Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19720905 September 5, 1972 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE WOODY CREEK WATER LINE EXTENSION WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has studied the proposed water line extension from the airport to the Woody Creek Race Track, and WHEREAS, upon consideration of evidence and testimony from Mr. Leon Wurl, City Administrator, Mr. Dale Rea, Water Engineer Consultant, Attorney Kenneth Balcomb, and after revie,.ling other planning information, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the following: 1. that I'mter systeDs are supportive and subservient to la,d use and therefore the 1966 lard use plan must be reaffirmed, updated, and revised if necessary to make a detemination as to the adequacy and/or advisability of the proposed water line extension; 2. that public sewer treatment facilities are not availabls to the proposed water service area and extensior. of the water line at this time may cause a stream pollution problc;n resulting from inadequate SE\ler treatment, and that "Then water service is extended to the area, a public sewer treatment plant shall have been constructed that servcos said area; 3. that extension of said water line, by itself, does lwt provide development control since no formal agree- ruent exists with the County to require City review or development proposals as a condition of a zone ch2ngc or bu:i.1ding permit 'vi thin the alOe'S .ror which the Ciry woe.],' provlJe wat~r sel~~ices. -2- 4. that water storage reservoirs are considered to accomplish more towards protecting water rights than water line extensions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that it is. recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the City not extend a water line at this time from the airport to the Woody Creek Race Track, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission recommends to the City Council that extension of any major water transmission mains into the unincorporated area of Pitkin County not be permitted until such time as an official water plan and an official sewer plan are adopted which are based upon an updated land use master plan and an acceptable agreement is arrived at between the City and County regarding review of all development plans in the County that lie within an adopted City water service area. Motion made by Chuck Vidal; seconded by Jim Adams. Roll Call Vote: James Breasted, Aye; Chuck Vidal, Aye; Charles Collins, Aye; Anthos Jordan, Aye; Jim Adams, Aye; Robin Molny, Aye. G j \ j ,I) I~\ \ -U/\ /L/(A)\:A{k/ Chaiman / Planning and Zoning CQrhrnission ~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FlmM'O t.F.HOECKELB.B.lll.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 5, 1972 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5:10 p.m. with James Breasted, James Adams and Anthos Jordan. Also present City County Planner Herb Bartel. Roaring Fork River Study To present the study were David Johnson, John Akolt and Neil True. Charles Collins arrived. David Johnson passed around Preliminary Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan,and spoke on the items covered in this report. See Plan outline attached. He also showed maps each des- ignating different studies completed on the Gree'lway Plan. Discussion of various points as follows: The maps need to be in overlay, for there is so much detail on some that is appears mixed and blured Which side of the river to have the trails on; Cross Country Ski trails would be included, so it is possible to ski into to~.; Parks would be linked into easly accessable areas' and clearly marked as to where they were. The cost has not been determined o~ imnlementa- tion of the plan yet. The Greenway plan visulizes onen areas encompassing both ends of the greenway nlan with the high density being in the middle. How to a~uire property. or control of property was discussed a'd it was suggested by John Akolt to prese1t to owners of property that borders the Greenway, that through donations they could give por- tions of land for which they could receive tax benefits. Otherwise the Commission will have to come UP with ways of anuiring property. Stressed the idea, that the opposite side of the trail ways or river would have to be kept as a nat- ural area, as that is a very importalt contributi'g factor to the enjoyment and conception of the Greenway. Possibility: Re-classifying the Roaring Fork River as a wild river was