HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.spec.09052000(2) PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000
10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING
2°d Reading and Public Hearing, Ballot Question Regarding $10.2 Million Transit
. Revenue Bonds, Tom Oken
Resolution Regarding State Responsible Growth Initiative, Cindy Houben
1 S` Reading, Ballot Question Exemption from Responsible Growth Initiative
EXECUTIVE SESSION
(Lunch Provided)
Litigation, John Ely
1:15 ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
45 MINUTE BREAK
2:00 PM COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Update on Public, Educational and Government Channel,Nan Sundeen
Memos of Interest
3:00 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION
Future Agendas/Agenda Requests
BOARD MEMBERSHIP REPORTS
RFTA, Housing Office,NWCCOG
Ruedi Water& Power, Colorado River Water Conservation District
Rural Resort Region, RFRHA
3:15 BREAK
3:30 SPECIAL MEETING
Maroon Castle Pedestrian Bridges Appeal Hearing, Suzanne Wolff
4:30 JOINT MEETING WITH P&Z - Growth Management Debriefing
5:00 PM ADJOURN
APPROVED OCTOBER 259 2000
MINUTES
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 59 2000
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Harper called a special meeting of the Board of
County Commissioners to order at 3:30 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Shellie Roy Harper, Leslie
Lamont, Dorothea Farris, Patti Clapper
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ireland
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE MAROON
CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND CONTINUING THE APPEAL WITH
REGARD TO THE CASTLE CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE—MOTION TO
APPROVE - Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner—Applicant City of Aspen Parks
Department, represented by Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger and Kevin Dunnett—A
copy of Suzanne Wolff s Memorandum, with attachments, associated with this matter is
attached hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "A".
Commissioner Harper explained that in order to allow this project to go forward the
Board has come up with a compromise and that is to direct the Parks Department to go
ahead with the Maroon Creek Bridge and then spend time to look at what the problems
are with the Castle Creek Bridge and see if there are other ways to resolve this. Because
there are two people in the audience that do have problems with the Maroon Creek
Bridge she suggested that their issues be addressed first.
Fred Peirce said his concern with both bridges is basically the same which is that in his
view, we are creating an above grade structure that impacts the scenic overlay and
impacts the view from Highway 82 and going up either of those valleys. He said in
reading the intent and purposes of the scenic overlay provision of the land use code, all
these criteria address a bridge. He said he thinks in the process of the Board reviewing
this application, it should make more of an effort to comply with it own land use code.
He said it is inappropriate in his view,to take the easy way out just because it's
expedient; to take the easy way out and build an above-grade bridge when you should be
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
doing what has been done at the round-about, what has been done at the Castle Creek
Bridge going into town under Highway 82, and what had been done at the Maroon Creek
Club. He said as far as he is concerned this is what the Board should do with Maroon
Creek; as far as he is concerned. A copy of Mr. Peirce's letter of July 25, 2000
addressing his appeal is contained in the above referenced Exhibit A.
Suzanne Wolff, Staff Planner, said that the review process was scenic overlay and 1041
hazard review and staff made a recommendation that it was consistent with the scenic
overlay standards and the hearing officer made the same finding; those were the
standards they used to review the application.
Chairperson Harper asked the applicant to address why an underpass was not chosen as
the way to address the bridge crossing at this point?
Kevin Dunnett of the City of Aspen Parks Department responded that basically
Centennial Engineering didn't even look at an under-crossing under Maroon Creek Road.
He said it just physically would not work. The grades are such that there is no way you
could actually get a 5% gradient down the embankment across underneath the road and
back up the other side not to mention the utility constraints and so on and so forth in
Maroon Creek. He noted that there are still the same constraints over on the Castle Creek
side of the bench.
Mr. Dunnett proceeded to review the constraints in regard to the under-crossing. He said
MK Centennial did an update cost estimate as the community requested last time. He
said it is really difficult to do an accurate cost estimate without a thorough design. They
tried their best in putting all the numbers together and basically,they arrived at a number
of$300,000 or more to do an under crossing at the Castle Creek side. He said to put a
concrete box at grade there are a number of issues. First and most important to fill from
the top of the concrete box to the roundabout there would be an incredibly steep 12%
grade. Secondly,the whole entire length of the road from roundabout to Meadowood
Drive would have to be torn up and regarded. Additionally,there would have to be a
bypass and in terms of the bypass, all the cottonwoods would have to go. All the utilities
would have to be relocated and the traffic disturbance would be grate due to a temporary
road having to be cut and constructed. He reiterated that MK Centennial Engineering
don't even recommend pursuing this option due to the massive expense and the
complexity of the design and the amount of time the road will be tied up. Instead of the
landform going out to the Marolt open space there would be a landform that would run
down the length of Castle Creek Roads and there would have to be retaining walls. He
said once again, that the grade is intolerable.
With respect to the option of leaving the current road grade and boring an under crossing
the existing road grade cost would be $300,000. Again,there is no thorough design to
do a cost estimate and the $300,000 is a conservative number. Utilities would have to be
relocated, and users of the trail would be walking under a massive trench 14 feet below
the road grade, and there would have to be extensive retaining walls to retain the earth.
Additionally, a tunnel is dark and difficult to drain. He explained that a bridge is
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
constructed off site and the contractors can drop put it in place in one evening whereas a
tunnel is a four month minimum construction process. He reiterated that the $300,000
dollar amount is very conservative and until there is thorough design he can guarantee
that it will probably be more than that and this is directly from the engineers. Copies of
Mr. Dunnet's handouts associated with this matter are attached hereto and made a part of
this record as EXHIBIT "B".
Chairperson Harper opened the hearing to public comment.
Tony Hershey commented that the fine difference is safety and basically you cannot see
down into it. He said El Jebel has had a problem with that under crossing with respect to
safety. He knows the school is very much opposed to an under crossing near the school.
They prefer bridges. He said his number one concern is the safety of our children and the
people who use this area. He further said that an underpass whether it works or not, is
not as safe as an overpass. Also,bridges are much cheaper. He urged the Board of
County Commissioners to go ahead with the plan that the parks department has presented
and build these two bridges because they are so important in moving the amount of
people we have, during the school year and during the summer, across this major
intersection.
Terry Paulson expressed a concern that an underpass would not work for the existing
Nordic system. He said Aspen is known as a pedestrian friendly community. And if
trails are put underground, he doesn't see how that adds to the agreement we have in this
community. Additionally, he said he has a concern with respect to the paragliding
landing area on the Marolt property and the possibility of this being compromised and
thereby compromising glider's safety. He said the City unanimously passed the concept
of an overpass and urged the Board to do so.
George Wombwell said if a tunnel is proposed, that it be moved further up valley where
the road is already quite a bit above grade.
Toni Kronberg urged the Board to look at a mid-way point for the crossing thereby,
alleviating three pedestrian bridges and bike crossings due to safety issues of pedestrians
coming from Cemetery Lane, the hospital and the schools.
Mr. Dunnett said that when the cut and cover tunnel is installed, it will be the most direct
route from town and up to the school campus. Additionally, a certain portion of the road
is being looked at as being eliminated when the cut and cover goes in thereby opening up
a real direct route from Cemetery Lane to just over the bridge. He said the other reason is
the suggestion would go across private property that is owned by the hospital. And the
hospital has plans for expansion in this area. He said the existing trail is the shortest
distance from points A to B to the school campus in terms of using the proposed bridge.
Fred Peirce said he is here on his own personal belief that he is not being paid for his
comments. He said he is a resident of Cemetery Lane and has two kids that are very
young and will be going through the school system. Therefore, he has a concern about
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
safety just as much as anybody in this room if not more so. He also rides his bike to and
from work and virtually every place else he goes in this town year around, day in and day
out and he knows these paths. He explained that the easiest, best route in the summer
time is across the Marolt Foot Bridge, up the Marolt Pass to the Marolt Housing through
the parking lot, out onto Castle Creek Drive, across onto the bike path and then around
the pike path and up. And in the wintertime he can't do that because the Marolt Foot
Bridge becomes a Nordic trail and he cannot ride his bike on this in the wintertime. Then
he is forced to go down across the Maroon Creek Bridge and Highway 82 and then he
goes up the pass and goes down to where the bridge is proposed. He said if that Foot
Bridge were available year round that wouldn't be necessary. Another point is that when
the cut and cover is put in and when Highway 82 is abandoned from the roundabout to
Cemetery Lane a bridge will not be needed there anymore because people can go along
over the cut and cover, across the path, underneath the roundabout (the existing
underpass) and come up the other side. He said the scenic overlay exists for a reason.
We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and taxed ourselves in town to bury
phone lines. He said it frustrates him that what we are doing is continuing to chip away
at that and several of the views have been lost due to the AABC,North 40 and the
Maroon Creek Golf Course and now there is a proposed bridge over the last two view
planes up the valley before we come into what's going to be tunnel coming into town.
He said what he is hearing, is that there are concerns and there are costs. But he has to
believe that if a private developer came to the board and said we don't want to spend this
extra$300,000 or impede traffic for four months to put in a bridge you would say that's
fine but we are here for the long term and that bridge will be there for one hundred years
and we don't want it there. And the developer would have to live with that. He urged the
board not to take the easy way out. If any thing is needed at all across Castle Creek he
would suggest that it be further up because that where the uses are and he thinks it should
be an underpass as opposed to an overpass.
Lynn Mace said she loves her views but the safety issue associated with an underpass
worries her.
There were several other members of the public who voiced concern with the project as
proposed. A copy of a letter from the Meadowood Home Owners Association is attached
hereto and made a part of this record as EXHIBIT "C".
Commissioner Lamont moved that the Maroon Creek Bridge should go forward
with a finding that it complies with our scenic review and our 1041 issues. And that
the Maroon Creek Bridge go forward. She suggested that the City of Aspen Parks
Department work with the various other departments (county engineers office, etc.)
to explore an alternative bridge location further up Castle Creek Road recognizing
that we are moving onto private property, property that we don't own, but there
may be some ability to negotiate an easement with the hospital. We should have a
sense of what is available and what isn't available from a land planning perspective.
She said she is not interested in directing staff to explore further underpasses, she is
not interested in directing staff to explore stop lights, or a main street crossing due
to safety issue. She said we spent a lot.of money into a very urban infrastructure
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
here and we poured a lot of money into our trail system here. She is interested in
making connections with our trail system that our safe. And she is not interested in
compromising safety at all. But she thinks that some of the suggestions that have
been made about moving the bridge up, if it could be accomplished, merit
examination from the view perspective.
Commissioner Clapper seconded the motion with a suggestion that we explore a
pedestrian activated light just at the hospital/Marolt crossing.
Stan Berryman said there is a safety problem with stopping cars on main lines for
pedestrians.
Commissioner Lamont said this would not be part of her motion; not to look at
lights, not to look at underpasses, but rather a better place to put the bridge on
Castle Creek.
Commissioner Clapper said she would second the motion as stated by
Commissioner Lamont.
Chairperson Harper said she totally agrees with all the concerns expressed today. But
when we come back we have to look seriously at very rapid-fire young boys who are
primarily riding their bikes. And when we come back she thinks we want to be very
serious when we reexamine this and not judge it by how we as adults are. We need to
judge it as how our children are acting.
Commissioner Farris said without a crossing on Castle Creek the traffic has to go
under the two underpasses to get to where we are trying to get pedestrian and bike
traffic. So someone wanting to get to the school campus can access it without
crossing Castle Creek and she thinks this needs to be made clear that this is a
bicycle route option without the bridge being there.
Chairperson Harper clarified that the motion is to continue the appeal on the Castle
Creek and approving the 1041 scenic review on the Maroon Creek Bridge. And
continuing the appeal on the Castle Creek Bridge,we are directing staff to come
back to us with and alternative bridge location.
After a discussion Commissioner Lamont amended her motion to include an
underpass in the alternatives. Motion passed with four yea votes. Commissioner
Ireland absent.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 4:38 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
Ian
ectfully sub itt d,
ette Jones
Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
Shellie RoyJ. eghairperson
Board of County Commissioners
Pcjmj\ww\g\minutes\2000\09052000
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5,2000
EXHIBIT
AGENDA rrE.NI SLIM VAARY C
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Special Meeting—September 5, 2000
THRU: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director
Iv "
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner*
RE: Maroon and Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridges Appeal of a Hearing Officer Determination
SUMMARY: Gr august 29, 2000, the Hearing Officer granted Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard Review
approval for the Maroon and Castle Creek pedestrian bridges,.pursuant to the attached determination. The
determination has been appeaied, as stated in the attached letters, pursuant to Sections 3-300-020(D) and 4-
160 of the Land Use Code.
The Hearing Officer originally granted approval for the bridges on July 6. 2000. A public notice sign was
not posted for the July 6 meeting, therefore, the hearing was deemed invalid. The staff memo to the Hearing
Officer, which addresses the Scenic Overlay and 1041 review standards. is attached for reference.
APPELLANTS: Fred Pierce, George Wombwell. Mary Ann Hyde, King Woodward, Tage Pedersen.
Pauline Pedersen, Lorna Pedersen, James Jenkins, Jane Jenkins
APPLICAuNT: City of Aspen Parks Department, represented by Rebecca Schickling, John Krueger and
Kevin Dunnett
LOCATION: Adjacent to the roundabout at the intersection of Highway 32. Maroon Creek Road and
Castle Creek Road.
ISSUES: In addition to the assertions made in the attached appeal letters, citizens made the following
comments;suggestions at the public hearing:
o Is it necessary to construct a bridge across Castle Creek Road? Trail users from the Cemetery Lane
area will use the trail adjacent to the golf course and the underpass in order to proceed to Maroon or
Castle Creek Roads, and users from town will use the Marolt/ith Street Bridge and the trail that
crosses near the hospital. The proposed Castle Creek pedestrian bridge does not accommodate trail
users from town.
e Would it be possible instead to install a traffic light at the Meadowood Drive intersection that could
be activated by pedestrians/bicyclists?
o Cost should not be a motivating factor in determining that a bridge was more appropriate than an
underpass. The Parks Department obtained a preliminary cost comparison of a bridge versus an
underpass, which determined that the cost of an underpass would be approximately $250,000 more
than the cost of the bridge, not including various secondary costs, including additional retaining that
would be necessary with an underpass.
o Other alternatives are more cost effective and less visually impactive.
Attachments
A. Appeal letters Trf 6 14 M e1,1�-S
B. Hearing Officer Determination
C. Staff memo to Hearing Officer dated August 29, 2000 HI 13
•Ms.Wolff is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Ns Wolff
has worked for the AsperuPitkin County Community Development Department for Y yam.and as a Planner within that department for suit yarn. In her planning position.Ns.'1Volff has
reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Ume Code.
2
Frederick F. Peirce, Esq. G�r-
Attorney At Law
600 E. Hopkins Avenue >T
Suite 205 �� S
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone(970)925-2600 Facsimile(970)9'_� -,
July 25, 2000
Community Development Department RECEIVED
130 S. Galena Street JUL 2 J 2000
Aspen, CO 81611
ASPEN r PITKIN
Board of County Commissioners COMMUNIT(DEVELOPMENT
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Appeal of Development Order
Dear Community Development Director and Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to file a formal appeal of the Determination of the Hearing Officer of
Pitkin County,Colorado,Approving the tilareon and Castle Creek Bridges Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard
Review,which was approved on July 6`h, 2000. Pursuant to Section 3-300-020D,this appeal is being made
to the Pitkin Countv Board of Count-v Commissioners no later than 15 working days from the date of the
referenced decision. Pursuant Section 4-160-030 of the Land Use Code, it is my opinion that the hearing
officer erred in approving these bridges and further, it is my opinion that this matter requires a full public
hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners and not in front of a hearing officer.
Please consider this letter to be the written request for hearing described in Section 5-210-OI OA of
the Land Use Code. The nature of appeal is for a hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners
because the referenced application was approved by the hearing officer in error, in that the Scenic Overlay
provisions of the Land Use Code preclude the development of these bridges as proposed and approved.
I will look forward to hearing from you regarding the status of this appeal, and the scheduling of a
public hearing on the matter.
truly yours,
FREDERIC EIRCE
FFPIeg
\\Sasha\c\WPDOCS\FFP\Ntaroon-Castle Creek Bridges v.County\Letter BOCC-CDD7-25.wpd
July 21 , 2000 Z
To: Pitkin County Board of Count? Commissioners
From: Undersigned Resident Appellants
Re: Appeal of Development Order for Pedestrian Bridges over
Castle ,c aek Road a d Maroon Creek Road .Sceni Ot/Pb/>- c? �d �/
a_2( mod Q yia,,l c�j t-d , u fr 6; 2 0 0
The undersigned appellants are residents of Pitkin County who
have no more economic interest in this appeal than nearly all
residents of Aspen--maintaining our scenic assets which attract
tourists and other visitors to Aspen. We qualify ourselves as 'parties
elgible to appeal the captioned development order by virtue of being
residents of the Meadowcod neighborhood and/or long time attendees of
The Aspen Chapel ( chapel) sometimes referred to by its former name,
The Prince of Peace Chapel . we have significant non-commercial
interest in one or both of the two property areas closest to the
subject bridges--Meadowood neighborhood and the Aspen Chapel .
In order to appeal the determination by the Pitkin County hearing
officer in the captioned order dated July 6 , 2000 , in accordance with
Section 3-210 cf the Pitkin County Land Use Code we request a hearing
and reconsideration by the Board of County Commissioners . We base
this appeal on the following errors and/or omissions t-at occurred
during the application and review process .
1 . Failure to observe the spirit and intent of County Land Use
Regs. 2-120 ( natural rural scenic quality) , 3-50-040 ( scenic overlay
requirements a_plyir_c to Highway 82) , and 3-60-0d0 ( scenic uality) .
2 . Plan announced at public hearings: Aspen City Council , June 26 ,
2000 and cited public nearing July 6, 2000 to plat_-, additional trees
north of the new ramps to the Castle Cree Road bridge ( CCR=) intended
to beautify but further obscuring the view :lane from Highway 82 . The
July 6, hearing officer declined to addresstis issue although it is
subtly included in the application, Section 3-00-040 Scenic Overlay,
par ;r7 .
3 . Failure to note that a markedly above grade ( 2119" ) bridge across
Castle Creek Road is a precedent for Pitkin County and has
considerable ra�li_`ications for private deveiazment ( including golf
courses) proposals to bridge instead of tunnel .
4. Failure to consider pleas to locate the Castle Creek Road Bridge
(CCRB) to alleviate the more pressing crossing danger on Castle Creek
Road between the Marolt Housing and Aspen Valley Hospital where a
blind curve is involved .
6 . Betra_ral of numerous public announcements and efforts to protect
the open space beauty of the Marolt Property. The ramp from CCRB will
start at a he_chp of 1719 ' and descend at a rate of only one foot
every 20 feet in length.
6 . The rationale for the CCRB and approaches suffer from apparently
contradictory statement by Mayor Richards at the June 26, meeting that
the bridge ' s east approach was the most direct route from town to
schools. The not generally available 24" x 36''site plan shows a
meandering trail east toward the existing Castle Creek pedestrian
Board of County Commissioners page 2 July 21 , 2000
bridge and abandonment of the current direct path on the south side of
Highway 82 from the Castle Creek highway bridge over 82 , running to
the existing crosswalk over Castle Creek Road near Meadowood Drive.
This _s a direr: access to the well used path directly to Maroon Creek
Road--a very direct route to the schools. The Mayor said it was
necessary for the new trail alignment to pass through the planned cut
and cover Hiahway 82 entrance to Aspen. This is a material new item
not elsewhere noted and demands review. George ;vcmbwell is the only
appellant who heard these statements and this is based on his account .
7 . Lack of safety considerations since the trail is to have combined
bicycles and Nordic skiing . Melting snow from the Nordic trail side
refreezing on the bicycle side is a major safety hazard . We question
to practicality or maintainaing snow for s}ciing on the bridae itself .
8 . Failure to consider danger to hang glider pilots and paragliders
caused by a :rind shadow that will affect landings on the Marolt Park.
This is a stated concern of the Friends of Marolt Park.
9. Failure to present any specific non-cost reason .for not tunneling
under Caste Cree'; Road = some reasonable location or si o!71 lowering
the road surface to achieve an actaal or neariv so _race __cssing.
Not only would these a_proaches lessen the visual environmental damage
they would avoid the horrible precedent per paracra_h =3 above .
10 . Plan does not show consideration of how either ..rid;e ties in with
the Nordic skiing loop behind the Cass e Creek Terrace—important if
trail is designated as a ticrdic s:Lung trail .
11 . Approaching the project as a change order to roundabout
construction because�,s
loundabout causes increased pedestrian danger is
a case of pushing a generality to an illogical conclusion . The
roundabout has improved pedestrian crossing safety by eliminating the
blind curve near the north terminus of Castle Creek Road . Mc orists
and edestrians can both see each other better. At the 320 ft .
distancs from the roundabout island, the Maroon Creek Road bridge
is located too far array for the roundabout to be a significant safety
factor. using such a stretch of lcic just to avoid proper hearings
and competitive bidding is a breach of public policy and truss .
12 . Neither the application nor the hearing officer addressed
compatibility of the CCRB with the modified straight shot highway
entrance to Aspen.
13 Both the application and the hearing officer ' s recitals in his
order state that the Maroon Creek Road bridge will be Approximately
200 ft . south of the Kiss and Ride exit on Maroon Creek Road whereas
it is shown on the 24" x 36 " site plan to be 120 ft . from said exit .
Both documents say t^e CCRB is approximately 500 ft . southeast or the
roundabout and appro_cimately 300 ft. northwest of Meadowood Drive.
The site plan shows it less than 280 ft. from the edge of the
roundabout island and arproximat`ly 320 ft . from Meadowocd Drive.
These discrepancies are only significant to show how this _orocass has
been "thrown 21av her" without sufficient thought . If the CCR3 ( or
tunnel) was �0 eet southeast of the roundabout there would be no
serious vier' plane problems .
Board of County Commissioners page 3 July 21 , 2000
14. Following are errors/omissions not previously noted in the Scenic
Overlav Review and 1041 Hazard Review document and statements by Parks
Department employees in public meetings .
a. Land use criteria in the document, paragraph T3 of the Section
3-60-040 Scenic Overlay states bridges were located to "maintain the
viewplane of the. . .chapel" . . . "designed to almost frame the chapel °
while in fact the CCRB blocks approximately 8 or 9 feet from the
bottom of the chapel viewed from Highway 82 headed west at the paint
that the bridge is in the line of sight of the chapel . Since the
ramps are only 6 feet 3 inches lower than the bridge rails they too
will be in the viewplane . Any railings along the ramps will also
block views . Any relocation of the CCR3 southward would lessen the
problem because the new location comes in the line of viewing at a
greater distance from the chapel where the bridge is less obvious and
where the viewing angle is lower. In other words, a 22 foot Trial- is
less of an obstacle the farther away it is .
b. Re�paraXraphs 10 . Parks Department staff has cnl,% met wi tZ
the separate A gregation boards , a few individual trustees and the
chief operating official , Rev. Dr. Gragg R. Anderson; not "he board of
trustees which must make any proCerti decisions . Congrega:ior ^CcrdS
were lead to believe that the bridges were a "done deal" an error for
which an apology was issued after the meeting. As a resin= t:_e
discussions were on14 a'--out the Parks Department ' s need for a trail
easement across the chapel property and both ccngre7aticns ' bca:ds
said they would recommend the easement to the trustees in exc^ance for
title to county owned land that is betwee the chapel _ roper`;- and to
the south and west of th.e trails . The cha:cel needs the lard for
parking . Failure to disclose the lack of what was said to be a needed
easement and the parking land reguireme^t is a major omission from the
public record.
C. Re Pitkin County Pre-Application Conference Summary included
as part of application. The recuirement for 1I " x 17" elevaticn and
profile plans with photographs or digital images of the two ,ridges as
viewed from the public rights of way was met by use of artist ' s
drawings. At the July 6 , public hearing the Par:cs Department
presenter admitted upon questioning that they were not necessarily to
scale. The bridges are shown at unrealisticly low profiles . It was
an error that profile views of the ramps starting at 17 ' 9" height and
the railings needed for them were not requested by the Planning
Department or presented by the Parks Department.
d. In addition to the easement/land swap in b. above not being
disclosed, the site plan does not reflect it .
Board of County Commissioners Page 4 July 21 , 2000
15 . Finally, applicants contend that since the project was approved
in principal in advance by the BOCC and Aspen City Council , their
employees were not free to fully enforce correct usage of the Land Use
Code in the manner that would have been applied to private developers .
Because the project was delegated to employees who have no direct
accountability to the citizens and without elected official final
review, the undersigned make this appeal for a proper level of revie,l
by our elected and accountable Board of County Commissioners .
It is our hope that you will both cause the errors and omissions
to be corrected and not allow our precious view planes to be
significantly and irreparably altered without full public and elected
official participation in the final product.
Respectfully submi::ed,
Board of County Commissioners page 5 July 21 , 2000
The below named Appellants sign this appeal of the Development Order
for Pedestrian Bridges over Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road.
Signatures may be in separate counterparts to be incorporated witz the
First four pages of the master copy.
NAME ADDRESS T�LP�OND
Board of County Commissioners page 5 July 21 , 2000
The below named Appellants sign this appeal of the Development Order
for Pedestrian Bridges over Castle Creek Road and Maroon C_aek Road.
Signatures may be in separate counter-arts to he incorporated with the
first four pages of the master copy.
NAME ADDRESS 0NE
Hoard of County Commissioners page S July 21 , 2000
The below named Appellants sign this appeal of the Development Order
for Pedestrian Bridges over Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road.
Signatures may be in separate counterparts to be incorporated with the
first four pages of the master coon.
id�irE_ ADDR'S S T=y\ ONE
rdZ- � 7 .l r/�,oC,=�r,'✓� �p7s J f��S- 77��
4
,411,1
4-�?VY ,07
,J n
Board of County Commissioners page 5 July 21 , 2000
The below named Appellants sign this appeal of the Development Order
for Pedestrian Bridges over Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road.
Si-naturas may be in separate counterparts to be incorporatad with the
firs- four pages of the maser copy.
