Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920922 ~tJ ~ v~ , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '~""-'- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22. 1992 vice Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. David Brown and Richard Compton were late and Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. UTE PLACE BRIDGE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie made presentation as attached in record. /"'''' Gary Lacy, consultant from Boulder: Basically the bridge that we are proposing is a 10ft wide interior width by 85ft long. It is really quite a bit longer than you really need there other than it completely spans the 100 year flood plain and adjacent riparian areas so that there is no need to come in and disturb those areas and try to ripraff or protect the banks. The bridge is a black steel bridge with open railings similar to the ones that were put in last year. It has a replaceable wood deck so that it can easily be replaced. It has 6 to 9 inch openings for Osha standards so kids don't fallout of it. The maximum 48 inch high railings so you can stand there and look at the river without having the railing obstruct your view. The openness of the railing helps as far as snow removal or have sun shine through for the bridge deck itself. It has a 2% arch. It is a black bridge to try to blend to the natural environment as much as possible. Sara: I feel the application is incomplete because I would like to hear from the Corp of Engineers and some of the other agencies you need to contact as far as soil tests and other things. I think the cart is before the horse on this. George Robinson, Parks Dept: We are meeting Friday with the Corp of Engineers although the bridges were what we thought are right for any vegetation. / , Sara: From a Planning Office point of view don't you feel that all those permits should be in place betore they come beton the Commission? PZM9.22.92 , Leslie: That is why I stated as a condition that prior to any construction we have to have our permits in place. Rob Thomson, Engineering: Since the Corp is only considered about what is in the actual river itself--if your are taking material out or you are putting material in. It is more of a safeguard for us to let them know what we are doing down there on the river. Sara: For instance, what happened with the kayak course on that water diversion? Leslie: We were originally told during the site visit that we did not need any permits from them. Based on our plans that were submitted to them and we had a fax back from them saying that we did not need any permits. Robinson: Any work that would be done in there the Corp is going to let us know if we need a permit, what type of permit, before we start any work. That can be a condition put on there. Leslie: It is a condition. Bruce: It is one of the conditions of approval that prior to any construction that they have all their act together--the necessary paper work. It may be that a permit is not required by the Corp. Thomson: the United category. They look at what they consider territorial waters of States Government. And this proj ect isn't in that Stephen Edwards: I own Lot #10 of ute Place. For the benefit of the Commission I have prepared a little docket here. I will briefly describe what is inside. (attached in record) I am an official representative of Friends of the River which is a loose organization formed by people out of Calderwood and the river front owners although I am also a director of the ute Place Homeowner's Association. It doesn't mean that everyone of us speaks with united tongue. There are some nuances of difference between us. But the general sense is one of a concern for the river bank. The size of the bridge has a relationship to the path that might be designed, where it leads, where it might be constructed and perhaps an accommodation reached. And the path turns into a 6ft soft path instead of a 10ft concrete path. I would think an 8ft bridge would be beautiful, would be more appropriate. One that doesn't require an abutment that can be put up on posts that are treated and maybe they won't last 100 years. Maybe they will only last 80 years. But a bridge can be poetic or it can be handsome. But it doesn't , .....,,_.. 2 PZM9.22.92 necessarily have to be George Washington bridge. The rules say you can't remove a tree unless you are permitted. With all due regards to Parks--the parks is an applicant. As for a tree to be removed I doubt very much that Parks would deny itself that application. So I have to take a global approach and say no trees can be removed over 4 inches. We spent $20,000 on Aspens. And three years later half are dead and the other half are smaller than they were because they keep cutting them back. These are mature trees and they need to be preserved. These are wetlands. You can't cross into this area to do the bridge abutment without crossing the wetland area. It is habitat. I won't go into all that but there is no way to cross it without either filling it or doing some sort of reconstruction. When you read the Basalt construction contract I am not certain anyone knows how much this project is going to cost. The caveat is in there involving moving 150 boulders between 3 and 5 feet. Fritz and I were working on a boulder yesterday and it took a huge piece of equipment to move. There is no way that that boulder wall can be constructed inside that narrow space. r Leslie: You are talking about the trail now. Right? Edwards: Sorry. That was in incidental remark and I wish it to be stricken. The bridge abutment is in an area where fill is required. There is no way that you can avoid erosion. I am looking at paragraph 6 where it says--Item 4--No vegetation removed or slope grade changes made that produces erosion or sedimentation of the stream". If you look at the picture, you will find the abutment has been moved 4 feet below water. It has to be dug out by a piece of equipment that--I don't know--perhaps a helicopter could drop it. But I don't know how it can because it has to come from ute Park. So you have a very invasive design that calls for the poured abutment. I can't speak for eastern side of the river because I don't know who the owners are. Georgeanne Waggaman-Hayes: I live at Calderwood SUbdivision, 1112 Waters. I am very familiar with this area. I go back there a lot. It is right behind my house. I am naturally concerned about the trail. In Calderwood we are all concerned about the bridge. I am very concerned about giving any approvals to the bridge at this time without having worked out what goes on with the trail. I realize we are not going to build the bridge until later but somehow once something has an approval it becomes somewhat cast in -~-"~ '-- 3 r PZM9.22.92 .,-, concrete and you lose the flexibility to make the changes that you would make perhaps later depending on what the trails do. I remind you the bridge will be here a long time. The river bank has been there for millennia. Please don't rush your decisions because today it happens to be on the agenda. Alan Sanko: I am a biologist for the Colorado Division of wildlife in NW Colorado. Now I would like you to consider all of these trails. I am speaking in general rather than specifically about this bridge. I have worked with the Army Corp of Engineers. One of my chief comments is going to be "Why can't we look at the cumulative impact on this riparian ecosystem, the whole trail system, and then take that into accounting and planning process. I see especially the one behind 1010, it seems to me like there is an alternative on the other side of those lots. I can't see how I, in good faith, could write a letter supporting this sort of habitat if there is an alternative on the other side of those lots. '~-,- It is a real concern to me when you have got an irreplaceable resource here--maybe there is some kind of rush to get this done but once you cut--it takes literal millennia for that kind of habitat to develop. You should feel real fortunate that you have got that. Most towns don't. Most towns have already ruined it. I think you need to take this slowly. Take this into account when you site your trail. I was riding on that trail this afternoon. It was great. I loved it. It was a fine experience. Somehow or other some of these other trails seem to be going through irreplaceable riparian habitat. Rick McClain: I would like to go along with the last 2 comments. I think we need to slow this down. We have trails. The Rio Grande trail goes along the river. People in this town can experience the river setting along a trail that exists and exists for quite a stretch of distance. I don't think we have to have a trail system that goes along every part of the Roaring Fork River. It is not necessary. There are alternatives. There is an alternative way to get around. There is an existing bike path. There are existing trails in the area that we are speaking about right now. They are there. We don't need to put in a 10 foot--8 foot wide path into a habitat that is--there is not much of it in the town existing. Why rip it all up to put in more paths that we already have. People in this town can experience the river right now with the Rio Grande Trail. Why do we have to rip up more of our river setting and put in more trails in these areas when we have something already. Leslie: This Stream Margin Review is for the bridge. And this location is a bridge that would access the 12 foot wide trail ,""..... 4 /,"'"' - - r- "-' PZM9.22.92 easement through loth and ute. McClain: Once you people grant approval for a bridge it follows that the trail system is going to follow it. And it seems to me that let's analyze whether we need the bridge or the trail system. Because once the approval has been given--it is kind of like the cart before the horse. And I don't think it is necessary. I think it should be a comprehensive plan. It should be approval for everything, not just a bridge. Let's see the whole works. Bruce: I might make just a brief commercial for some of you to attend the meetings about the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. A lot of the things that you are talking about are already in the works. We already have some trails plans and as I understand it these proposed bridges fall within the context of those plans that are already approved and in some cases have been approved for years. I am not saying I don't agree with some of the comments that you are making but those plans for those trails and those bridges are already in the works and have been for some time. McClain: A lot of the approvals for these trails--for the trail along 1010 ute and along those corridors have not been approved. They don't have the easements for some of them. So they want to build bridges that go nowhere unless they want to condemn land and they want to do all sorts of stuff but right now it is not--the trail isn't approved. We don't have the easements for all the trails. George Robinson, Parks: Just a technical point--the trails are approved. It is true that we don't have easements for some and the physical trails are not there but the trails are approved. They are a part of the plan. If we decide we want to take them out of the plan, let's do that but let's do that as a community. Charlie Tarver: As a member of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee--a lot of bike studies, a lot of pedestrian studies they have put most of these trails were re-ignited to put the trails on the maps. You can look back at the '85 plan, the '89 plan--to address him there are trails. They have been approved. Most of them have been thought out. This process didn't just start yesterday when all of a sudden you found out there was a bridge coming through your neighborhood. Most of them--people went out and they spent days and weeks and hours and everything else watching where we needed bridges, where we needed trails to move not only recreational people walking along the river but a big part of it was the pedestrian. How to move people on their feet. Some trails work wonderful for recreation. Some work wonderful for bicycles. Some work wonderful for pedestrian. The whole plan came about as how to move groups of people from one area to another. 