discussed. James Breasted recommended that investigation be kept up to date to see if changes are happening. David Johnson suggested that the riverstudy be under the Aspen Institute. Asked when the Plan would be adopted. Herb Bartel thought the adoption would be in 1972, implementation could start on trail segments by 1973. Robin Molny asked that the Greenway Committee come up with costs, budgeting and funding; and what priorities to be considered first. Anthos Jordan made a Motion to give preliminary approval to the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan and reQuested the Gentleme~ that presented the Plan to give due consideratiol to the Commissions comments. Seconded by James Breasted. All in favor, motion carried. Public C-2 Zone Open Space 25% Chaiman Robin Molny opened the public meeting 0' the C-2 Zone, Open Space. Chairman Robin Molny closed the public hearing as there were no comments. City Attorney Albert Kern had informed Mr. Bartel that a re- publication and hearing was necessary. FORM" C.F.HOECKELH.H.llL.CO. I'" '''. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeti0g Alpine Acres Subdivision Aspen Planning & Zoning September 5. 1972 James Adams made a motion to re-recomend the resolution pre- viously adopted in May of'72. Charles Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Dicussed county referral. Herb Bartel st~ted thpt this referral is for re-zoning from R-15 to AR-2 in the county. Recomendations are verv clear. timing for project very pre- mature, Public Transportation and Sewer Treatment cppacity is inadenuate at this time. High density existing. James Breasted' withdrew from Commission hearing because of conflict of interest. Robin Molney called for comments from the floor.. Herb Bartel: Allowable density under AR-2 approximately 58 unlimited MF dwelling; 67 one bedroom limited MF dwell- ing; 78 studio limited d.u. 's (MF). Dedication of Gibson Avenue. R.O.W. to tennis Courts. Similarity to McCullough case. Willingness to enter into agreement similar to J. R. Williams as solution to circulation & transporation pro- blems. Master planned as high density reside,tial. Three similiar re-zonings in this ~rea not fully developed. Agree- ment necessary - public facility problem - transporption + Neal St. Bridge. Commission agreed on the following recomendations County Planning & Zoning: Feel AR-2 type zoning able to area if it happens at an appropate time. are inadnuate, sewage capacity inadnuate. Mepns portation devised and vaciliated. Timing should on adnuate amount of all public facilities. The by consenses disapproves of the application. to the is suit- Conditions of trans- be ba sed Commission James Breasted re-joined the Commission. Resolution on Water Line Extension was read P0d signed with minor re-wording. Herb Bartel stated: one week from Wednesday confirmed to meet on RR Property. Commission to indicate everything in mind for public reouirement on that land. Should not limit uses only to public uses;should be complementary to the C-C commerical core district. Commission is to come to meeting at 4:30 p.m. next Wednesday. Robin Molny asked that all Commission members do their home- work and really come prepared with notes. James Adams moved to adjurn, Charles Collins seconded. at 6:45 p.m. All in favor, meeti,g adjurned. '/I (j~-;1 '- .. -'........-...~~- PRELIMINARY ROARING FORK RIVER GREENWAY PLAN "Aspen's future as a resort community is dependent upon maintenance of a comprehensive recreation and open-space program. Yet it is precisely in some aspects of this area that development is lagging." 1. Objectives II. Report on studies completed A. Animal Ecology Study B. Plant Ecology Study 1. Vegetation Map 2. Vegetation Types: Aspen Cottonwood Cottonwood-Spruce Cottonwood-Fir (Douglas Fir) Marsh Meadow (mostly pasture grasses) Sage Serviceberry-Oak~Snowberry (hillside shrub) Spruce Willow~Alder-Birch (shrubs of moist areas) 3. VegetatioilZonation C. Revegetation Plan 1. Reccommendations 2. . Costs III. Trail System A. Criteria for trail location B. Location of trail. MAP. . I.. l ~~\.lU~./~~~'-\'1 C. Trail uses. D. Trail costs E. Bridges, design, location, & cost. cV IV. Greenway system. A. Criteria for Greenway land aquisition. B. Location of Greenway areas. MAP. C. Areas most favorable for Greenway use. D. Property owners. 