cross sections of typical road designs include provisions for bicycle/pedestrian travel. This travel typically happens on the shoulder of the road. The Commission finds that pedestrian and bicycle travel on the trail system should be separated from the Resolution No. 89-l0 Page 6 10. 11. roadway. Money spent on sidewalks along the roadway should be used to provide a parallel trail system throughout the highway corridor in the Aspen area. Three-Lane Alternative - The Commission is concerned with the four-lane approach for the entire length of the study area. Salida and Copper Mountain have highway systems that vary from four-lane to roads work very well. Air Quality - The issue three-lane to two-lane and these of air quality was not adequately appears to look at addressed for the Aspen area. The DEIS air quality only in the corridor. The Commission finds it is important to understand the impact of projected traffic on the air quality of Aspen. 12. Landscaping - The Commission understands that this may be a design issue, but the landscaping needs of the highway corridor are significant and especially significant for the open space land in the Entrance to Aspen. 13. Historic Resources - The Commissions finds that minor adjustments in the direct connection corridor will improve the setting for the Marolt Barn historic structure. Conclusion - The community is doing many things to reduce the traffic impact on the highway: increased RFTA service including car pooling and van pooling; affordable housing is being provided in the Aspen area by both the City and County; and the County, City and RFTA are exploring the potential of using the Rio Grande right-of-way as an alternate transportation corridor into Aspen. Resolution No. 89-10 Page 7 These efforts should be incorporated into the EIS to determine different scenarios for future need. In many people's opinion, the lack of thoughtful planning for wildlife for the Basalt Bypass caused a destruction of wildlife that could have been avoided. This may or may not be an accurate assessment, but it points to the fact that issues beyond the highway must be addressed and planned for even if the CDOH is not responsible for the implementation of all the different elements. While the Commission is aware that the CDOH is reluctant to delve into transportation issues beyond the scope of improving the highway, the staff finds that these issues must be raised and addressed if the community's transportation problems are to be appropriately addressed in the long term. If we proceed with highway improvements in a vacuum, then the highway may become an impediment to other transportation solutions rather than part of an overall solution. Adequate planning for park and ride facilities for future public transit or car and van pool alternatives, and future trails for bicycle and pedestrian movement are important if the highway is to be viewed as an asset to the community. Further, if highway improvements are done in a vacuum, then the public's confidence of both local government and the CDOH will be diminished. APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its Special Meeting on October 24, 1989. Resolution No. 89- l0 Page 8 ATTEST: els.pz, reso Clerk ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION