Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891024 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Herron, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Means arrived immediately after roll call and Mari Peyton at 5:00. Michael Graeme arrived COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Michael asked what happened at Council meeting with the delicatessen. Torn Baker: What I heard was that it was denied. Graeme: Frank Peters said that it was denied on a 2 to 2 vote. Their objection was that it just would create a lot more pedestrian traffic and create a lot more employees to serve the people. Frank's opinion was that a lot of people are going for code amendments instead of going to the Board of Adjustments and he felt that for developers it was easier to go through an amendment than it was to go through the other channels. Torn: degree doable We have seen a rash of those lately. the seating in eating establishments deal but not this time. I think to some in NC might be a Michael: That means that the locals can stand up to eat. Roger asked about the lock boxes for the Commissioners. Torn said he would check on it. STAFF COMMENTS None. STATE HIGHWAY 82 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Torn made presentation as attached and also showed slides and maps of proposed highway change. What I would like to do is take your input and the public input and develop a resolution that would be submitted to the state as part of the record for commenting on the draft of the environmental impact statement. I also want that resolution to go before Council for their meeting on the EIS on November 6th from 5:00 to 7:00. Council is going to discuss the draft EIS. From 7:00 to 8:00. state Highway Dept. has been invited to talk PZM10.24.89 wi th Council, the P&Z, pi tkin County Parks Association about design issues On the entrance to Aspen. The concern there is that if we don't hash out the open space, trails, historic resources issues to some degree in the entrance that when we go to the voters in February which is the target date right now for a vote for the 6 penny issue regarding the highway that if we don't have those kinds of details we might get shut out again on that decision. P&Z is definitely invited. DISCUSSION Torn: In the entrance we have a number of takings and encroachments. My understanding of takings are structures or properties that are impacted to the degree where the entire property would be acquired by the Highway Dept. Encroachments are properties that are encroached upon by the improved highway but not to the point of taking the entire property. Obviously in a taking you are compensated for the entire property. And encroachment compensation is done on a case by case basis depending on the significance of the encroachment. Existing alignment. You have the 2 houses that would be taken up by the Aspen Tennis Court subdivision. That is the same in both entrance alternatives. Then as you corne in you see a taking-- this is the Gas Company shed that is right off the trail on the down valley side of the bridge. The Depagters residence down a long-- Wel ton: The Depagters' s residence would be taken with the straight in entry. This might be either the Alterfor or the Harbour Lane Annexation. They were both right under the bridge. Anyway there is one residence underneath the bridge right at the creek level that would be taken. Then there is a 6 unit--that red residence that is next to the Villas as you are going out. That is in the County. So that structure jumps up the numbers quite a bit on the existing land because there are 6 residences here. And I think the total is 9 residences that are affected. Then there are encroachments here on the Villas. Welton: But in the Villas PUD when they got that approval they were held back significantly from the existing highway just to give themselves some breathing space from the highway. There is a tremendous amount of grass area there. The same way that the 2 PZM10.24.89 victoria Square was held back 30ft from the highway in order to give them breathing space. So there will be a slight taking of land in that corner to make a 25mph curve. But it wouldn't increase the amount of pavement. It could be done with less than about 6ft additional pavement in that inside radius of that curve so insignificant the only impact would be at the Aspen Villas. Torn: As you can see here this is the area that--the turn lane that was required on the bridge is to allow access onto 8th if the Meadows develops because 7th under this design no longer becomes an option. The same thing happens here at 7th and Main street. The access is limited. This is the Christian Science Church that also has an employee dwelling unit that is taken and then the Hickory House is taken. In discussions with Dave and Rich Persky they are not absolutely sure that the entire Hickory House has to go. There is a wing of the Bavarian that sticks out farther than the rest of the building. That wing would be compromised and whether that means the entire structure goes or not we are not sure until we get to design. So that applies for the Hickory House and the Bavarian but it is clear that the Christian Science under this design would go. Welton: That is the problem with that design. That design is using the more rural standards than Main Street. And I have got- -here are copies of my letter to the Highway Dept plus maps that I have done. The ROW for Hallam Street is 75ft and the ROW for 7th Street is 75ft. The 2 lanes going west on main Street total 24ft. The 2 lanes going east total 24ft and the turn lane in the center totals 12ft. The total is 60ft and I don't know why 60ft of pavement plus some bus turnoffs cannot fit into a 75ft public ROWand require all these takings of land. It just doesn't make common sense to me. Except that the Highway Dept is determined to make it seem like a much more severe scenario by putting a wider ROW in that 4 block section between the Castle Creek Bridge and the end of Main street than Main Street is. I am showing something between 20 and 25mph. I don't know that 25mph is really necessary on that curve. Those 2 curves are the best method we have of slowing the traffic down to a speed that is appropriate to Main Street. No stop light. No speed sign. No other method, no amount of curvy Qs through the Marolt property are going to slow people down to the scale that we want to see on Main Street the way those 2 S curves have done for 100 years. 