1. Slaughterhouse Bridge to Trestle. between railroad grade & river). ~) 2. Castle Creek to Trestle (South side) (North side of river 9 Owners 2 Major ones 5 Owners 3..Trestle to Neil St. 7 Owners (South side) 4. Neil St. To Cooper St.1'J.te.cO 4-12 owners (South & West sides) ~ 5. Cooper St. To Stillwater 5 Owners (East & South sides) TOTAL 30-38 owners 8 are City. County. and Institutional E. Cost of Greenway land aquisition. 1. Federal Government will provide up to 50% of the cost of aquiring open-space lands, provided the local government has a program of comprehensive planning and an open-space aquisition program for the entire urban area. Undeveloped Lands Scienic easements & Development Rights Clearance of Developed Lands in Urban Areas Landscaping & Basic WAter & Sanitary Facilities ~ F. Uses for Greenway Lands. 1. Natural Areas - public trails, natural study areas. etc. ~cJ 2. Disturbed Areas -I\revegeta:ta;<~(). redesign and use as city parks. @ G. Reasons for new parks 1. Master plan calls for the creation of more playgrounds & open-space. (for each 1000 persons 1 acre of open space &. 1 acre of playground). 2. Population expanding. by 1985 4600 resident )~~ #-/J 6700 visitor ~J<Aj 11.300 Total 3. Suitable areas now available 4. Land values continuing to rise 5. Demands on suitable park areas for other uses increasing. 6. Heavy use of existing parks J1Jr../f~ct./h.c..t- ~~~. V. Legal means of protection. aquisition, easements, etc. fci).:J~fJ, ~..:. h\~ - ~~ &.~. f1;1~/N ~~~. . "-0 f m - li1ak~t f[i;Jc -~ ~;,v. ~ --UA<~ f1-vr- ~i4. . ~~ ~~-r~.~~~(JJ(JY-. ~iM-6 ~L.. cio ~ ~r wTI'-' t- /Y} ~ ~ G'>" /T'>~ (""" ~. (]) CRITERIA FOR TRAIL LOCATION SeBsitivitv Factors (1) Ease of limiting the effect of trail use & construction on the vegetation. Avoid sensitive stands such as spruce. (2) Ease of limiting the effect of trail use & construction on the wildlife. Avoid .hom~ territories of sensitive species. (3) Ease of observing the vegetation. Advantage to viewing several stands simultanously. (4) Ease of observing the wildlife. Advantage to viewing many species simultanously. (5) Ease of providing access to the river for fishermen and \' .t other interested parties. ~ 4 "'G.-<..c<~ Limitin,c; Factors (6) Ease of providing trail service for developing subdivisions. Properly placed bridges may encourage trail use. (7) Ease of viewing the scienic areas. pyramid Peak, Aspen Mt., etc. (8) Ease of trail construction, considering slope. 10 ~ (9) Ease of observing the historical areas along the river. Smuggler Mine, foundation of old Slaughterhouse, Brewery, etc. L{ CRITERIA FOR GREENWAY LAND AQUISITION 'm <>r . (1) Present status of the areas preferred. ( 2) (3) (4) ( 5) ( 6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (~1) '" /-~ area relative to disturbance. Undisturbed Type of vegetation of area. Diversity & uhiqueness preferred. Successional status of vegetation., Mature areas preferred. Wildlife of the area. Diver$ity & uniqueness preferred. Size of the area. Continuous areas preferred. S Relationship of area to river. Generally prefer those habitats that are a part of the riparian system. Scienic areas and areas that provide scienic views high on preference list. Historical significance of area. Preservation of remaining structures of the past encouraged. rr--JU2R. Present state of developmeht and use by man. Undeveloped farm & ranch areas generally preferred over commercially used areas. Stability of the area as to future disturbance by prior planned residences, utilities, etc. Relationship of the area to a trail system. Strategically some areas are better suited for trail deveuopment. \ OUTLINE OF FINAL REPORT I. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES II. STATUS OF THE RIVER TODAY III. ECOLOGY OF THE RIVER FLOODPLAIN & ADJACENT AREAS --.1.1 A. Summary of Animal Ecology Study B. Summary of Plant Ecology Study IV. TRAIL SYSTEM A. Criteria)for location B. Location of trail. Map included. C. Trail uses. D. Trail costs. E. Bridges, design, location, & cost. V.GREENWAY SYSTEM A. Criteria for Greenway land aquisition. B. Location of Greenway lands. Map included. C. Areas most favorable for Greenway use. D. Potential c~ty parks (playgrounds). Why? Where? VI. LEGAL MEANS OF PROTECTION & EXPANSION OF GREENWAY A. Protective measures B. Methods of land donation. C..Easements, etc. APPENDIX I. Animal Ecology Study II. Plan!; Ecology Study III. Revegetation Study & Recommendations IV. Historical Areas V. Disturbances along the river. Location.of trash dumps, fences, old foundations, etc.' MAPS Vegetation, Trails, Greenway~ j.:i/Jd U512J Lt/;/,f;es. r;,