5 ........ l PZM9.22.92 '- And where they were needed. They weren't willy-nilly--"OK, let's put a bridge here". It was watched that "Hey, we need to get people from this area to this area. Right they are doing something unsafe. They are rollerblading across Hwy 82 bridge. They would rather go from here to here. How can we move people in a lot of different modes". It was thought out. The bridge you are talking about right now was approved in '85 as well as the trail going to it. Now as far as this particular bridge right now, sure, we want it. It was advised to get this bridge at this time. There are easements to it. We can't build a whole 5-year--the whole trail system in one year. A lot of it might seem willy-nilly as to why are we building a bridge with no trail. There are actually 2 major trail concepts going up on the east side. Both of them would end in that bridge. The bridge needs to go there. There was also in impetus to get the bridge going when there is a $32,000 subsidy for it which basically had a year limit and has now been extended a little while. So I know to a lot of people it seems like where is this coming from? It has actually been in the planning stages for some time. What upsets me at a lot of these meetings is there are so many smart people in this town who are always Monday morning quarterbacks and "Why is this coming through my yard"? Why didn't they help plan this a long time ago. I am not saying we should put trails in everybody's yards. A lot of people have bought property with easements right through their back yard. And they thing nothing will ever go there. Then they get all upset when we say we are going to use the trail easement. If you look at the whole bikeway and pedestrian plan--the future of trails as it is now endorsed by the Council and everyone else and Blue Ribbon Committee endorsed it. It is not a bridge that goes to nowhere. In fact it links several--it is a very important link in the Citywide trail system that hopefully will help most people not in automobiles--both pedestrians getting to work and back as well as recreation. Elizabeth Jones: I live at 1110 Waters. The trail and bridge don't come through my land but I am very concerned about what it will do to the river to build this big a bridge right there. I have walked over this area for the last 26 years and I don't think it is fair to say "Why didn't you come to the planning meetings" when no notice was ever sent to me as a property owner and I have owned this land for 25 years. Another piece of land I own in town on Hopkins Ave I get all sorts of notices. entsIf someone wants to change something on their roof I am notified that there is a meeting where you can go and object ,,';"'-" ,,- 6 .....r'......~ PZM9.22.92 ""-' or approve. But something as important as a trail and bridges just because paid City planners say this would be a good place for a trail and the Engineers say "Fine" I don't think it is fair to the property owners not to notify them early enough in the planning stages. I never received any notice. ?: I also want to address the bridge question. until you decide what size trail you are going to put there why do you need already a 10ft heavy duty bridge there? Let's wait and see something that is more fitting, more rustic, more in the Aspen spirit. Why should we rush ahead and build a bridge before we really have the whole thing pulled together? It is going to be a jigsaw puzzle. I think you should have a whole plan that goes together rather than just build one thing and then think about building another thing. ?: I would like a clarification. I would like to know how you can approve a trail system if you haven't accessed the land or haven't acquired the property and you haven't reserved obviously litigation funds in order to try to get that property. And in most cases I would imagine you maybe haven't even notified the owners of the property that there is an approved trail system. So I need a clarification of what is the meaning of approval. Leslie: This bridge that we are discussing right now is on an easement that the city has and on City public land. '.,.~....~- ?: We are talking about the trail that accesses it but there is no reason for the bridge unless the so-called approved trail is a thing that is going to happen. And I think there is a lot of people in this room that aren't sure that this trail is going to happen and they want to know why there is a bridge that connects something that may not happen. Robinson: A couple of things right now. There are some fisherman's easements there. At this time there might be some other kinds of easements that we can acquire. We are very certain that we are going to get more of these easements through lot splits. It might not be the 12ft easements as far as the size of the bridge that is concerned. The big thing is if you put a bridge in even for a fisherman's easement--a 2ft wide you have some people that like to stand on both sides of the bridge to enjoy that. You might have somebody else come down with a stroller or something. If you put in right now a bridge say 6ft, you might have a problem later on that that bridge is not big enough. And you might want us to come back and build a bigger bridge. These are standards that are set nation wide. It is from users from national and from state as to what they have done, the problems they have had. They put in a 4ft bridge and have to come back and we don't have enough room to put in a 12ft bridge. r "- 7 PZM9.22.92 Jon Busch: I was on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee as well and I wish people would look at the greater picture. The fact is that the first part of the trail system ever conceived was a riverside trail through town connecting Difficult Campground area with the area down valley. It was one of the first things planned and one of the last elements to be realized. And this is significant and an important part of developing that last element. The final thing is this issue of riparian zone. A riparian zone in an urban area is nice for those who live next to it. But for the rest of the community as a whole it means nothing if they can't see it. Of that whole trail system this is the absolute core of the entire trail system through town. And I would hope and I wish that people of the community in general would try to look at the greater picture for the greater good of the entire community rather than individual neighborhoods. Tim: I live where there is a secondary commuter access across the Roaring Fork River. I live over on Park Avenue and there is Hopkins street Bridge that I used a lot and a lot of people in my neighborhood used. And I could see a similar use for the bridge that goes from Callahan by ute Place down Waters Avenue and directs people directly into the heart of town without them having to go out onto 82. And I am not in favor of putting the cart before the horse. .....c. I think what we need to do is the logical progression of knowing what the trail is going to look like, knowing what the bridge is going to look like, knowing where the trail goes, knowing who is going to use the trail. And I think we have a lot of that information and I am willing to move forward on this motion to approve this bridge with all the restrictions that we have in place so that we can give the Parks Dept the go-ahead to acquire the necessary easements, to allocate the necessary energies and monies to put together secondary commuter route for pedestrian bicycle use in that side of town. The existing path that goes up ute Ave is for recreation. And if anybody jogs or roller blades along the river along the Rio Grande they know that if someone on a bike comes rolling through there, they are at a completely different speed and pace. You can't have commuter people and recreational people really using the same path. I think that if there is a better way this community will find it. If there is a better way to preserve those trees or if there is a better way to preserve as much riparian elegance and livelihood on that section of the stream, we will find that way. For us to throw our hands up and say that l010 ute isn't dense and isn't as tight "'''-- 8 ~"., PZM9.22.92 - as it can be--it is dense and it is as tight as it can be. I am jumping in and saying that I think that this bridge--we should go ahead and move forward on this bridge and I am willing to approve it. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the stream Margin Review of the bridge over the Roaring Fork near 1010 ute on the basis that the 8 conditions for review have been satisfied--the first 3 being 1 through 3 of Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. And with the addition of condition #4 that prior to construction of the bridge the Stream Margin Review for the trail along the river shall be reviewed and approved and additionally condition #5 prior to construction of the bridge that the 2 remaining easements must be acquired. Tim seconded the motion. David stated that he would abstain because of the fact that he had just arrived and had not heard any of the discussion. Richard: Clarification: I have some confusion about the timing of this and Roger's motion. Is there money allocated for the , construction of a bridge with a time limit on it? Robinson: What we have is Callahan-- Leslie: Gordon Callahan is $23,000-- Robinson: One is $25,000 and one is $32,000. Leslie: ute Place is $32,000. Robinson: At one time we had to have the construction and the trail done __?__ put in. That was at one time in June of 1991. We have been trying through a number of meetings with the community home owners. They have lifted that up till June of 1993. That is where the time constraint comes in. What we are trying to do now is--it is best to put in these bridges at low water. Therefore that is what we are trying to accomplish right now. ?: I am the director that moved to have the restriction lifted. It is lifted without any time limit. Robinson: I stand corrected. I thought it was within 1 year. Roger: But that was 1010 ute. What about the Callahan? '- 9 r--- PZM9.22.92 - Leslie: The $22,000 that we got through the Gordon Callahan Subdivision will be paid to the city at the time that the first building permit for Gordon Callahan is issued. And the house that was just built there is not part of the Gordon Callahan Subdivision. Richard: Generally I think I favor Roger's approach that the Stream Margin Review for the trails be done before we commit to building the bridge. However if there is a tradeoff there that makes it more difficult for me. Sara: We are approving the Stream Margin Review and not the architecture of the bridge--the design of the bridge? Bruce: Only to the extent that the bridge that is built and the design of the bridge influences these 8 criteria. If I understood right you said this bridge actually spans the 100 year flood plain. Sara: So you would presume on our vote for a bridge at this place that we are also approving your recommended design? Or would you come back to that along with the trail--since it won't be built till the trails are in place we can comment on the size of the bridge later? J" Robinson: You could. I thought that we had in your packet the "- design and dimensions of the bridge and pretty much the specs. What more would you really want? Sara: I am not sure that a 10ft wide bridge is--I don't have enough feedback from the PED plan that I know I want a 10ft wide bridge there or that the community does. Richard: This bridge