3 PZMIO.24.89 steve Crockett, at the meeting we all attended a couple of months ago, said "A little discreet highway but whatever will do the least amount of impact". I am sick and tired of the same kind of red herrings that were used 3 years ago and 6 years ago saying "The Hickory House is going to have to go and the Christian Science Church is going to have to go". By forcing a rural solution to an urban context, of course yc;>u are going to cause more damage to that neighborhood. But, J.n fact, you can do it with as little as 3ft additional pavement on either side of the existing pavement so that the neighbors who have always been impacted certainly will be impacted a little bit more but not negligibly more. Roger: I have to counter on some of these points because this treatment here you basically still require somewhere on Main street a traffic light to block--or platoon the traffic. Other- wise the entire northwest or southwest end of town gets no access to Main street because in effect you start disbursing the traffic out. You start from the traffic light at Cemetery Lane which will be there--you have 2 20 to 25mph turns which does nothing to improve the space in between platoons of traffic so people can access Main street without a traffic light. So there is going to be a traffic light required. In either scenario you have wiped out all the parking along the Forest Service. There is a restaurant on the corner of 8th and Hallam that that parking is fairly essential to. They are already parking down 8th street so you are severely impacting that business. Right now there is parking in front of Poppies. stop and parking there as well. There is a bus Baker: What Welton's input boils down to is reducing the standards of the Highway Dept' s designs from Castle Creek in where the urban segment starts on the existing alignment. Welton: Roger's suggestion earlier was to make it Creek all the way in as being very appropriate. standards in an urban context to an urban standard. from Maroon Reduce the Compton: Treat those corners as an extension of Main street rather than an extension of the highway. Welton asked for comment from the public. Joe Krabacher: curves and yet 25mph. We are My feeling would be--we are talking about 25mph Main Street on the other side is faster than not widening Main st. so why does this section 4 PZM10.24.89 that is going to be 25mph need to have a wider ROW than the Main st. which is 30mph.? That does not seem logical to me. I feel we should have as narrow as possible ROW to avoid impacting all the stuff we have been talking about. Baker: When you reduce those standards you compromise the turning ability of large vehicles like buses or semi tractor trailers so that they get out of their turn lane. I think this design the reason why it is so wide is to allow any vehicle to stay in it's lane through that turn. What Welton is saying is that we should look at this in an urban context. Herb Klein: What is the state's position on reducing these ROW's from interstate standards? Torn to SH man--Is this as narrow as it can ever be for the Sturn area? SH man: And maintain ___?____, yes. Georgeann: But if we had a 20mph zone, it could be narrower. Klein: It has got to be based on some kind of interstate standard, or urban standard. Something that is--this place has gotten more urban but if it wasn't before it was built it sure as hell will be after it is built. As I recall when you are dealing with 4F issues the requirement that there be held prudent or feasible alternatives for taking properties includes engineering alternatives. And it is my understanding-at least it was 15 years ago-that statute has not changed. You couldn't get hung up on urban standards. You couldn't get hung up on interstate standards. You had to really do what was possible from an engineering point of view and not pre-conceived notions. And I think it is required to do that options to review. I he did when we looked against this thing. essential that that State Hwy. Dept. be so that they can give us some credible got a chance to look at Welton's map that at it 3 years when there was a second vote And it seemed at the time feasible and it seems to be very appropriate and in scale with keeping the entrance to town something other than an urban expressway. I live in that area and I don't think my house would be encroached upon and I have been trying to rationalize my ability to live comfortably there with either of these alternatives. In trying to create something 5 ~.~.....-.__.;., ~'.'.._~_._"~_.~-_.... PZM10.24.89 other than a very biased basis for my comments I could probably live comfortably with either one of them. But it would be a crime I think and kind of a mindless act to put the straight shot across that park land. I walk there just about every night. I have a couple of dogs and we walk up 7th street and head across the bridge winter and summer and thoroughly enjoy that property. And I am not alone. There are other people out there at all hours. I am out there 6:00 at night sometimes it is midnight and believe it or not there are people out there at those times because it is the only park land in that part of the west end. There is the Meadows which isn't pUblic. But there is no park over there. There is no place for people in that part of the City to go and have some open space. It was dedicated as open space for everybody but I can tell you as a neighborhood park, that really works. And it works just the way it is. It is just nice open space. You can walk through. You can ride a bike through. You can cross country ski through. It is fantastic. The Park Association spent all that money on the bridge to make it usable. There is going to be a museum there which is really a neat spot. These are great community benefits. When you stand up there and you look back When you stand near where the museum is- the old lixiviation plant site and you look back towards town, you get a perspective on really what an island the town is. And it has got this natural barrier. It has got Castle Creek which is a perfect natural barrier. And it contains the town and creates an open space and gives you a sense of the mountains and it controls the urbaness of the City. They are going to totally wreck that. You put that highway through there--you can put in a divider strips and trees and all that stuff--it is going to be ruined. It is going to be devastated and it won't be able to be used. And I think that is a crime. And what is the tradeoff? We talk about platooning vehicles. We are going to need traffic lights anyway. With or without this thing we are going to need more traffic lights. With either alternative there is going to have to be traffic lights on Main street. You don't get perfect platooning because the cars that corne up to a light, they get the red light or stop so that other cars are on the green light and can go through. It doesn't work that way let alone the fact that they can't synchronize these lights anyway. So let's not kid ourselves. It is stupid to get more people into town so that they can mix with 6 PZM10.24.89 the pedestrians and bicyclists and look for parking spaces in a more congested way. What is going on? And the answer to the question is the Highway Department. I mean, these people they ought to be given tons of money and send them out to the great plains and build pyramids. Let them do their thing--just don't let them do it here. Applause. Doug Macaulay: I live over in the same neighborhood. My Grandaddy once told me that every Mamma Crow thinks that her baby is the blackest. And it kind of goes the same way here. You can look at the same thing and you can see 2 different things. In looking at the straight shot and looking at the S curve, you can make a real good case for bringing in the straight shot. The open space that we have right now is going to increase if we bring in the straight shot. The stuff that is on the down side in large part is going to be taken out by employee housing that they are going to be building in that area. So what you see down south of here is really what is going to be there very shortly. They are talking about putting in enough units to house 300 music students during the summer. Now that is quite a bunch of houses. So if you look at what is going to happen if you bring the straight shot in you are going to be creating more area of open space on the north side and it is also going to be created on the same side of town where the majority of people live. It is going to give the people on the west end a way to get out to that area without having to run the risk of crossing I70 which no doubt is going to be a significant problem. So, so far as the open space is concerned in the way that I see it there will be more open space that will be usable to more people if the straight shot comes in as opposed to widening the S curve. If you widen the S curve you are just going to have incredible impact on a large number of people. I am one of them. I live in the Aspen Villas. I live that long distance away from the S curve. I can tell you that that road is going to be in my front yard. It is going to be right up next to me. And when you talk about bringing 20 and 30 thousand cars a day in there along with the trucks that are rather large in size, you are talking about a big deal. We don't have that much open space, between us and the road. You are talking about taking 6ft. That doesn't sound like much. When you look at the fact you are only 18ft away from the road that is 30% of it. That is a lot and it is going to have a significant impact on us. 7 ->-.--.., <,_-,_-,",~,_~_,_-~"'_..-...,, . PZM10.24.89 It is also taking away a lot of the last affordable housing on our end of town. We looked and looked when we moved to town. We looked for a long time to find someplace to live in this town and this was about the only place that we could find. I am a physician at the hospital and I wanted to be close to the hospital and this was the only place we could find that we could live. I also work in the emergency department and know about accidents. That is the highest accident curve on the whole of Hwy. 82. The highest accident rate. And if you think that you are going to bring people in at 40 or 50mph corning into town and brake them down to 20mph and then allow them to go 30mph on Main street and do the reverse corning out, your are naive. They are going to go 30mph through that curve. They are not going to slow down. Just think about how you drive. Folks don't slow down just because you see a sign that says you slow down for 20 or 30, 50 or 100 yards. They are not going to do that. And your are going to condemn this huge number of people to have serious accidents right in that S curve which right now is the highest accident part on the whole highway. Why would you want to do that? I have talked to the police who corne in frequently and I have asked them what is the difference. And they say there is not going to be any problem controling the speed on that straight shot. Charles Cunniffe: Do you want to maintain a bottleneck at the end of Main street? Is that--It sounds like P&Z mostly wants to see the S curve. And I wonder if you want to keep the traffic problem that we have got on Main Street going or, in fact, increase it as population increases. I think the S curve is an artificial means to try to slow down traffic. A straight shot could be controlled in terms of speed. I don't think the S curve is the way to control speed. The S curve would be a much more dangerous way to control the speed. Graeme: Without taking sides on which way to go on this I think there is a real function to the light at Cemetery Lane and these S curves. Right now a lot of times in the morning we have people backed up all the way to the Business Center. At least these 2 curves kind of slow them down enough that it is not totally stop and go traffic on Main Street. I am really concerned that if these curves are widened enough or if the straight shot comes in then we are going to have traffic backed up all the way from the Hotel Jerome instead. You are going to create a great deal of air pOllution and just more congestion in town. So whichever route it is those kind of artificial means have to be there to slow and to space traffic. 