NAME ADDR SS T E P t:CNE
D��9 We-,A Thlrr /ow e- 9
�}N� ZJ• J A S
14 �uf
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Hearing Officer
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Senior Planner*
RE: Maroon and Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridges Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard
Review
DATE: August 29, 2000
REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to construct two pedestrian bridges over Maroon and Castle
Creek Roads to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and nordic skiers utilizing the trails
adjacent to the roundabout. The bridges will connect the trail across the Thomas property. the
Hospital/High School trail and the Golf Course trail via the underpass to the north of the Kiss and
Ride.
The Hearing Officer granted approval for the bridges on July 6, 2000. A public notice sign was not
posted for the July 6 meeting, therefore,the hearing was deemed invalid.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Department
REPRESENTATIVE: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director
LOCATION: Adjacent to the roundabout at the intersection of Highway 82,Maroon Creek Road
and Castle Creek Road. The Maroon Creek pedestrian bridge will be located approximately =00 feet
south of the Kiss and Ride exit on Maroon Creek Road. The Castle Creek pedestrian bridge will be
located approximately 500 feet southeast of the roundabout and 500 feet northwest of Meadow-ood
Drive. Construction will occur within the Maroon and Castle Creek Road rights-of-way, and on
properties owned by the County, Open Space and Trails Board and the City of Aspen.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The bridges will have timber railings and a stone fagade on the
abutments. The bridges will meet the County's road clearance requirement of 15'6". The railings
will have a maximum height of 48", and the total depth of the bridges(including decking and rail
height)will not exceed 72 '. The length of the bridges is 65 feet and the abutments will be 10.122 feet
in height.
Limited excavation and fill will be required to construct the Maroon Creek bridge. Approximately
15,000 cubic yards of fill will be required on the east side of the Castle Creek bridge to attain the
grade necessary to clear Castle Creek Road; this earthmoving work will occur on the Thomas
Property,which is within the City's boundary.
REFERRAL COlYIIi IEN'TS: Comments from the City Planning staff, Castle/Maroon Creek
Caucus,County Engineer, Aspen Fire and City Engineer are incorporated below and are attached for'
reference. Recom-7endations from referral agencies are also included in the conditions of approval.
Letters from Ron Chauner, Chris Kilev and George Wombwell are also attached.
y 43YMkMe.� -
STAFF COIVTVIENTS:
Scenic Overlav Review: Section 3-60-040 of the Land Use Code establishes the following review
criteria for development within a mapped scenic overlay area:
1. Whether the development has utilized existing topography and natural vegetation, such as
ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Response: The Maroon Creek bridge is framed on both sides by the existing slopes, which serve to
minimize the visual impact. The trail on the north side of the bridge will utilize the existing
platforms of the rock retaining walls of the Kiss and Ride, and will not create any additional visual
impact.
The existing topography does not provide any opportunity to screen the Castle Creek bridge from the
highway. A landform will be constructed on the east side of the bridge to meet the necessary grade
for the bridge. However, the Applicant asserts that this location minimizes the physical disturbance
necessary to construct the bridge and allows the bridge to take advantage of the existing grade on the
west side of the bridge.
2. Whether the development has been designed to complement the natural topography of the
land including, whenever possible and appropriate, the utilization of innovative architectural
techniques such as earth sheltered,lesign, natural materials and coloring, non-refectability and
clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site.
Response: As noted above, the bridges have been located to take advantage of the existing
topography,to the extent possible. The Applicant proposes to utilize stone on the bridge fayades that
will match the beige, 'gown and rust colors of the stone on the Aspen Chapel. Tile stairs leading Lp
to the Maroon Creek bridge on the west side shill be constructed with non-reflective steel.
3. Whether the development's height and baulk has been designed to avoids, to the maximum
extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway and public uewplanes.
Response: The height of the bridges is mandated by the required 15'6" road clearance. However,
the Applicant notes that the open railing design minimizes the massing of the structure. Bud Eylar,
County Engineer,suggests that the minimum clearance of the bridges at the time of construction be
15'9" to allow for figure road improvements such as overlay or chip seals. Staff agrees with the
City Planning staffs recommendation "to minimize the beam depth to the smallest dimension
possible in an effort to minimize the bulkiness of the bridges," particularly given Mr. Eylar's
suggestion to increase the clearance to 1519".
4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there are no
alternate building sites on the lot.
Response: The bridges do not break a ridgeline.
S. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the highest ground
or most visible portion of the site as viewed from State Highway 82 and public righfof--ways,
identified in Section (B)(1).
2
Response: The"site" is dictated by the location of the existing trails and the necessity of creating
safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists adjacent to the roundabout. This precludes
locations that would not be visible from the highway.
6. Whether the development has been located outside of the designated Scenic Overlay, or on a
suitable site at the greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and identified ridgelines.
Response: The entire site is within the mapped scenic overlay. The bridges have been located to tie
into existing trails and ensure their convenience for trail users,which restricts the ability to locate the
bridges outside of the scenic overlay. The Applicant states that the bridge over Castle Creek Road
has been placed as close to the roundabout as possible to avoid obstructing the view of the Aspen
Chapel from the highway.
7. Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with the adopted State
Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and has preserved natural vegetation, to the maximum
extent possible, including the avoidance of development within irrigated meadows. Eristilrg
vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible, while using existing vegetation to
screen development. .4 landscaping plan shall be submitted by the.4pplicant and approved by the
Hearing Officer.
Response: The Applicant states that the landscaping has been designed to match the existing native
habitat, which includes Gambel oak. sagebrush, serviceberry, aspen and cottonwoods. The
Applicant did not include a landscaping plan with the application, but is providing an illustrative plan
for staff to review prior to the meeting.
8. Whether the development's exterior lighting has been designed in sucha manner that light
sources, such as facade and landscape lighting, will not be seen from public right-of--ways as
identified in Section (B)(I). In addition, an application shall be consistent with the lighting
regulations identified in the Pitkin CountyLand Use Code.
Response: The Applicant states that minimal lighting will be provided at the entrance to the bridges
and that the lights will be attached to the inside of the bridge structure and downcast. The Caucus
suggests that handrail lighting be considered. The County's lighting regulations allow lighting of
pedestrian walkways, and states, "the preferred option is for lo%,,=level bollard or pipe-mounted
fixtures that are fully shielded and down-directed, with a maximum 4 foot height and a minimum
spacing of 25 feet." Staff does not find that any lighting of the bridges is necessary for safety
purposes, considering that the connecting trails are not lighted,that the lights at the roundabout give
off considerable ambient light, and that lighting onthe bridges could interfere with vehicular traffic
below the bridges. If lighting is determined to be necessary, it shall comply with the lighting
standards of Section 3-110-100 of the Land Use Code.
9. Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as the sole measure of
compliance with these regulations. These methods may be acceptable when utilized as one of several
methods to complement and enhance development, rather than as the single device for screening
development from view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped.
Response: The landform proposed on the east side of the Castle Creek bridge is necessary to
provide access to the bridge, and is not proposed solely as a means to screen the bridge.
10. Whether the development has been designed so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible,
any Scenic Viewplane identified on the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor.Luster Plan and Down
Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Response: No such Scenic Viev plane applies to this area.
H. In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict with preservation of scenic areas,
the Board acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues shall
be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response: 1041 issues have not dictated the location of the bridges, and, therefore, do not take
precedence over scenic concerns.
1041 Hazard Review:
Geologic Hazard Areas: Construction of the bridges will impact slopes in excess of 3011'0 adjacent to
the Kiss and Ride and below the Aspen Chapel adjacent to Maroon Creek Road. The BOCC
recently adopted an exception to the Code's prohibition on development on slopes in excess of 30%,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 019-2000. This provision exempts non-motorized, public trails from the
standards for development in `eolo`ic hazard areas, as long as users of the area are not subjected to
hazardous conditions and if the trail can be constructed to mitigate the hazard to public health and
safety. The Applicant proposes to stabilize and revegetate disturbed slopes and to retain the slope
below the Aspen Chapel with a boulder retaining wall.
Wildfire Hazard Areas: The surrounding area is within a mapped low wildfire hazard area. Vince
Urbina of the Colorado State Forest Service states that it appea-s that the bridges will be flame-
resistant. The Applicant represents that the pond being constructed on the Thomas property will be
accessible to the fire department should a fire occur in the area. Ed Van Walraven of the aspen Fire
District notes that the District has specific requirements and needs for access and drafting of water
and that the Applicant should coordinate with the District to ensure that these needs are met.
Wildlife Habitat Areas: Jonathan Lowskv, County Wildlife Biologist. states that the development
will not have a significant impact on any wildlife habitats protected by the Land Use Code.
However, he notes that the trail on the west side of the Maroon Creek bridge,which is located on the
edge of the Moore Open Space, is adjacent to(albeit below) important habitat for the resident, year-
round mule deer herd. He also notes that this area contains high quality, native, mountain sage
habitat, with a very low occurrence of noxious weeds. His recommendations to protect the native
habitat are included in the conditions of approval.
RECONUV ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Hearing Officer approve the Maroon and
Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridges Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard Review, subject to the attached
Determination.
Attachments
County Wildlife Biologist
9-City Planning staff
3Castle./Maroon Creek Caucus
YCounty Engineer
.,IAspen Fire
4
(y City Engineer
/I Letter from Ron Chauner
Letter from Chris Kiley
q Letter from George Wombwell
'Ma.Wolff is a professional planner with a Bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Penasytvania,and is a member of the American Institute of Certified
Planners. Ms.Wolff has worked for the AspemPitkin County Community Development Department for S years,and as a Planner within that department for 41/1 years. In her
planning position,W.Wolff has reviewed numerous land use applications pursuant to the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
5
PITKIN COUNTY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Suzanne Wolff, Pitkin County Community Development 1
FROM: Jonathan Lowsky, Pitkin County Wildlife Biologist
SUBJECT: Maroon and Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridges 1041 Hazard Review
DATE: 06/28/00
CC: Dale Will, Pitkin County Open Space And Trails
The 'Maroon and Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridge development as proposed will not have a
significant impact on any wildlife habitats protected within the Land Use Code. It is important to
note, however, that the proposed handicap access ramp from the Maroon Creek Bridge onto the
Moore Open Space is adjacent to (albeit below) important habitat for the resident (i.e.,year-round)
mule deer herd as well as areas of high quality, biologically diverse native vegetation with a very low
occurrence of noxious weeds (See attached map). In addition,the Moore Open Space is home to at
least ten breeding pairs of Brewer's sparrow, a sensitive species that requires high elevation, high
quality mountain sage habitat for breeding. Brewer's sparrow's numbers are decreasing throughout
their range due to the loss of habitat to development. Given that the n--)untain sage habitat type has
been decimated in the Roaring Fork Valley, the remaining high qualit -mountain sage communities
should be given a high priority for protection.
Given the above, the following conditions should be applied minimize impacts to wildlife:
1. Native vegetation must be maintained to the maximum extent possible.
2. A temporary fence(e.g.,orange safety fence) must be erected between the construction area and
existing vegetation.
3. Signage should be required to clearly establish that dogs must be leashed at all times on this and
all other City/County trails.
4. Any areas disturbed during construction must be revegetated with a native seed mix approved by
the County Land Manager or Wildlife Biologist.
5. Any trails originating from the Maroon Creek Bridge should be kept on the absolute perimeter
of the Moore Open Space and avoid areas identified as containing intact native vegetational
communities.
76 SERVICE CENTER ROAD • ASPEN, CO • S1611
PHONE: 970.920.5395 • FAX: 970.920.5374
let
7 �
rsj7 ♦ _ [[� Cl
i M .
r
. "> > m
Al
VA
aft tit
.77
I♦
k. by
i
,
-
1`�, �� '' �' L+i1 -.• ;gat .. •- ,Nt, `�� 1 I
.r� .. , - "_'~ 'jam. 'r _s „�� �• 1.�,., ��
> y
rf ��%f r--�+�i"�.,.` - < 1. � � � �• •. • � � - � ,�'j�.
y
MEMORANDUM y
TO: Tamara Pregl, County Planner
FROM: James Lindt, City Planning Technician 5(�
THRU: Joyce Ohlson. Deputy Director\
RE: City of Aspen Parks Pedestrian Bridges Scenic Overlay and 1041 Hazard
Review, Revised City- Planning Staff Comments
DATE: June 2, 2000
The Citv Planning Staff reviewed the Pedestrian Bridges Scenic Overlav and 1041
Hazard Review proposal and had the following concerns:
l. Staff supports the concept of the pedestrian bridges and believes
that it furthers the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan in
that the bridges promote bicycle path directness ad
connectivity. Staff also believes that the bridges will promote
bicvcie safety ir. ;.at they will provide an alternative to riding
through the rour__about.
2. Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the City's
Conservation Zore District in which parts of the bridges are
located. The bridges will enhance public recreation as is
stated in the purpose of the zone district in the City of Aspen Land
Use Code.
3. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to strive to minimize
the beam depth to the smallest dimension possible in an effort to
minimize the bulkiness of the bridges.
4. Landscaping around the bridges should complement the existing
natural setting as well as the newly designed round-a-bout
landscape design.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on this County application.