is designed as a link in the river trails system which is intended to be a multi-use trail. The catch is they haven't figured out how to engineer some of these sections of it. But I think it would be too much to presume that we should build a smaller bridge than what it's intended use is. Leslie: The design of this bridge follows the guidelines of the pedestrian plan. That is where we started from. Sara: And what national and state specs say. However, you can have a freeway and all of a sudden at a certain point people can only go through single file, have to slow down simply because it is a different experience. Leslie: This Stream Margin Review is to cover the technical aspects of placing something within the 100 year flood plain and how it affects the flooding and the number of trees that would be removed and erosion and sedimentation. Anything smaller will fit ~'~... "- 10 - PZM9.22.92 --- within the parameters of this stream Margin Review. Where we would run into problems if we had to go to a 12ft bridge and had to have larger abutments or things like that. That, in my mind, would be a whole new stream Margin Review process. Robinson: One of the things that we do is to go with the PED plan which advised a minimum 10ft width. And one of the things that you will have to do some time and I suggest that everybody do this. stand on a bridge sometime. Have 2 people on each side of the bridge enjoying different sides of the view. Have 2 bicycles go by you. It is for the safety of the people on the bridge and the people crossing that bridge. It is not because we want to make them wider or smaller. To go with something smaller I think you might find out in the future we have gone too small. As a matter of fact some people would like to see it larger. We tried not to make it any larger than we have to except to meet the needs that are there. A good example might be if you go to Herron Bridge some time and try to look off on both sides of that, enjoy the river, and have 2 bicycles go by. It is a dangerous situation. And one of the things we tried to do is try to think about safety and what might happen in the future so as not to have to go to a larger bridge in the future. A 10ft bridge might seem a lot larger than it really is. Bruce: Assuming that this stream Margin Review is approved so that in effect we have the potential then for a bridge being at this site, by having that happen do we make it more difficult for us to acquire the easements that we will need in the future to hook up these trails. I know we still have the power of condemnation but if we approve this bridge and we really hack somebody off that has the land that we want the trail to connect through, are we causing ourselves some real harm here in acquiring the rest of the trail? Robinson: There is always that possibility. And as far as will it or will it not--I really couldn't answer you. That is going to be really up to what happens with those properties. Bruce: So we haven't had any formal discussions with those property owners about the easements that we want. Robinson: None that I can tell--nothing solid yet. ~ ',-, Bruce: I think we have a lot of conditions here that are all conditions prior to construction. One of those conditions is regarding acquiring the easements before the bridge is built. So that before the bridge is built we have got to have the trail hooked up. So I think the answer to your question is the bridge is not going to be built until the trail is hooked up to it. 11 r-- PZM9.22.92 - The process happens the same way the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan happens. The community is all involved in it. And it becomes an overall part of the Masterplan. That is what happened before 1985, again in 1985 and again in 1989 and 1990. Those kinds of things have already been done. They have already had input and the community as a whole decided that this is what we want in the way of trails. That has already been done. Sara: And it is still going on. Leslie: The Neighborhood Advisory Committee which was the group that developed the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan is having their annual meeting October 1st from 2 to 4 here at City Hall. You are all invited to come and participate. They will be setting out their goals for the next year. Roxanne: We have already had the budgetary process for Council. This is a 2 year review of the plan. So if anybody here is not familiar with the pedestrian plan we had numerous public meetings when it was adopted. If you want to get familiar with it, that is the time to come. Richard: George, what is the condition of easements in that area now? Is there an easement through 1010 ute to the river? Robinson: We own property from ute Park all the way back to behind ute 1010. And then on the other side we do have what is called Fisherman's Easements which is not really the most desireable or what we really need for multi-use trails. So through lot splits and those negotiations these are the things that we are trying to purchase. Richard: Is there easements through the Gordon Callahan to Riverside Ave? Robinson: No. Leslie: We have a 12ft trail easement that we got through the 1010 ute GMP and Subdivision. We have the Gordon property easement and the Redwood Apartments and we have a fisherman easement on Anderson. Robinson: It goes from Slaughterhouse Bridge all the way through town, Rio Grand--we have got it right now to Herron Park. In 1992 we propose the plan to go underneath the bridge at No Problem, go round to the other side of the park there and there are some parcels there that we are working on easements to obtain. ",'~'-'-'''.-.... The part we are talking about now is probably--the reason it hasn't - 12 ,/"'H".... - "..,-..., ~' "-' PZM9.22.92 been done is because it is such a problem area. There are problems with it. The more people we can get to come and talk about it the better it is going to be for everybody. We are going to develop the trail that we need. This ute 1010--we have been working on it for 2 years and basically we have had people say they are going to do some things, they have tried and it fell through. We are just trying to pursue what the City has been trying to do since at least 1985. So anybody that has input please come to these meetings. This is not something that we just dreamed up to make somebody mad. It is a real hard place to get through here. It is a real key place. A lot of north and south corridors go through there for the pedestrian plan. The missing link that we have and this goes all the way up to Difficult. The state has priorities to do that and that is from Glenwood all the way up to Independence Pass. And Glenwood is working on it. There are some people in Basalt, Roaring Fork Forum. They all have input. This is a missing link right now. And we are trying to work on it. Georgeanne Waggaman: I would like to just make one point that I think is getting lost in this shuffle. I want to say that no one of the 1010 ute people, the ___?___ subdivision people, any of the neighbors out there are in any way opposed to a trail through there. We want the people to have access. We want the commuters. We want the use. We are concerned that the nuances--the where and how and what width the trail is going to be have not been resolved and that because of that approval of the bridge is premature. If you all would put in a condition that you have got and possibly I really applaud what Sara seems to be asking for. If you put in a condition that would also give us the flexibility of a little movement, a little design change in that bridge. Perhaps some way to make it softer until the trails are finalized. Robinson: We did start off with at one time a 10ft width paved path. The last meeting we went to we walked out of there trying to go with an alternate use and we thought it might have been too small but would still work in a really pristine area which was 6ft. The last thing we talked about was a 6ft hard surface with a 2ft recovery zone. A recovery zone basically is if a bicycler comes by, a pedestrian has a place to step off to. We are working on that right now. It has not been finalized. We don't want to make something that is going to be too small and inadequate and somebody is going to get hurt either. MOTION VOTE Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Sara and Richard. Motion carried 3 to 2. 13 .",",""-' PZM9.22.92 - MEADOWS BRIDGES STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. Gary Lacy showed locations of bridges on maps. Leslie: For all 3 bridges this side of the Roaring Fork on the Meadows property it is City land. It is all part of the City purchasing that land as part of the Meadows masterplan. David: land? Is there a way off public thoroughfares to get to that "'- Leslie: Through the Meadows masterplan process the city gained this trail access down through here. There is a foot trail already there. We have received approval from the County to place a bridge in this location that we will be filing and going through a trail easement and bridge easement with the County. We have received approval from the County to locate our bridges there. We received a lot of input from people on these bridges. In our discussion we talked about this area of the City property on the other side of Castle Creek. It is totally surrounded by private property. The only access would be a bridge right here to the city land. What the City would like to do is propose stream Margin Review of this bridge at this location but not construct the bridge until we have an environmental land management plan for this area. The Parks Dept is about to undertake a Parks Masterplan. And from that plan we will identify the level of trail use. It will be how many people start using these bridges and what kind of trail we need through there. This right now is zoned wildlife Preservation which does not allow paved trails. Robinson: The Parks Dept is in the process of hiring a consultant to do a Parks Masterplan overall view. Basically that plan is going to be of facilities we have now, the parks that we have now. We are going to update them. Where are we going. What do we want as far as facilities goes. It is not basically just on trails but we will address trail issues. How to get from one place to another. We hope to have that finalized sometime mid october and once we do that we will have community meetings. This will be a good time for everybody to come in with your input of what you want in your community. We hope to have that completed by July of 1993. Richard: Is there any easement or is there a plan for easement up either side of Castle Creek to reach up to the Power Plant. ... Robinson: That could be something that is addressed even in the '--~ 14 (" ", - ,---~~ ,-'--'''.+.