8 PZM10.24.89 I would like to re-inforce something you said earlier. I really feel that there are alternatives with other kinds of transportation that hopefully we will be able to reduce what the highway dept feels is an acceptable alignment. In other words I think we need to look at reducing the traffic rather than accommodating the traffic because there is no place to go once you get here. There are parking problems, pollution problems etc. Margaret Albouy: The bottleneck in the S curves is because the bridge is 2 lane. Welton: Yes. It is 4 lane traffic trying to neck down to 2 lanes of traffic at the bridge right now. Margaret: Are there any other standards for highways besides for interstate. Because I think it would be disastrous. I think we can widen the road to 4 lanes without building an interstate. Baker: My understanding is there are the standards that apply from the Highway Dept point of view are 12ft travel lanes, 10ft shoulders except if the shoulder is adjacent to a median or retaining wall could be 4ft. That is what I glean from looking at the cross sections. The ROW needs beyond the actual pavement and shoulders are for maintenance requirements. And the width then is dependant on what you have for a median or turn lane. Dave, Hwy Dept: they are all 12ft travel lanes. The interstate has 300ft of ROW. 50 to 60ft median. The mountainous section you need to have 10ft on the outside for break downs. In the urban area there wouldn't be a shoulder. There would be curb and gutter. It would be 60ft total. Michael: City Council does not allow curb and gutter. Bobbie Carson: My understanding is that the whole idea of building 4 lanes is to alleviate the bottleneck whether it is at the curves or at a straight shot. The reason that we have a bottleneck is because you are bottling 4 lanes of traffic into ostensively 1. So if, in fact, they did decide to go with the widening of the curves to some type of 4 lane treatment, why would there still be a bottleneck at corning in at the existing alignment? I thought that was the whole idea of having 4 lanes. Jasmine: We already have 4 lanes but don't use them because of the bridge. Bobbie: So in fact there wouldn't be a bottleneck. I feel that you are going to have a problem with a stop light at 7th and Main again as far as cars being backed up and then having to move out 9 PZM10.24.89 at such a slow pace or getting backed up as they are going out of town again because of the density of cars in town that don't belong there in the first place but have to be there. I am real concerned about another traffic light at particular area as far as congestion, pollution, noise keeping the flow of traffic going. Baker: I think it has been made clear by the Hwy Dept and I think the P&Z agrees that there would need to be a traffic light there. that and Bobbie: In order to slow the traffic to town which you wouldn't need if you 4 lane on the existing alignment because supposedly-- isn't Main street traffic only 25mph anyway? And it was my understanding that the curves, if widened, would accommodate vehicular traffic and trucks up to a certain length at a speed of 25mph. The signal at Cemetery Land will already have slowed them somewhat. If there is more signals at the ABC which it seems to me is a given at this point, that is another slowing. So they haven't really had a chance to increase their speed to phenomenal amounts where if they are corning in on a straight shot already, they are maybe putting on their brakes when they get to that signal, they should be following it at 30 to 25mph by the time they get to the curves anyway and continue on at that speed as they corne into town which is the speed we would like to see them at if not less. Michael: One of the problems I have with the whole study to begin with is that the approach was either 4 lane or 6 different approaches to 4 lane. But there was nothing in between that. I think what we ended up with is I70. A couple of weeks ago I went down to Salida and a few weeks before that I went to Copper Mountain. That is a whole highway that is sometimes 4 lane, sometimes 3 lane, sometimes 2 lane. But it is an I70 and it seems to me that that is something that is certainly #1 a lot cheaper, #2 be a lot easier to build and #3 be a solution that fits this valley much better than what we see here. Corning back closer to town: In my opinion I think that we are living in an environment that is crazy right now from the Airport to town by having it be 50 or 55mph to begin with. That is just not an appropriate area with that number of cars. It is not going to be long before somebody is going to turn out of the airport or turn out of the Airport Business Center or out of the Grand Champions Club and you have a head-on accident and kill half a dozen people. It is just crazy. We should have stop lights at all of those intersections. 10 --"~,-,---_.,,,'-~-"-<'-'-"'---"'" PZM10.24.89 This is not 1950. This is not a farm community. We are in 1989 and almost 1990. And just saying we don't want stop lights doesn't eliminate the fact that we do need stop lights and that that whole stretch is going too fast. I sit here and look at this picture--all that is to me is I70. And when I look at it all I can really see is Vale. And I don't think that is what anybody here wants. But that seems to be what the Highway Dept is giving us and I am not quite sure why. It concerns me to even raise that as a question because the last time we gave them a little bit of flack, they went away and we got nothing. But it just seems that there has to be a more reasonable compromise that would make a lot more sense for everybody. Graeme: I agree with a lot of the points that Mickey made. And getting a little out of town into Snowrnass Canyon I think that there should be maybe a safety-improved 2 lane road there with a median and that would at least put people on notice that they are not on a highway a way down valley and hopefully they would start to mellow out at that point. Welton: Here". visualize a new traffic sign that says "Mellow Out Jasmine: I agree a lot with what you say. The problem I think has to do with the fact that everyone assumes that going fast is just a matter of everybody being hopped up. But it is not really as simple as that. I know because so many of my friends who are now forced to live down valley and work in town--time is really a very important factor. Psychologically even you may only save 3 or 4 minutes by going 50 to 60mph that 3 or 4 minutes means a lot when you are in between 2 jobs. And a great deal of the traffic on Hwy 82 is people who are commuting to jobs in Aspen from their homes down valley. And the purpose of improving the highway is to make it safer for everybody including those people. And I think the "mellow out" and the slowing down is all very well and good but we are talking about what is a basic transportation ritual that these people have to go through every day. I think we have to be concerned about making Hwy 82 as safe as possible without turning it into an I70. I think you are going to get a lot of problems with trying to make traffic too slow because it is just not realistic given what Hwy 82 has become. 11 ._."_.-----,_.