Tamara Pregl
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
130 South Galena
Aspen, Co . 81611
June 6 , 2000
Re: City of Aspen Parks Pedestrian Bridges Scenic Overlay
2735-114-01-001 P68-00
Dear Tamara,
The Caucus Board reviewed thi i plan at its meeting on June 2nd
had the same comments we expressed to Jeff Woods when he
presented the plan on May 5th.
We think this is over-kill but how can one object when the
safety of the children is.-the highest priority.
We are concerned with lighting and suggest handrail lighting
be considered.
We do not want to see any nets or fences (see Hwy 82 bridge
over Castle Creek at entrance to Aspen. )
We would like to review the final design.
If you have any questions please call me at 925-1780 .
P
ly
A. Conviser, President
Maroon Creek Caucus
CONVISER
P.O. BOX ii ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 970-925-1780 FAX 970-925-3611
Memorandum
To: Suzanne Wolff
From: Bud Eylar
Date: 6/22/00
Re: Maroon and Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridges; 1041 Hazard Review
Suzanne, I have reviewed the application and have the following comments:
1) The proposed construction will encroach on slopes of greater than 30% in a number
of areas. The bridges, abutments, wingwalls, retaining walls and trails, all impacts
slopes of greater than 30%.
2) The Castle Creek Oedestrian Bridge will require the construction of extensive fills (24'
H) to accorr Modate the construction of the trail approaches to the structure. These
fills, as well as the wirgwalls and rock treatments, will be highly visible from both SH
82 and Castle Creek Road. Further, the mass of the structures will be quire visually
impactive from the roadways.
3) The applicant has committed to meet the clearance requirements of the Pitkin County
RMMP at 15'-6". 1 would suggest that the minimum clearance at the time of
construction be 15'-9" to allow for future road improvements such as overlays or chip
seals.
4) The Maroon Creek Ped Bridge is proposed to be placed directly in front of the
informational/directional sign for the roundabout. The applicant should move this
sign up hill of the pedestrian bridge.
5) Lighting on the bridge or on the approaches to the bridges should be kept to a
minimum and should be low in height.
6) The construction of portions of the bridges, trails, walls and fills will take place on
properties owned by the County. The Applicant should acquire the necessary,
easements, rights of way and encroachment permits before the start of construction.
Further the applicant or their representatives shall obtain all the required permits
from the county before the start of construction.
7) The applicant should work with the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems
representatives to coordinate the installation of conduits for cable along the trail
approaches to the bridges and across the structures to facilitate cable installations
over and along the roadways in the area.
8) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted to the County Engineer for
the construction activities taking place on county properties or within the county road
right of way. The applicant or their contractor shall submit a Traffic Control and
Construction Management Plan of the construction of the bridges
9) It should be nc�=d that there are work hour restrictions on both Castle Creek Road
and Maroon C,Lek Road. Those restrictions are found within :;:e Pitkin County Road
Management and Maintenance Plan, Section V, 5.01.01 B. These restrictions should
be made available to the applicant's contractor so that they can be incorporated
within the contractor's traffic management plan. Further, there is a one half-hour
limitation on traffic control activities on Maroon Creek Road during afternoon school
hours. This will be set in conjunction with School District.
10)The applicant and contractors will meet with the County, Law Enforcement,
emergency responders, RFTA, the School District and the Hospital to coordinate
access through the construction zones throughout the duration of construction. This
meeting will take place before the commencement of construction activities.
5�
Memo
To: Tamara Pregl
From: Aspen Fire Protection District
Subject: COA Parks Pedestrian Bridges ID#2735-114-01-001 P68-00
Date: June 20, 2000
The Aspen Fire Protection District has specific requirements and needs for access and drafting of
water. It is imperative that we are involved in the planning process for the construction of the
access to the pond on the Thomas property if the pond is to be used for firefighting purposes as
referred to in Subsection 3-80-070 Wildfire Areas.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Ed
MEMORANDUM
To: Tamara Pregl
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Date: June 12, 2000
Re: City of Aspen Parks Pedestrian Bridges
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: Engineering comments are based on the fact that we
believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it
is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent
is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to
approvals tied to "issuance of building permit."
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way,
the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment
license requirements.
Site Review
1. Site Drainage Requirement—A drainage report was not submitted with the
application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting
runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a
recuirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan
(2 -'x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the
Ei gineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the
temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. The
foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained
and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building
permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design
storm.
Information —The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and
what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
2. Engineering — Requirement—The following requirements have been provided
by the Engineering Department:
Page 2 of 2
06/12/00
City of Aspen Parks Pedestrian Bridges
a. ROW permits and Encroachment licenses will be required during construction
if applicable.
b. A full soils report and drainage report are needed before the issuance of the
building permit. Presenting it in a timely manner is beneficial to the applicant
as well as the reviewer.
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement— Given the continuous
problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent
to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and
encroachments within public right of way.
2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department
(920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on
streets, and alleyways.
4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving
street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department.
2�GJ
ril KiN
June 5, 2000 ' "y
Mr. Lance Clark
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Lance,
As a cyclist and an employee at the Aspen Highlands Ski Area, and on behalf of the
many employees here who choose to get to work on foot or on a bicycle, I am in great
favor of the proposed bridges. landscaping and trail upgrades slated for the areas along
Maroon and Castle Creels Roads.
Of probably even greater impact will be the more safe routes for cyclists and walkers
headed for High School venues. CMC, James E. Moore pools and the ball fields as well
as the thousands headed for the Maroon Bells on bicycles in the summer.
Your plan to avoid conflicts between motorists and the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is
very appropriate with the spirit of our town that urges people to stay active and fit while
reducing the use of our automobiles.
Si nc
Ron Chauner
�fto -- W g'
June 2, 2000
i u ol 0 2000
Mr. Lance Clarke
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena C�Np.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Lance;
I am writing on behalf of the 28 residents of the Heatherbed Lodge across from Aspen Highlands to voice
our support for the Parks Department's proposed bridges and landscaping and trail improvements along
Maroon Creek Road and Castle Creek Road at Highway 82. I urge you to approve the proposed items
currently being reviewed under the 104 i/Scenic Review process.
The proposed pedestrian bridges and trail connections will provide improved access to Aspen and the
regional trail network for pedestrians and bicycles. Many of us at the Heatherbed actively pursue
alternative transportation methods and the improved bicycle trail network will make trips more
streamlined and much safer. The road crossings at both roads are currently detrimental to the bicycle and
walking experience, and the new bridges and trail alignments will benefit commuters as well as the
legions of recreational cyclists who ride to the Maroon Bells.
The sensitive bridge designs developed by the Parks Department will provide a visually attractive
gateway to both the Castle and Maroon Creek valleys and will complement the existing architecture of the
church and the area landscape. I believe that the height of the bridges is appropriate given the existing
topography as well as the need to provide vehicular clearance, and once completed the bridges will
successfully blend into the built environment of the area.