- - PZM9.22.92 Parks Masterplan for future trails. Right now we don't have direct easement. What we are trying to do is get people to access the parcel the City bought right now and be able to go over there and enjoy that once we have established some type of wildlife management plan. It is going to be a critical link. Richard: That brings up the same kind of concerns that the last one did. I don't have any major issues with the Grindlay Bridge or the picnic Point Bridge but that one is--is this going to be pedestrian only. If there is a trail up there will it be a footpath or a bike path? Robinson: We are going to have some type of wildlife management plan for that area. One of the problems we might be having with that right now is once this thing gets developed there might not be an access to get in there and build a bridge. We are limited right now to how to get in there. It is a very delicate piece of land to be working with since you are in the wetlands. Sometimes timing is of the essence. Sara: I need to know why the Parks Dept and the Planning Dept decided to come forward with Stream Margin Review first in this process. Leslie: with these bridges there is already trails established- -foot trails established all through this City property. And so we are going ahead with the bridges to connect them to the Betty Grindlay Bridge to connect to the upper end of the Roaring Fork and then the one by picnic Point to access the trail on the other side and then access the Rio Grande and then the Castle Creek one because that is the only public access to city owned land. Sara: But until the Masterplan and the expertise of all the reports are in we won't know exactly. You are asking for approval to 3 bridges where we may not know the location. It may change. Robinson and Leslie: Oh no, no, no. The locations will be just where we are proposing. Sara: No matter what is decided on the trails? Robinson: I would say only at this point in time definitely on both bridges on the Roaring Fork. As far as the Castle Creek until we have got the wildlife Management we are probably going to be coming back to you with that. You can put a condition that we come back to you with that bridge. The biggest reason that we are coming to you right now is if the Savanah or Meadows appear, we could lose access for this bridge to build across Castle Creek. You cannot go in there right now. We don't have access to go in there-- 15 .-- PZM9.22.92 '- When they build all of their buildings, they are going to box us in and there will be no way to put a bridge in there unless I take a helicopter down there and they are expensive. So timing is the key. Tim: I think that the Betty Grindlay Bridge is delightful. I think that the Castle Creek Bridge is really interesting and I am willing to approve Stream Margin Review for both of those with the express idea that they are linked to just walking paths and maybe it is just a single person kind of dirt path. I think that the character of the community down there that is the only thing that is fitting. I really don't see any substantial reason why we need another Roaring Fork Bridge especially the width and the magnitude of the one that is being proposed. I think that again the traffic that is going down the Rio Grande Trail now should stay on the Rio Grande Trail. To all of a sudden have a bridge and have a bridge and have a 6ft or whatever wide paved path that dumps these people onto the Meadows property and then with their bikes or whatever they are doing over there at the speeds they are thinking about going I think we should separate them and keep them on the Rio Grande Trail. Robinson: One thing to keep in mind on that is that you really can't regulate the flow of traffic that comes across there. Once you establish that bridge you are going to have people coming across there because it is easy access. And the pedestrian bridge is good. One of the things that we don't want to do is to really have that trail be used and abused where it is being torn up all the time. You cannot regulate the flow. The town gets bigger and that was one of the reasonings-- Tim: I think you might be able to regulate the flow. Maybe there is a little wheel or a turnstile on the Betty Grindlay so that bikes don't go ripping through there. Maybe there is some kind of pedestrian gate so that the people who are rollerblading on the Rio Grande and the traffic that--I am talking basically about tourist traffic--that don't know really what is going on--leave the community the sanctuary that is across the river and with a walking a dirt trail that is a dirt trail, give the people in the community a way to walk to the tent, walk home without dealing with as many tourist type bicycle renters and rollerbladers for the first time in their life and give us a break. "-'" I really don't think that that Roaring Fork Bridge that we are talking about is necessary. You can go down to Slaughterhouse. ~ 16 ~.."........ PZM9.22.92 -. It is 25 miles and hour all along Cemetery Lane and allow that kind of traffic to circulate that loop that they have now. ?: ? Pitkin Green Home Owner's Association: We just feel that it has been quite obvious this summer especially in July and August the Roaring Fork--the Rio Grande Trail is not even safe. There have been people hit, people hurt. The bottom line of what I am trying to say is these bridges will create more traffic. The area is over-used. It will actually destroy what little is left of the joy of being on the Rio Grande Trail. In that 60-day period there is not much joy left. What Jim says is absolutely true. It is worth your life to be down there. I don't care if you are walking, you are rollerblading or on your bike it is worth your life to be there. And these bridges will bring in people from the other side and it will destroy that what is left of being decent in that area. I recognize the good intentions but we feel that is our position as the homeowners there. The trail is in the area and it is over- used. That is our entire position. There is plenty ways to get into it from both ends. And the Betty Grindlay Bridge there is no way to control it. You put in a bridge. How do you control it. Once it is there, it is there. Don Doremus: I am one of those people on the other side. And the only way I can enjoy the Rio Grande Trail is to meet the morning traffic coming down Cemetery Lane. Our tax money helped pay for the property down behind the Meadows. We want to get to it. We want to enjoy it and we want to go over the Rio Grande Trail which we ought to enjoy tremendously. There is a whole raft of people that live in my neighborhood that have no reasonable access to the Rio Grande Trail and we would like to have that. I am in favor of all three bridges. Fritz Benedict: I would like to establish where I am coming from. I don't think you can build enough trails or enough bridges. I have been involved in building about 7 or 8 bridges in the time I have lived here--most of them pedestrian. I think Mort is wrong. I think with that trail on the south side which is just a little narrow indian path, it ought to remain. with those 2 bridges you would have an alternate route. That little trail is hardly used now. It is called the North star Trail. It's grown up but that trail runs right along the river. It is different from the Rio Grande Trail. It is very intimate with the river and is that narrow character. There wouldn't be bikes on it so people would have an alternate route. And that would spread people out. ~ Some time ago there was a meeting at Snowrnass about the Gondola - 17 1"'" "';-~- PZM9.22.92 "- going up from the Village to Burnt Mountain. Some of us have taken to it because it would be a growth generator. To site as an example of why we shouldn't have more growth that there were too many people on the trail between Maroon Lake and Crater Lake, I got up and said "Well, if you have more trails then people would be spread out more. They are confined because there are just not enough trails". Now I have been working with some people on this trail east of town. And now as you can see on that map the trail goes by the club and just runs into the highway. That should go at least to the campground if not farther. And some of us have been working on that and I am suggesting to the County that a bridge be built just up the river from my house. It is something I will see. But I think it is an advantage. It is something I can use and it can be a beautiful thing. Then it would go along my land on the south side. There are easements beyond there, I wish people would be a little more open to it. Trails are an advantage. Don't be so angry and just think positively. Phoebe Ryerson: My point is only that I have heard from people that the trail--the Rio Grande Trail--is 100ft wide. It seems to me that the Row--it mayor may not be true but the easement is 100ft as I understood it for the railroad. And it could well include the quiet path, the bicycle path. I was part of a 3 county thing called the Illinois prairie Path and I know it works both ways. That was on an old railway too. You can do all these things if you don't get a fight going. Please understand that there is the need to not have cars parked overwhelmingly in the west side around the music tent. Everybody would like to walk over there. I drive because I have to come around and I won't be driving all our visitors if I can walk across to the tent. But I sure as heck am not going to walk all the way around. So I am advocating all the bridges. Bill Gruenberg: I am the president of Trout Unlimited. I would like to make a few comments. It was mentioned that the plans were made a long time ago. If they were made 25 years ago or last year there has been an increase in awareness of the importance of riparian and wildlife values. I think alternatives exist. I think the City should concentrate on improving the things that they have such as improving out by adding the trail near the kayak course, by improving the interchange at Slaughterhouse Bridge. Those kind of improvements to what we have would be more appropriate. The area at the Meadows the North Star Trail and the Castle Creek area are a magnate for wildlife. Just the other day I saw a doe and 2 fawns in that area. They would not exist if the trails were there. The riparian area is two tenths of one percent of the land in Colorado. Yet it is the nesting area for 75% of the birds and the wildlife. - '- 18 ",""" '-,- ',--, /"",-., '- PZM9.22.92 I think that the confluence is a critical area for wildlife and is the area across Castle Creek. It is not compatible with increased traffic. Perhaps the Betty Grindlay Bridge as a compromise would be the appropriate small narrow bridge for pedestrians only. But I don't think picnic Point is necessary. I don't think the bridge across Castle Creek that leads to a landlocked area is necessary. I don't think the city should try and get an easement through the cemetery. That would certainly show a lot of desperation. When they bought the 17 homes in that area along Castle Creek during the Meadows re-development plan it was to preserve the natural area. Let's not forget the wildlife. It is a unique resource to Aspen. We don't have to make Aspen like every other city with enormous trails like in Boulder. I think we should preserve this wonderful thing that we have. Hal Clark: I am representing the Park Association and I have a whole mixed bag of comments. This is not a clean issue. I think what we are discovering is not only is trails a neighborhood issue but it is also an environmental issue. It is also a public access issue. And it deals with transportation problems that affect the City. And I heard the city Manager today say it is the number 1 problem in the City that they were dealing with right now. So I see it as a mixed bag issue and that is why you see all this controversy here. I heard the gentleman back here talk about the Rio Grande Trail. My estimate in talking to Pat Duffield about this is that the Rio Grande is getting like 150,000 users a year now. That is just a guesstimate. It gets huge use in the summer and diminishes in the winter. That is an awful lot of heavy usage. It is only 8ft paved wide. It is probably 100ft wide ROW through that section. That ROW varies from 60 to 200ft throughout the valley. National trail standards for multi-use trails--people don't understand trails can be a 1ft trail, they can be a 25ft wide trail. The national standards now for the large multi-use trails are 17 to 25ft in width. Why? Because you have got all this growing conflicts of uses. You have rollerblades, ladies with babies, hikers, joggers, bikers, road bikes. All this stuff is happening and frankly this is exploding our Rio Grande Trail. And it is becoming very unsafe. A minimum standard is 10 to 12ft. The Rio Grande is only 8ft wide. Our official Parks Board recommendation was really to support, in this particular case, the 1 bridge. We didn't take positions really on the Castle Creek Bridge. Frankly the position we took in the letter we sent you on the Grindlay Bridge might be mistaken because the distance above the picnic Point Bridge is greater than I thought it was. So I can see maybe a need for another bridge 19 ....,....