-_...,~_.. PZM10.24.89 Michael: That wasn't my idea that we should have a 30mph speed limit from Grand Junction to here. But I think probably 80% of the roadway between here and the point where we need to 4 lane it is 4 laneable very easily. And it is really only in Snowrnass canyon and Shale Bluffs where it isn't. And that if we 4 laned all of those areas, traffic would move so that more than 3 minutes would be made up so that the drive from here to Basalt would be a 15 minute ride without having it be I70. compton: On the straight line shot it is curved way south to avoid that gun-barrel affect down Main Street and which encroaches on the Marolt Ranch so that I think that even if it carne in straighter that you still wouldn't get so much of that gun barrel effect which people are afraid of and it would be beneficial to the Ranch. Baker: That is a point that Roxanne and I discussed earlier today and it is a point of concern with this alignment because of the historic resource. Roxanne's concern is that she understands there are competing goals here and we want to preserve historic integrity but we have got transportation needs as well. But moving this alignment and shifting it maybe the width of the alignment-maybe that is all that needs to be done-would accommodate preserving at least give a better setting to the Barn or the museum. compton: Here is a graph taken from the Environmental Impact Statement. (attached in record) It shows their projection of growth between now and the year 2,010 which is basically a straight line growth at the present level for another 23 years to traffic level 56% increase of what we now have. Now I think that is entirely unrealistic. We see historically 2 spurts in growth. One in the early 70s and the 80s which are connected with periodic construction booms and doesn't even bring into play the fact that at some point we are going to hit some type of absolute wall. And they are talking about 20,OOOsqft of new commercial space in Aspen every year. And I don't know if there is even room for that. From EIS I learned that 4 lane has 30 to 40% more capacity than a 2 lane. So they are not talking about doubling the capacity. We are talking about increasing it by 1/3. And so that is an increase of 1/3. I am talking about a 50% increase in traffic using their projections. So after 20 years of building a 4 lane, we end up with more congestion than we have now. We are talking about a certain unreality--kind of like nuclear war scenario. This is just beyond anything that is sensible. Which is not to say that our society is necessarily sensible. But we are looking 12 PZM10.24.89 at things that are going to have breakdown effects. We are going to start having breakdown effects that are happening now. They are going to continue and increase. This is not going to decrease in any way whatsoever. It is not a solution to our problems. It is just more construction in the long run. So it is a certain unreality--the whole process. Whereas an improved 2 lane would give us 10% increase in capacity over what we have now just for the extra room and the shoulders and some passing lanes and stops. Herb Klein: I remember when they were trying to justify the Glenwood canyon project. They said the average truck when it was done, would save 5 minutes getting through Glenwood Canyon. That was a $300,000,000 project which now has hit half a billion bucks. If you think about the lost time you will experience sitting around in your cars while they are building the damned thing so that when it is all done the average truck is going to save 5 minutes and if you compare that to 82--this is the general proposi tion of the whole thing. To make up that time this average worker is going to be long dead and buried before they get any time benefit from this highway. So I think we have also got to keep in mind what it is going to be like while they are building this thing and the extent of construction has to do with different design alternatives but there has got to be a better way. I think Richard's point is well taken. What will we get when it is going to take 15 years to build it so that theoretically by the time it is done, the day it opens it is going to be obsolete. And then what do you do? Let's try and do something intelligent. I think we need to work on auto disincentives. Anyway, just keep that in mind. There has got to be a cost benefit analysis. that anywhere. And I didn't see Roger: The scary thing to me is this 33,900 cars over Castle Creek by 20l5? Well, I have to start out saying that is absolutely impossible. What are we going to do? Tear down half the town and make it a parking garage? That is not feasible. So this doesn't work. We have got to look at an alternative means of getting people up and down valley. But at the same time we have to figure out improvements to this damned highway. Theoretically 2 lanes does it but when you are number 15 to 20 behind a 35mph truck on this 2 lane highway with no place to pass, it just drives people literally up a tree. Because up ahead of that truck there is open space and for some 13 PZM10.24.89 reason there is never any enforcement about slow vehicles pulling over to let the faster ones by. The point is that much of the 4 laning is safety improvements. I think it is wrong to go after a target of 33,900 cars over Castle Creek Bridge. We are having problems with about 18,000 right now. Baker: The annual average is probably 23,000 in the summer time. And it is up to 21,000 in the winter. Roger: The point is we have to figure out some way to improve this highway. And I would like to do it in less than 4 lane from here to Glenwood springs. But the Highway Dept. is bent on building 4 lanes. That seems to be what they can do best. But in areas like Snowrnass Canyon I think there is plenty of room for an improved 2-lane. By improved 2-lane I mean with areas of passing lane, even 4 lanes in some spots in Snowrnass canyon over the existing alignment to give people passing areas. The Hwy Dept' s argument usually is that that doesn't have the capacity that is necessary. Well, they are working at this 33,900 capacity over Castle Creek Bridge which, to me, is an impossible number to work towards. We can't live with that kind of number. So I think it is incumbent on us to emphasize to the Hwy Dept that they shouldn't be building a highway to that projected capacity because we are going to have to have an alternative system to tap off some of that demand off of the hwy system. However we do definitely need improvements in certain areas between here and Brush Creek which probably does justify a 4 lane all the way. Unfortunately I don't see an al ternati ve to a 4 lane by Shale Bluffs because our problem in the winter time is between Brush Creek and by having a restriction at Shale Bluffs doesn't make any sense as much as I dislike their treatment of Shale Bluffs as far as the Hwy Dept's solution. cunniffe: Has the alternative been look at to split the road? Welton: That was voted on 7 years ago. Roger: It was also re-reviewed and the HWy Dept was told by City council Resolution to re-Iook at that. The problem is what that does to the open space is just horrible. It just cuts up the open space into unusable parcels. And that is why the concentration on either the existing alignment or the direct approach. 14 PZM10.24.89 cunniffe: Has P&Z looked at aligned rail or something like that corning in as an adjunct to the highway so that the 4 lane highway could be done at minimum standards supplemented by our trains. Roger: Right now RFTA has engaged Kaiser Engineers to study the use of the Rio Grande ROWand included in that are alternatives to bringing that into town other than the existing Rio Grande ROW to the Rio Grande property. An alternative that is being looked at is servicing the airport and then corning in parallel to the highway and then either taking roughly corning through the Thomas Marolt property paralleling the direct alignment and either trying to catch the Midland ROW to get it up into Rubey Park or some other alternative. But it needs, if it is corning in on that side of the valley, to get as close to Rubey Park as possible. wi th the Dwight Shellman's Shale Bluffs bypass approach that would be an ideal way if the Hwy Dept went for that type of an approach. It would be an ideal way of also bringing the train over to the down valley commuter over to the south side of the valley to service the airport and come in more or less along the highway alignment. Margaret: "When Federal moneys are used on public projects mitigation of all negative impacts physically, economic, social, biologic on the population involved is required". That is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Since the HWy Dept. DEIS does not provide for mitigation plan for the impacts on the population during the construction period, what we have been looking at is the act to be used to allow the Hwy Dept to use Hwy funds to help get a train in here before any construction takes place. There will be a session with the city Council Wednesday on that. What we feel--I am talking about the Western Slope Railroad Association--is an addition to the DEIS plan must be done that clearly shows an alternative option during the years of construction. That doesn't exist in the DEIS. We feel that because of the topography of this valley, a train service is the only option which can keep commerce and social well being of the community in tact during the disruption during the construction. We find the only logical mitigation plan would be the installation of rail service. This plan must be in service before the decisions are required on improvements needed to the highway. Taking into account the difference a commuter train would make to auto traffic. The train must be installed BEFORE work begins on the highway. 15 PZM10.24.89 since the highway will be improved with up to 80% federal funds, it is clear the highway department EIS mitigation plan will permit the use of highway funds to help provide the train under provision of the NEPA ACT. It is vital that the different governmental bodies within in the Roaring Fork Valley be united in their approach to the highway department in seeing what can be done to get an alternative mode of transportation into Aspen. Roger: The DEIS did not include any mitigation of the problems so we could compare what some of the impacts are going to be on the community during construction of either one of those. The same is true in the Shale Bluffs area. Bobbie: The DEIS doesn't even acknowledge that there is a potential train as an alternative. Roger: The DEIS and if you talk with the Hwy Dept they say "Well you will never see a train up this valley". So that is their approach in the DEIS to the railroad ROW. Welton: I think Margaret's comments here were right to the point of what I have heard most every member of this commission say in the past. That is that the projections are not going to be solved by a 4-lane highway alone and that these things are going to have to work hand in hand. I think you really hit the nail on the head. Margaret: Well, see we have always been told this vast amount of funds to do a highway could not be used for anything but a highway. But as part of the mitigation plan, they can be used for alternative use during the years of construction. Welton: That seems like the only salvation for this valley. In the next 20 years while this highway is under construction would be to provide a second alternative. Cunniffe: And maybe beyond that too. Jasmine: I agree wholeheartedly. And I really am intrigued by the idea of the other alignment with the possibility of having the rail come in to Rubey Park. Margaret: What we have discussed in the Western Slope RR Association we feel strongly it should corne straight into town. It can be done quickly. If you want to tie it to highway improvements there is no reason why in the future as the highway is improved a spur cannot be added corning across the valley and 16 PZM10.24.89 be included in the highway ROWand then serve Snowrnass and the Airport and corne into town. Baker: I think that ties into what Dwight Shellman was talking about with the marginal acquisition of additional ROW--just paying the marginal costs now and having that as in-the-bank. Whether it ever gets used or not it is our option. Jasmine: I mentioned this before-in the planning for Long Island in New York they were busy building these beautiful Parkways that with this wall-to-wall congestion going into Long Island, they deliberately did not include RR ROW. They deliberately made the overpasses going over the highway too small to allow the standard bus to go through so that there was absolutely no way of using these parkways except by passenger cars so they could look along these beautiful parkways and say "Look at this beautiful parkway. Isn't this a nice way to get out to Jones Beach". And I think that we would be very short-sighted if we did not take into account whatever we can to allow the option of having rail either adjacent to or as part of the highway ROW or in another location. But it is so obvious that we need to have some kind of system other than vehicular even in our little valley. Margaret: The history behind the reason that all of this was done this way is that they build highways for cars and didn't build for trains it is just absolutely essential that we now do