~- PZM9.22.92 '- there. That is personally. I speak for myself on that. I think we misunderstood the distance between those bridges. I am very afraid of just having the Grindlay Bridge personally. Because I think it will encourage a lot of significant access off the Rio Grande onto that narrow bridge and in effect the North star Trail which I am very afraid somebody is going to want to expand that north star Trail. That North star Trail is a very sensitive riparian area. It is going to be very difficult to expand it from a 1ft wide section. I would not want to see pressure increased to try and expand that. Therefore we come around to supporting the picnic Point Bridge and the picnic Point Bridge being built as a 10ft wide multi-use trail. I really think that will generate significant use and because it would be mixed usage, multi-use, you are going to have to have it pretty wide to make it safe. I was interested in the fact that the city has zoned this whole Meadows area which they purchased as wildlife Preservation. One of the key points that I really would like to get to this crowd and to this organization is that the river area of the Roaring Fork River is the most important wildlife area in this County. I served as a president of the Wildlife Task Force in the County and President of the ACES Board. I have served as chairman of various Bridge construction projects and trail construction projects for the City also. But I mostly learned from the wildlife Task Force Board where we identified the hundreds and hundreds of wildlife species that use that river corridor. It is just not as someone earlier said a pretty little area for the neighbors to look at. That misses the whole point of river riparian area. It supports substantial amount of wildlife. When you start destroying that riparian area you start destroying the very wildlife base that I think many of us really appreciate about this community. So we are very concerned about building and expansion in that area. Jack Gorshon: I am one of the homeowners on Castle Creek Drive. Part of my property includes all the property down below which we are not allowed to touch. When we bought it we were told we were not allowed to touch it because it was a wildlife area. Not only myself but the people next to me and the people beyond that who is President of our association. He has told the people along there who also own this low land and the great majority of them are very, very much opposed to disturbing the wild life that is there. As Bill Gruenberg said it is probably the last piece of low land, wetland, wildlife that there is. And the only occupants down there are the deer, the beaver, the red fox, the birds etc, etc. And if you disturb that because some people would like to have another trail, to me, would be absolutely criminal. _.-""~-"~"" h_ 20 /" PZM9.22.92 '- There is access to picnic Point. There has been access all along. There is a bike trail that goes right behind the music and the Institute area. It has been there for years. It is the same trail that people take to go to those motels over there by the Meadows and down to the trustee houses. There is another road that you can use to get to the Meadows itself. There is a Meadows restaurant. There is all that Meadows property. All you have got to do is walk from there right down to picnic Point. Everybody does it all the time. Leslie: We will not be able to use this one any longer. where there is a gate we will not be able to use that. gained another easement which is the path right there. Gorshon: The point I am making is if anybody wants to go to picnic Point they can get to Picnic Point several different ways. It always has been available. The road We have We are talking about building a bridge across Castle Creek. In my opinion that is a great snow area. Now we are talking about Castle Creek Greenway. This was in a letter of August 20th. This is to go all along the west side of Castle Creek and join Power Plant Road to have that greenway there is going to have to be easements dedicated. And I can assure you for myself and the people that I speak for, you are not going to get an easement unless you are going to ask for condemnation. And if you ask for condemnation you are going to be in court and we are going to be in court. We bought those properties to leave it like they are, not to have people moving along there. That is a wildlife area and it should be left that way. The Army Corp of Engineers--my understanding of it is that section 404 permit is required for all wetlands in the United states even when they are in the city it is required. I understand that a permit has been applied for--has not been applied for but is being prepared to be applied for. I would like to have a clarification on that. I can assure you that when that is applied for by whoever is going go apply for it on behalf of the City or the Parks Dept that is when the people that are the owners there are going to object very, very strenuously to try not to have those wetlands disturbed. l'-~ So it seems to me that this whole thing is premature. I am talking particularly now about the Castle Creek Bridge. Before this should even be given any consideration to the Castle Creek Bridge you have got to decide where is it going to go once the bridge is built. I am not talking about the picnic Point property. But from the picnic Point property where is it going to go? If you are trying to accommodate these proposed trails which are on the west side of Castle Creek you have got to get not only the 404 approval from the 21 '- PZM9.22.92 '"-' corp of Engineers, you have got to get the approval of the owners for an easement or you have got go condemn it. And so it seems to me that before you do any of those things, even think about that bridge, you ought to try and first get that 404 approval and you ought to see whether you can get the approval either by easement or condemnation of that property. Leslie: We applied for the 404 in July for the bridges. We have not gotten it. Darryl Morrow: My wife, Virginia, and I live at 1120 Black Birch which is immediately across Castle Creek from picnic Point. I have one small question. Gary, did you say that the proposed bridge is 135 feet upstream from the point and you said 135 feet from a previous bridge there. Is it at the place where the orange tape is which is somewhat lower than the 135 feet. ?: I think it is 135 feet from the old location. Leslie: It is already marked. Morrow: The Betty Grindlay Bridge--I have nothing to say about that. But as to the bridge across Castle Creek if it is to access land for others to see must it be 10 feet wide? Must it be able to accommodate trucks? If it is to walk over an unpaved path to '''"-- a wildlife area can't it be a small bridge-if there is to be a bridge at all? Can't it be 2, 3 or 4 feet wide? We in Black Birch--when the City was seeking to acquire the land that--there was an easement across that land that was pertinent to what is called the otto Anderson tract. And the City would not buy that land except for that easement being extinguished. We, in Black Birch, one of our members bought the otto Anderson tract and the rest of us agreed to accommodate him for his needs in making that a part of our subdivision. And thereby we believe let down the last gate for the City to buy the property. And for the construction now for the bridge across Roaring Fork I think about 100 yards upstream seems that when we helped you, my request is this: That for the bridge across Castle Creek if it is to be that it be a narrow bridge not suitable for trucks, roller blades or bicycles. If the bridge is to be built across Roaring Fork I ask that it be built upstream about 60 yards from its present location. If you build it there none of us in Black Birch will have any objection to it. ,r- Robinson: At least the 60 yards upstream actually, Gary, you might want to address this more from an engineering point of view. One of the reasons was is that where the span is, keeping it out of the riparian area and as we go up farther that way, we did look at it, we are going to be more into a wetlands. And that is the primary , - 22 r- ", PZM9.22.92 - reason for that location where it is right now. I want everybody to realize this too. That the Parks Dept did not come up with these ideas for these locations. This was part of the Meadows purchase. And one of the reasons that they purchased this from what we have read is for access to trails and bridges there. Basically we have taken what they wanted and where they wanted with a few changes as far as structural engineer, wetlands--trying to do everything that we can and said this is why we bought it. They want us to do something with it. Neighborhood Advisory Committee was a priority on this we are going to go for it with this. So I don't want everybody to just say "The Parks Dept". "-- We have taken plans that your City Council approved. It went through a big processes. These are pieces that are, again, very delicate. And we understand that. All I can say is I just wish everybody would come to more of the meetings. If you are not sure what is going on, call me or call Planning Dept any time and get input on this so we can try to work all of these things out ahead of time. As far as the bridge across to the wild life one of the reasons was for that is there was a possibility if there was a future for a Castle Creek Greenway we didn't want to come in to a wetlands area again and disturb it again without the access. If you have access now it seems quite large. I am not arguing that point. If it ever goes believe me you are going to need that size bridge. If you put in a 2 to 4ft bridge and you ever develop a trail system however it is done or whether it is not done you are going to need a larger bridge. You don't want to go in there again. Maybe it is something that you would consider that you put in a temporary bridge now. If it is ever needed again maybe the City will afford the cost of some other type of an access. These are things we like input backup. Morrow: I wish that you would defer making the wide bridge--if you are to build a bridge at all. Make a small bridge now. If you need a wide bridge later come back and let's talk about it again. Mark?: I have a technical question. The one that is going to go across the Roaring Fork River at a 100ft span? Can they tell us what length bridge you just put in below the Art Museum down on Mill Street? Robinson: That goes over to the Sanitation District? Mark: Yes. Robinson: That is 100ft. ,........ "--' Mark: And is the height of this proposed bridge going to be comparable in elevation above the river at that location to the one 23 PZM9.22.92 ""- that was just installed? Gary? probably a little bit higher. Mark: I looked at the plans and it looks like there is a substantial amount of cut and fill that is going to have to be put in to accommodate that particular design of bridge. Am I wrong about that? Gary? On the left bank looking down stream there is very little cut and fill. There is an old road cut that came through there. We are trying to match with that. On the Rio Grande side there is some fill that needs to come out for the bridge approach. Mark: Do you have any idea how many cubic gallons you are talking about? Gary: I think it is about 3 feet high and 10 feet wide. Scott Ryder: I haven't had a chance to review the details of this plan. I just came to speak in favor of trails and the bridges. I think that one of the things that really makes us such a special community are the Meadows and the Rio Grande Trail. And I think anything we can do to enhance those is a very valuable thing for us to do. Any time you can give people access to something by walking instead of having to drive I think is important. Any time you can remove people and bicycles from where cars are going to be I think that is a good thing to do. This Castle Creek Bridge I kind of question whether or not it is smart to do that till access is acquired. I don't think it is a really good idea to just put the bridge across the river without having the access. I personally would like to see access for the Castle Creek Bridge for the Cemetery Lane people so they could walk down there and across. I find it very interesting that people seem to be upset that the Rio Grande Trail is getting such heavy use. It seems to me that that was a goal back when it was originally done. And I think it should remain a goal to try to get as many people to use the Rio Grande Trail as possible. If it has been used beyond what it is, so be it. I think I would rather see bicycles and people along that corridor than I would along the roads. So that part of it to me just doesn't wash at all. This might even diminish the use of the Rio Grande. I just think that this is a very good plan and a very good idea to have these bridges. Charlie Marqusee: I was at a meeting recently of the Aspen Homeowners Association. There were 17 homeowners there and I have been involved since 1972. This is my 19th year of being involved /'" '-- 24 "....'~ PZM9.22.92 - in this. At this meeting there were those who felt strongly supportive of all 3 bridges. But the majority there were very sensitive to the Black Birch group because their feeling was that the music and the Institute and the Physics might not be there without their co-operation. There was great co-operation from them. They feel very strongly that there should be a bridge over the Roaring Fork at picnic Point. The feeling being that we paid $2,125,000 for that property. And I attended all the meetings including the Blue Ribbon Committee every meeting there was. The purpose of doing that was to get access to the Rio Grande and get people from the Rio Grande to come over to the North star Trail to try to ease some of the traffic on the Rio Grande. The other thing that they invited attention to was that the City has already not only do they have all the easements for the Bridge over the Roaring Fork but they have already put in the trail. They just built a 12ft trail that goes right down the old Meadows Road and that 12ft trail. And I will say this that I was part of the group that prepared a 10ft trail but they put a 12ft trail in. It meets this trail here and those living in the west end feel that they can walk downtown. People on the other side can walk over. People can visit both ways. And go to the Woody Creek Tavern and go to the Post Office and both trails will be used. But if there is any way to be sensitive to those people who live right on the confluence I think compromise has to be made. Everybody knows there was a wildlife place right behind my house and now they put a road in within 1 foot of my house. And those are the compromises we have made because we thought it was important. But the group felt very strongly about the bridge over the Roaring Fork River. The Castle Creek situation is a very complicated one for the property on the other side and those in the group, the majority, felt a compromise to be made and felt very strongly about being able to go both ways from the Rio Grande to North star and felt that is why we paid the $2,125,000. What a sad thing it would be to put that 12 foot trail in that we just put in that leads--goes behind the trustee houses and make a dead end. The people in the community would be--can you imagine how they would feel? To pay $2,125,000 of tax payers money and they can't get from the Rio Grande over to picnic Point? I think it would be a sad thing. ?: It seems that the preponderance of opinion here is that you are seeking approval to build bridges for which you don't have the use of that bridge totally in focus as to how you want to use it. I think that you were split on the vote on the first issue and you needed your (Bruce) vote in order to complete the issue on those "- 25 /"', PZM9.22.92 - very same comments that are not so much in opposition to the fact that the bridge was going to be built or could be built. But you have got in mind the construction of a bridge that is designed to do something that you haven't really decided what you want to do yet. And there really isn't any reason to have the approval for the bridge before you have the approval for the trail. Now you are talking about a bridge here that really is going to go nowhere. But you have clearly stated that once it is there then maybe it will be clearer as to how the public wants to use it and maybe you can go and seek access on some of the private land that is adjacent to it. I think there clearly is an issue that you have voted somewhat in opposition to on the first one that you really need to design the trail and decide what it is and get that approved before you start building your bridge. Jon Busch: The picnic Point Bridge and the Grindlay Bridge I think are great. And I agree with the person who suggested that it allows a way for people to get off the Rio Grande Trail and to get into a quiet space and actually take traffic off the trail. Regarding the Castle Creek Bridge as I look at it now it has to be connected to the Snowbunny-Cemetery Lane area and that whole neighborhood. I think that would be wonderful because the goal has always been to provide people with easy ways not to use their car. Now that west side of Castle Creek area where that bridge would go I have seen and it is swamp and it is really a wildlife area. At the same time I think that bridge could serve a very needed purpose. And I think that the 2 issues are not mutually exclusive that much as our trail up Hunter Creek. It is a trail. People stay on the trail. A trail through that area should be defined- -should be regulated via fencing so that if it is something for people to be able to observe nature. But with the goal definitely in mind that this is kept as a wilderness area and that it is not opened up. Craig Ward: I am on the County Open Space and Trails Board. And we get over a million and a half dollars every year of tax payers money to buy open space. The biggest problem that we have is connecters that long ago were missed. And I think in all the open space and trail plans over the years--I hadn't been here over the '70s but I grew up here. I fished when I was 7 years old down along the river. The problem is that we have got more people than we used to have 20 years ago. And the" "Not-in-my-back-yard" syndrome doesn't work because we are trying to serve lots of people. We are trying to make transportation walking systems to disburse people and I think all bridges are good with the sensitivity to the Castle Creek Bridge which needs to be kept as . ~'...... 26 PZM9.22.92 " ''''-''~ a sanctuary. steen Gantzel: I live in the west end. Access from the Meadows across the river to the Rio Grande Trail I think it is necessary. How you design it that is fine. But I think it is viable and necessary. And the objection of homeowners especially "Not-in- my-back-yard" well, the location may be debated and argued and placed but that trail and that bridge is absolutely essential. We have a riparian area does not--just no access to it. I think we should have a right to be down there and use the trail. Leonard Paterson: I live at 580 Cemetery Lane. My situation is exactly parallel to Mr. Gorshon. He spoke rather eloquently as to the objections. I just want to add my support to his statements and also to the gentleman in the blue shirt. Don't get the cart before the horse. The Castle Creek Bridge would be a bridge to go nowhere. You had better look into the acquisition of property price along there and I think after the condemnation for all the property owners who abut on the west side. John Shoemaker: I live on Meadows Road. I would like to echo the words of John Doremus and Charlie' Marqusee and Steen Gantzel concerning access for the bridge across to the Rio Grande. I started on the Blue Ribbon Committee God knows how many years ago. All of this makes me somewhat in favor I think of what would be called the ? dictatorship. We had a bear dumping over trash cans on Francis the other night and Raccoons get in mine all the time. There was a deer in my yard eating the Poppies the other day. So for all you folks who are really worried about the wild life, they are doing real well. The Fox too ran right through my yard. ?: I live on Willoughby Way. I kind of get the feeling from the conversation here that the people in the City would like to have access to our side of the area. I strongly support the Grindlay Bridge and I would like to give these people access. However, I am not in favor of ? bridges. I think we don't need them. We maybe can't even afford them. But I think we could get together and get the ___?___ to get back and forth. The person who decides they want to carry their bicycle up on their shoulder and cross and climb up the hill _?_' And it would be right in my back yard. My name is Grindlay: (Much laughter from everyone) Around 8 years ago my Son suggested that my husband who had died shortly after we moved to Colorado, it would be nice to have a memorial besides just a picture back at ___?___ Clinic where he was a surgeon. I said "That is a great idea, Josh. How about a bridge across the river". He said "Wonderful". - So Harry Teague who is a friend of my Son designed a nice little ""- 27 /' PZM9.22.92 -,""." bridge. He has been dead now since 1985 and we have been working on this. So I am beginning to feel that this is getting warmer. And as for the pitch for the 2ft wide I defy anybody to put their bicycle over their shoulder and get across on that nice little narrow lovely North star Trail. And if necessary I will get the Aspen civic Theatre to dress up as policemen and arrest them all because there would be no bicycles. Mary Alspaugh: I live in Black Birch also and I think that the bridge over Roaring Fork is necessary to link up the public land. If it possibly could be moved upstream, we would appreciate it. David: Question for the committee from Black Birch--why do you want it upstream? Morrow: I can speak for myself only. I am worried about security for some of our people. I am worried about vision for those of us who are looking straight on at it. If it is further away--these are not small bridges--it is rather a sizeable bridge. And if you can accommodate us by moving it those 60 yards you will make us very happy. If you put it where it is presently planned we will still be Black Birch residents of Aspen, Colorado. But we would be much happier if you would move it for us, please. We helped the city. Please help us. David: I used to think there was nothing like employee housing to get everyone together. I am really thrilled to see all these people together like this other than employee housing. There are a wide number of very good comments both for and against the bridges. However I think that the number of factors in favor of the bridge outweigh those against it. The comments against the bridge, the sensitive riparian area, the wildlife, the width, the request to have it further upstream and the request to not create a Castle Creek Bridge prior to approval I think are all good. However I think that they are superseded by the arguments and the comments in favor of those bridges. I would, however, encourage us to add as a condition of approval that we grant the stream Margin Review for the Castle Creek Bridge but as a condition of approval not actually be constructed until access be given. I think granting conditional approval for that Castle Creek Bridge is--all of these bridges are important to increase circulation through the community, for recreational and commuting efforts. I can envision someone living on Willoughby Way or even Black Birch whose children at some point wanting to ride their bike to school and using those bridges. ,''' ........ I think that the intent of the community trying to create a very 28 ,/"":""'. PZM9.22.92 '"'-, comprehensive greenway and bicycle and pedestrian pathway network through the community is nothing short of visionary. I think that these bridges help in that effort and I support those with that one condition. Richard: (Using aerial photo) I look forward to having the bridge at the Picnic Point area and Grindlay Bridge. And I really commend Betty for bringing this forward. I think it will be an amenity. My feeling is with this loop open and some access here that will bring more users in, yes, but it will tend to spread the traffic out more rather than everybody going down and back the Rio Grande. It will give the option of a reasonable route back into the west end. Cemetery Land is very intimidating for a lot of people on bicycles. It is no fun to walk. I think with a route through the Meadows into the west end will encourage people to do a loop rather than just back and forth. So I am very much in favor of those 2 bridges. And I would like to see this bridge put on hold until we decide exactly what we ought to do and not do with this property over here. I think the wildlife consideration should be taken care of. I voted against the Meadows masterplan for 2 reasons. One was the access road .through Charlie's back yard. And the other was this here. I think this is a terrible trail alignment for several reasons. There is the grade. Even 6ft wide will be a significant cut in the bank and visually impact people over here or anybody who can see it from Castle Creek Bridge even. And also it brings traffic further into this area which is in the wildlife area. And the straight shot down here and the switchbacks with a 20 year old on a mountain bike going 40 miles an hour at the turn or at the bottom of the grade that and the sole reason the rationalization for that is a few people at the Institute want to keep the public out of that stretch of parking lot and driveway there. So I am going to make my pitch now to everyone here that whatever we can do to get the trail through here and keep it out of this riparian area I am all in favor of that. I do support this bridge even if we have to put up with this some kind of a trail through here. The Castle Creek Bridge--I think that needs study. And I would favor a smaller than 10ft bridge. 6 to 8ft is sufficient for pedestrian. I don't see any--unless there is a trail down here and certainly be no bicycles on it ever. Unless that becomes a part of a major commuter route, 10ft is more than is needed. Roger: Because the trail on the south side of the river is a small trail basically, I would favor a smaller than 10ft bridge at the Grindlay location. I don't have a problem with the 10ft bridge at picnic Point area. I think it should be posted "No bicycles" on the south side of the river. But I can see for the future of that bridge if it ends up being multi-use like skiing in the r-+ '- 29 r PZM9.22.92 -- winter, then that width bridge would be desirable at picnic Point. At Castle Creek I would like to see that smaller than a 10ft bridge. What I definitely want to see is a trail wildlife management plan for that. I foresee that bridge for a long time being just basically access to a wildlife trail in that area. Maybe it is just a loop around--a very small trail and that is where only the people can be and not get off that trail and be so marked. I understand the need to get that in early so I would like to see that early and get that underway. But not a 10ft bridge for sure. My area for the wildlife thing is in contrast to your idea--hold off on that bridge until we get access to the outside there. But I think that wildlife area is such that if they can come up with a management plan for that area I think that justifies putting the bridge in right away. Then if that does ultimately get connected to outside that area, I think the area is sensitive enough that you still want to keep it a relatively small pedestrian type trail as opposed to 6ft thoroughfares. Sara: I am very much in favor of the trails and pedestrian plan. I think the Betty Grindlay Bridge is a wonderful little extra that can give a walking experience outside of a multi-use bridge. , '- I hear what George is saying about being boxed in and not be able to get back down to build a bridge at that conservation area. But there is something missing on it. The application is not complete for that area. I am very concerned about any kind of bridge going in there for a lot of reasons. It probably will be an important link someday but even if we have to hand carry the materials on our backs down there we will do it if that is what we have got to do. But to build a bridge in advance of having all those reports in and all the concerns not settled is a real concern to me. Tim: I will take Charlie Marqusee's advice and bow to our senior member, Mr. Benedict, that I can see the light now that the Roaring Fork River Bridge is good. The Castle Creek Bridge I think that even if it goes over there to a picnic table it can accomplish something. And so I am in favor of the bridges. Bruce: I favor the Grindlay Bridge. I favor the picnic Point Bridge although I am not sure about the exact location. There are problems I have got there. The fact that we have got a trail going down there that is already there as I understand it and that if we move the bridge back upstream to accommodate some folks, we have got the trail. Conceptually I am in favor of the picnic Point Bridge at some point there. ,I"'""""' I am opposed to the Castle Creek Bridge now and maybe forever. We have ACES in town and for those that want that sort of a wildlife "- 30 PZM9.22.92 r - experience they can have that. We are also in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. And people can have wildlife experiences allover the place. So it doesn't bother me particularly to have that piece of land even though the City may have given it or paid a lot of money for it and it is worth a lot of money. I don't have a problem with it staying just like it is. And if people want to get access to it, they can wade across the river either with their neoprene waders or without. If at some point in time our community says "Yes, we really do want to hook up a trail up to Cemetery Lane"--I live on Cemetery Lane. I would love to have a trail right down through some of these folks ,that are here tonight right through their property so I can get down into the Meadows and to the music tent. I would love that personally. But I don't think right now I am ready for a bridge crossing Castle Creek right there. I will take my waders or whatever if I really want to cross right there. I think it is pretty well agreed among the Commission that we would like to consider these bridges individually. We will do the Grindlay Bridge, The picnic Point Bridge and then we will talk about the Castle Creek Bridge. GRINDLAY BRIDGE MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Stream Margin Review for the Grindlay Bridge seeing that it satisfies the conditions. Basically all but condition #3. My motion is conditioned on conditions #1, #2, #4 and #5 of Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. PICNIC POINT BRIDGE MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Stream Margin Review for the picnic Point over the Roaring Fork seeing that it satisfies the 8 criteria conditioned on Conditions #1, #2, #3 and #5 of the Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. David seconded the motion. Richard: I appreciate the concerns of the people at Black Birch but I think the further we move it upstream the worse the connection is to trails through the Meadows which will happen in some configuration in the near future. So that I think the r~ location where it is now for that reason and for the wetlands "- 31 PZM9.22.92 r -., consideration that George mentioned I think that is the best location. So I support it and in that location. Everyone voted in favor the motion. CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE MOTION Roger: I move to approve the stream Margin Review of the Castle Creek Bridge seeing that it satisfies all 8 criteria conditioned on Conditions #1, #2, #5 and the addition of Condition #6 which is A. That this bridge should be narrower than the 10ft width indicated. B. That prior to construction of this bridge the Planning & Zoning Commission will be able to review the Trail and Wildlife Management Plan for the closed area across Castle Creek. I am leaving linkage off of it at this point. I think at this point it could stand alone. If linkage occurs in the future we can deal with that in the future. I am not holding construction conditioned on linkage. Tim: Could I ask you to amend it to specify that it is a 2ft bridge like the Grindlay Bridge? Roger: I anticipated dealing with that when they came up with their wildlife Management and Trail Plan for the other side of the river. I am not sure what the width of it should be right now. Tim seconded the motion. There was a 3 to 3 split on this motion. MOTION David: I make the same motion Roger made with the proviso that the bridge with a conditional condition added to delay construction of the bridge until such time that access ___?___ the river bottom up towards Cemetery Lane is obtained. Leslie: Can we amend that to say "until we acquire easements out of the city owned property". Or are you only concerned with access through Cemetery Lane? I don't want to box us in in case something opens up one way or the other as far as easement out of the property. David: I think that is a good idea. Y~s whether it is up-- Bruce: You don't want just one easement though. ,"'""" ,.,,- 32 PZM9. 22.92 David: No. That is a good point. Roger: Can you leave it just easement out of the property. David: I am hesitating because if an easement were obtained up Castle Creek and there is an additional trail all the way up Castle Creek to Ashcroft for example that would be an easement out of property so that would meet the condition you are suggesting. I will say yes, any easement out of property on the west side of the creek. Tim seconded the motion. This motion failed with a vote of 3 to 3. MOTION Tim: I make a motion that we approve the stream Margin Review for the Castle Creek Bridge with the conditions according to the staff's memo. We are going to review exactly what the dimensions are depending on the trail that they put in there and that is going to come back to us when we review the wildlife Management Plan and the Park's , study Plan. David seconded the motion Leslie: You need to add Roger's condition that prior to construction of the Bridge P&Z will review Trail and wildlife Management Plan. Tim: I amend my motion to include that condition. David: I amend my second. This motion carried 4 to 2. 529 & 531 EAST COOPER LANDMARK DESIGNATION (ERICKSON) Roxanne made presentation as attached in record. Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of this hearing. MOTION ,_c"", Roger: I move to recommend approval of landmark designation for \.- 33 PZM9.22.92 529 & 531 East Cooper finding that all designation standards have been met. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN ELECTRIC MAP AMENDMENT. SUBDIVISION AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A FULLY DEED RESTRICTED TRIPLEX Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: A letter from the Midland Park Condominium Association was presented regarding Salvation Ditch. (attached in record) A letter from Tom smith, county Attorney was presented regarding access to Salvation Irrigation Ditch. (attached in record) Bruce asked the applicant if they had any objections to any of the conditions in the Planning Office memo. There were no objections from the applicant. Bruce asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of Subdivision, Rezoning for the development of 3 fully deed restricted dwelling units at 500 Park Circle conditioned on Conditions #1 through #7 on Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. (attached in record) I further move to recommend GMQS exemption for the same development conditioned on Condition #1 on Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. David seconded the motion. I would also like to add that in addition to Condition #6 be amended to say that "Also in conformance with the building code requirements that separations between the units be adequately insulated to get up to the ___ and noise continuation requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Roger: I so amend my motion. r" David: I amend my second. \--- 34 PZM9.22.92 Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. MOTION Roger: I move to approve special review for parking and open space for the development of 3 fully deed restricted dwelling units at 500 Park Circle with Conditions #1 through #7 of Planning Office memo dated September 22, 1992. (attached in record) Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. ZALUBA NON-COMPLIANCE UPDATE Leslie made presentation as attached in record. All materials pertaining to this discussion are attached in record. Bruce: As part of the original approval was it a condition that this issue come back to the P&Z or is it in the hands of staff? Leslie: It was going to be in the hands of staff and we thought we outlined it pretty clearly what we wanted to see happen. Bruce: I, therefor, would recommend to this commission that we leave it in the hands of the city staff meaning the Planning Dept, Engineering Dept, and the Legal Dept because there are some things like the performance bonds. And any other dept that is involved in this. I don't feel qualified in making these decisions. And I think you know what the context of our approval was on the 8040 Greenline. And we, the P&Z Commission are not the enforcement officers. Leslie: However the P&Z Commission is the only body that can revoke that 8040 Greenline approval finding that he did not comply with the original conditions. My recommendation is that we stick with our October 15th deadline of establishing and securlng a performance bond. And that performance bond will include removal of anything temporary and it will also include, as we have recommended in here, that if the hydromulching doesn't take, then we have to get somebody up there in the year that it will include all of that. And that by October 20th we have a better idea of what kind of temporary measures if we need a temporary measure up there for the wall. ... The reason why I feel comfortable with that is the performance bond is going to include the money for constructing the wall. If the wall doesn't get constructed next year, the City is going to go in and construct the wall and _mumble_ performance bond. And 35 ............0' PZM9.22.92 ,- - October 20th is our final date for a final wall solution to be built next year or whether it is temporary till next year-- whatever--then I can at least put that in writing again and update the P&Z. Marti Pickett, Attorney for Zaluba: So Engineer's plans have to be submitted by the 20th or we have to give you an outline of what- -my only concern is Joe is back in the country on the loth. Engineer's have told me need at least a week's time to 10 days to get engineer's plans out. Rob Thomson: This is the plan you were supposed to have on september 1st. One of the reasons we are back here is because they are propos1ng changes to what your original findings were. And some of those changes haven't been agreed to. One is the revegetation plan that is not anywhere detailed enough to say that that is going to work. It was not what I asked for. And in talking with Joe--I had to talk to Tim Beck to explain what Joe needed to have done. And he sends me another drawing September 1st and after being on the site and talking with him, that was just one part of 3 other drawings that have been developed. I just see that it just snowballing and keeps going on. And it isn't getting answered. Bruce: It seems to me that what needs to happen is the staff needs to come prepared October 20th or whatever date you pick to make a recommendation to us either to keep on delaying or to pull the plug. If the recommendation is to pull the plug then you outline all of the reasons why you are recommending to us that we revoke our approval of 8040 Greenline. And if your recommendation is not to do that tonight and merely to update us, I think--at least I am updated on where we stand. Leslie: Our intent was to update you on proposed changes. And I agree with you, Bruce. I would just like to keep the October 15th deadline for the performance bond which we haven't heard hide nor hair about. And then if we need more time to deal with this temporary jersey barrier wall or to get a better wall solution update and everybody agree with this, that is fine. pickett: I need to verify. You have heard hide or hair of that. I wrote a letter to Jed Caswall a week after the order came out because we had some concerns. We knew already we had some timing problems. The performance bond we have agreed to from the very beginning to tell us what the amount is. The first amount from your office was $300,000 which was exorbitant. And everyone agreed that we would get a realistic amount and we would abide but we haven't gotten that amount yet. ~ >, Rob: You haven't submitted enough detailed drawings for it. "- 36 PZM9.22.92 '- Pickett: I understand. stapleton tells me it takes a minimum of 6 weeks to get a bond once they have an amount. So that is just a deadline. Timing is essential. It is not so much squabbling about the issues and the problems that we have at hand. It is when we can get it done. And if there was an emergency and we thought there was really a hazard situation up there I would personally have a different problem with that. But I haven't been shown that that is the issue yet. It is a problem. It is a technicality on whether or not he has met the standards that the original 8040 on some artificial time line. There was no time line when on the initial 8040. There was an inferred one because he came-- Sara: And we pulled He pulled a permit. That is not an artificial time line. have been through that hearing, Marti, already in July. He a permit. That is when the clock started ticking. Pickett: that came rational. I don't know the rule about that. That was something out of that from your Board. And I understand your But I don't know the legalities around this. Leslie: The legality is that he pulled permits and they expired because he didn't use them. But he excavated a road and didn't finish it. Pickett: Right. We all understand that. Sara: We have to act on behalf of the community. We are here as planners for the community. And we feel he is not acting in good faith. We had a hearing with him. And in good faith we provided different deadlines. The guy went off to Europe. pickett: He has done a lot of work. There is a lot of evolvement here. Sara: We had that hearing July 21st. And today is September 21st. We don't have a thing. According to our original resolution in July, we would decide by October 15th whether to pull the 8040. Leslie: We are not meeting until October 20th. Bruce: So they get an extra 4 days. Tim: I can only say it is my observation that Mr. Zaluba is the one who has put himself behind the 8 ball. It is not us. And we have given him a certain set of criteria to perform to and if he can't do that he knows the consequences. I don't think this discussion is pertinent after that. Pickett: All I am asking for is reasonable standards about that 37 .-. PZM9.22.92 .,-- requirement. Tim: I think that the city Attorney can give you those. David: Rob, in your recent inspections of this site do you expect any imminent danger or hazard? Rob: I wouldn't say imminent. I think there is quite a few drainage issues that need to be taken care of. He has created more in ___?___ surface than what was there before. So he is sloping the road correctly. But I don't know what happens to the drainage once it gets over to the edge and how it works its way on down even on past the Rappaports even to ute Avenue. We are just pushing the problem further on down. A cement and gravel trench was called for to go along there that would slowly dissipate the water before it became a problem. David: So to keep things--a gravel trench on the uphill side, stabilizing landscape on the downhill side and the uphill side-- Rob: Not the uphill side. '- Leslie: The downhill side is the proposed for the hydromulch which we have gotten information on. And we don't have a problem with that. The only thing that we are asking is that the--what are we talking? Is it 1 inch of soil? Are we talking 1 foot of soil? What are we talking? And if it doesn't work we want the ability in the bond to go back in and make it work. Rob: After we were out there and talked to some of his consultants I guess they felt that rather than disrupt that, it would be better to put topsoil over the top of it and hydromulch it which I thought would be acceptable but I need to know how much--what was going to stabilize the topsoil from going down. How much maintenance of the hydromulch would it take at this time of year. There is a lot of different factors in there to be approved. And I said "Submit it on a plan". pickett: And I tried to get that from? He said "Hydromulching is hydromulching. It is primed and ready to go. All I have to do is do it". And I am hearing it will work. He said the mix of grasS seed is what is--once you saw that it would be OK. Rob: But it wasn't how much soil he is going to put on there. Was it going to cover it all? -,,- Pickett: He said it was already sufficiently ready with what soil there is. .- 38 /' PZM9.22.92 - Rob: So he is going to hydroseed the rocks? Pickett: I don't know. Richard: That is my concern with the hydromulching plan is that there are a few areas there where there are some fair size rock. Pickett: And I think he wants those to continue to be exposed rather than it being solid grass seed there. Bruce: Do we have a direction to staff other than the direction already taken? I am not sure I want to continue this indefinitely. I think staff has got to come to us October 20th with a recommendation. Either that we continue on and grant an extension or pull the plug. .....".... ?: I represent Gordon Miller who is a neighboring property owner. And we have got kind of a mixed bag of beans with us. We want the job done right. We don't want it done in a certain period of time. We want it done with controls and designs and whatever. On the other hand we are also economically using the same road and physically using the same road and economically obligated. So we want to get it done. We want to get it right. And we want to get it going. And then we will support a good plan and we will help facilitate getting the plans done. But it is just from the logistics of the timing I think the dates that were set up might be a little bit arbitrary. I totally agree with what Leslie has set up in the memo. We want to see a realistic schedule and we will commit to paying for our share of it. Sara: Do you think Mr. Zaluba has acted in good faith? ?: I think he is trying to work in good faith. familiar with how to get things done up here. But he is not MOTION Roger: I move to have staff come back to us on our meeting after October 15th with a report and recommendation as to how we can proceed. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8:35pm. '\ , 39 '",_.,...-