not continue in this direction. We can't have all these cars in Aspen. It is impossible. Compton: You will have a hard time bringing the train in around that S curve. Margaret: We were talking about using the Midland ROW. I think we have to keep our eye on the Rio Grande ROW as it is so we can do it collectively get it into town. Welton: You are talking about getting it into town to the Rio Grand property on the Rio Grand ROW in the immediate foreseeable future. Margaret: within a year or a year and a half. Mari: We own that ROW. Georgeanne Waggaman: I would like to add my vote in the whole direction that this is going. I am really pleased with this direction. I agree with Margaret. We can't have 20 years of congestion and not solve this problem somewhat. I do think rail is the only way. Perhaps if emphasis was made on a clean, light, 17 PZM10.24.89 quiet rail as opposed to locomotives choo-chooing down on those people's homes this would be more conducive to getting it done quickly. I would like to also say I like the idea that has been brought up tonight about not necessarily 4 laning the whole thing. 4 laning and passing lanes wherever it makes sense that will still get people down here faster if half of the time they can get around the real slow cars. The other thing is to consider along with all of this before the train and highway, are park-and-ride stops so that people can park and pool. welton: I think that was another serious omission from the DEIS. ,/ Mari: The other criticism I have with the DEIS is the fallacy that there are relocations possible in this valley that they can re-Iocate homes and businesses especially 51 people living in mobile homes can be re-Iocated somewhere in this valley. And even if it were possible to re-Iocate them the numbers that they corne to at arriving at the cost of acquiring the property is just totally out of line. Graeme: I agree with Dick's assessment of the potential growth of Aspen and that should be factored into the whole situation here. I think the train alternative, carpooling, busing should all be considered more. I think we have a very talked about pedestrian, bicycle paths need to be improved. I think that the concept of 4-lane and areas of less than 4-lane throughout the valley is an important concept. Roger: I think we all agree that whichever direction it is we want more the boulevard approach as opposed to the I70 approach. Graeme: I think the pollution thing in terms of having cars backed up all the way up Main street out of town is something that needs to be considered. Welton: I asked Torn Cardomone to look at the Environmental Impact statement as it really impacts the environment. He is ACEs--for environmental study. I think the two volumes talk about a lot of stuff and that not much of it has to do with the environment. Particularly the area we are talking about which is Castle Creek Valley. He mentioned to me that Depagters have a house down on the bottom right underneath where this bridge would corne in. That is basically between the existing castle Creek Bridge and the new and to a much lesser extent the new pedestrian bridge at the 18 , -,.,,,~...,~----- PZM10.24.89 Marolt property. This is an area that you really can't get to by foot. And that is a very distinctly personal, unique environment in that area of Castle Creek that Depagters know about that has a lot of wild life visiting it. There are very steep canyon walls. There are really no pathways that make it easy for a lot of people to get to it. It is really a very rustic area of wildlife right in the middle of town. And that has not been referenced to in the Environmental Impact statement. Nor has there been any discussion of what building a new 91ft wide bridge over that portion of the valley would do to that portion of the valley. Ignoring what the problems would be to the people, what would happen to the bottom portion of that valley? We were rather critical about construction techniques for that new pedestrian bridge that they minimize impacts on the valley floor there. We were even more critical about the development of the Meadows a half a mile downstream of Castle Creek and what that would do to the valley floor there. I don't think we can be any less concerned about taking a virgin area of Castle Creek riparian environment and basically disposing of it. Roger: I would expand that to the general EIS. Basically I say the EIS does not satisfactorily address the issue of wildlife impact in the entire DEIS. They write off wildlife impacts by saying "We will work with the Colorado Department of wildlife to mitigate the wildlife impacts". Well, we know how that worked with the Basalt Bypass. So that reallv concerns me. They did not identify wildlife problems or identify any mitigation of those impacts in this EIS. compton: Or even mention the increased possibility of collisions with wildlife in certain areas. Roger: I feel very uncomfortable with the existing alignment. Also in fairness you have to say that after that resolution of 1988 which was as a result of seeing the 2 alignments. Everyone remembers what the ballot looked like. The direct alignment looked altogether 10 times worse than the existing alignment because of all those little dotted property lines and things like that. But when the city council did see the renderings where the portion of the existing alignment was put back to "natural state" that some of them were taking very definite second thoughts about which one is best indeed. So I think their approach at this point is that they are more open minded about it. Michael: What really concerns me the most is the I70 approach. I would feel a lot more comfortable in considering the existing al ignment if it could be done in the context that isn't as intrusive as what they suggested. I don't know if we have enough information to make that decision but I kind of have the feeling 19 PZM10.24.89 that probably it can be done in a lot less intrusive way than has been suggested. Bruce: I could live with either one of the entrances. If I had to corne down right at this red-hot minute in favor of one entrance I would probably pick the straight shot. But, again, I could live with wither one. There are things about the straight shot I don't like. I live on Cemetery Lane. I don't like the idea of having to corne back into town and swing around back onto the highway again. Mari: I would pick the present alignment. This is one time I agree with Mickey Herron. Everything he said, I agree with. I think that we should be suggesting a scaled-down plan for I70 type 4 lane. When we talked about this 5 years ago I always said I don't know why they can't just create a 3rd lane for passing where it is possible and then make safety improvements rather than go the full scale project. Welton: At the recent meeting the Snowrnass Canyon people-they were cookin'. And I think that is going to be the only solution that is going to fly through Snowrnass canyon is going to be something that is a highbred. They are some steamed-up people. Mari: I just think that it is great that we all have a consensus it seems except for maybe the last little part--the straight shot or the curve. I just hope that we can keep this consensus going with all the bodies that have to report and I feel very strongly about incorporating that train as a mitigation. Cunniffe: On the straight shot one of the things that we have been talking about just on Main street without going out past-- is to try to find some way to boulevard it more to try to slow traffic down? In any of the solutions the bridge will have to be wider. compton: I think Graeme summarized the main points very well. I am divided as to the entrances to town in terms of what kind of highway we end up with. I think the bigger the highway as it approaches town the more sense it makes to take the straight shot. But if it is more of an upgrading of the existing highway then the present alignment makes more sense. Since that is my personal preference that leans me towards the existing alignment. Jasmine: At the moment I think I would prefer the existing alignment scaled down very much along the line of what you suggested. What might change my mind would be depending on a railway alignment that used the Midland ROW in which case it might make a lot more sense to have the existing entrance into town paralleling the rail entrance into town. 20 ~.,-._._""."-_..--,'--'-- PZM10.24.89 I like the idea of have the vehicular next to the rail. Then when everyone is sitting there stewing in their car, they can see the train just going right along--another way to show people the advantages of rail. I think it would be good to keep everything in a transportation corridor rather than having a road here and a road there, and a railroad here and a busway there--try to keep everything compactly in an area where you can try to mitigate as much as possible and you don't have millions and millions of acres that you have to mitigate. Keep it in one area that you work with in mitigation. So that might change my opinion as far as the actual entrance but other than that I think that the scaled-down existing alignment would be the way to go. Welton: It just occurred to me that a train and a highway department is sort of like the ranchers and the sheepherder. They just don't mix too well. Jasmine: But theoretically if you have a highway with a rail spur on the side it makes a lot of sense. Roger: with either alignment I would prefer the boulevard approach as opposed to the I70 approach. I think that should be starting to scale down as soon as the Maroon Creek Bridge. At that point it is time to start slowing down and you can convey that by changing the design of the highway. Pepper: Come on, Georganne, let's blow this joint. Roger: My preference is the direct approach to Main street. I think there are major benefits. There are problems that are going to have to be addressed with that present alignment not the least of which is the Council's action with the Meadows. They have identified 7th street as the access to that area and the highway's position that there will be no access off 7th Street so there is a built-in problem right there. I don't have a problem with the Shellman alternative--the bypass. However I don't think it is doable with the Colo. Dept. of Hwys. And so, therefore, we have to look at what the dept of hwy does best and that is cut a hole for a highway. I think we should identify that their treatment of Shale Bluffs I think is pretty extreme from an environmental point of view. A better alternative to me is cut and cover which was also identified by the County P&Z. This method is allover Europe where it is very common practice. They can do an awful lot of straightening out of Shale Bluffs by doing this and having a lot 21 PZM10.24.89 less impact on the environment than with their major cut routine. And in effect have almost totally reduced the maintenance on that roadway from sloughing. Margaret: Would it be possible to use the road as it is as a one-way going out of town and then come across the Marolt property and bring a 2 lane into Main street with a much smaller bridge. In other words you would have to build one 2-lane bridge instead of a 4-lane bridge. Roger: That chops up the open space into unusable parcels. Margaret: If you did it there at cemetery Lane you wouldn't be cutting into open space. Baker: The problem was that Cemetery Lane needed access to the up valley portion. There was further discussion regarding Margaret's suggestion. The general consensus was that this is an interesting concept. Roger: It does have the appeal. The only appeal that it has to me is that you do get a second bridge. That is if one bridge went out somehow or another this town wouldn't be completely strangled. Baker: We could bring this up at Council. Welton asked if there was any more the Commission member wanted to add to this resolution draft. Baker: If you agree with the County P&Z' s resolution I will emphasize things that we have talked about here. The train, Shale Bluffs, Mickey's comments about Snowrnass Canyon, etc. Roger: I don't have a problem with the County commissioners that they had inverted the order for the bypass being 1 and then 2 and 3. But the County commissioners omitted the Shale Bluffs 1 and 2 from their letter and I would like to emphasize the fact that I really favor cut and cover. Tunnels isn't necessary. Or that could be #2 and 3 be the Shale Bluffs bypass. Really very similar to the P&Z resolution. Baker: What I would like to say is that we also support the County's comments as stated in resolution 32 of 89. Welton: And maybe we were a little stronger on the train. Baker: And everything that we have taken out individually, I 22 PZM10.24.89 will add to it and in general we are in support of the county's resolution. MOTION Welton: I will entertain a motion to direct the Planning Office to compose a resolution based on the comments and discussion of this evening. Jasmine: To be signed by Welton if possible. Welton: Or by Jasmine by probable. Roger: I so move. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 23