Think yc for your time and allowing me to comment on this proposal. I look forward to riding on the
improve tall system in the Maroon Creek/Highway 82 roundabout area by the end of the summer.
SincarelvO
, 1
Chris Kiley
Heatherbed Lodge manager
cc. Jeff Woods, Parks Department
My name is George Wombwell , a resident of Aspen @ tel . 920-4749 .
I believe the proposed Castle Creek pedestrian bridge is
inappropriate in design and in the wrong location if justified at
all . I believe that others here will say it is unnecessary.
The 20 ft. high bridge and especially its 16 feet high approaches
present a major interfezence with the beautiful traditional view
plane from highway 82 over the Marolt open space toward the Aspen
Highlands and Buttermilk mountains with the Aspen Chapel in the view
between. The Marolt open space itself has long been considered a
vital part of the highway 82 entrance ( and exit) to Aspen.
The Parks & Recreation Department ' s plans do not show the effect of
the bridge approaches . At 16 feet height at the bridge declining at
a 590 maximum grade they requires 320 feet in each direction to get
back to the level of Castle Creek Road. The bridge itself is 50
feet long. Placed so close to the entrance to the roundabout the
impact on a protected scenic view plane is tremendous .
The similar bridge over Maroon Creek Road is not an eyesore because
it is well back from highway 82 and in an existing valley .
The Castle Creek bridge would be less obtrusive if moved back south
from where proposed . cone option is moving it toward an existing hill about
7� ft . south where it would be considerably less visible from highway
82 . Another is considerably farther south cou1- help eliminate an
obvious pedestrian hazard between the Marolt F:ousing and the
hospital where many pedestrians must cross in a dangerous curve in
the road to catch busses .
At the proposed location I doubt there is any history of
pedestrian crossing danger, and if anticipated could be handled by
another cross walk, with warning lights and a pedestrian operated
red traffic light if needed . If any bridge is justified in the area
it should be a tunnel like on highway 82 west of the roundabout .
It is interesting that is the mayor of Aspen who says a bridge is needed
for safety crossing a county road . It is much safer than most of Original
Street in the city of Aspen.
The most grievous offense to the public is the way this is
being "slipped in" as a change order to the roundabout construction
with no other planned public hearings other than this one and no
competitive bidding for the construction. This was not presented as
part of the roundabout construction and is clearly a separate major
project .
It is clearly a violation in spirit if not letter of County Land Use
Regulations 2-120 ( natural rural scenic quality) , 3-60-040 ( scenic .
overlay requirements applying to highway 82 , and 3-60-050 ( scenic
quality.
The plan calls for hiding the ponderous bridge approaches
with extensive addition of new trees . Trees are nice but not when
added to further obstruct one on the most beautiful. view planes at
the entrance to any city in the world.
If this bridge is to go forward it should have extensive public
explanation, input and additional hearings . It is a travesty to call
this a one step single hearing project .
EXHIBIT
Under-Crossing Constraints -5-
1. Under-crossings are expensive-the under-crossings on Hwy. 82 are funded by
CDOT
2. Under-crossing at current road grade-The Hwy. 82 under-crossings are at grade
crossings, meaning that the entire highway is elevated a considerable distance
away from the crossing. A tunnel similar in design to the 82 tunnels would
require extensive retaining walls on both sides of Castle Creek (see retaining
walls at current roundabout tunnel). The following are the constraints:
a. A tunnel placed at the current road grade (elev. 7927) is 10' high with a
min. of 3' of cover over the concrete box. The road gradient from the
roundabout up over the tunnel would be 12%, 8:1. This greatly exceeds
the maximum allowance for road gradient
b. The entire length of road from the roundabout to Meadowood drive would
have to be reconstructed at a great expense
c. Utilities will have to be relocated
d. Traffic disturbance would be great-A temporary road would have to be
constructed west of Castle Creek road- existing trees would be cut
3. Under-crossing below current road grade has the following constraints:
a. Utilities will have to be relocated
b. Extensive retaining walls would need to be constructed
c. Tunnel would be dark and difficult to drain
d. The grade at the west side of tunnel is 14 feet below road grade-extensive
retaining walls will be required to meet the grade of the Maroon Creek
Bridge
e. The 3 6" culvert for the wetland pond would have to be redesigned and
relocated
f. The cost of the tunnel greatly exceeds the cost of a bridge
g. Traffic disturbance would be great
Constraints EXHIBIT
1. The suggested trail alignment from the Marolt Bridge South through the
housing and up to the hospital has the following constraints:
a. The trail is not shorter- The trail length is 1.1 miles just to the eastern edge
of the Moore Playing Fields
b. The at grade crossing by the Hospital is unsafe
c. There is no trail from the Hospital to the Moore Playing fields
d. Meadowood and the Hospital are private property
e. Once on the Moore Property, extensive grading would have to be done to
connect the trail to the School Campus. It would be difficult to meet ADA
requirements
2. The suggested trail alignment from the Marolt Bridge along Marolt Place road is
not shorter- It is also 1.1 miles to the entrance of the School Campus: This
suggested trail alignment has the following constraints:
a. The trail would have to cross Castle Creek Road"at grade"
b. There is no trail along Marolt Place road
c. The trail would impact the landing zone
d. The trail meets Castle Creek at a sharp corner- Eliminating the sharp
corner would require filling in the south end of the existing pond
3. The trail along either side of Meadowood drive has the following constraints:
a. The Chapel often has overflow parking issues which would create
conflicts and safety issues for the trail users
b. The trail on the North side of Meadowood drive would reduce the amount
of parking spaces in the Chapel lot
c. Locating the trail on the south side of the road would require a new trail
easement and adds an additional road crossing
d. Steep grades exist(14%, 7:1) on the trail portion down to Maroon Creek
Road
e. County Public Works will not install a traffic light at the Meadowood
drive intersection, and feels that a flashing light will not insure pedestrian
safety
4. Moving the Castle Creek bridge further to the South will make the bridge more
visible as the Castle Creek road elevations are higher the further you move South
a. Moving the bridge to the South will impact the existing cottonwood trees
on the West side of Castle Creek road - many would have to be cut down
b. Moving the Castle Creek bridge South adjacent to the Church Parking lot
would be difficult, space is limited, grades do not work on the east side of
the road, and the berming required would be much more obtrusive. This
would also prohibit the Chapel from expanding their parking lot.
EXHIBIT
b ,34q
Opportunities
1. The historic trail alignment from the Marolt Bridge north to Hwy. 82 is a tenth of a
mile shorter than a trail along Marolt Place Road, to the School Campus. The
proposed alignment would be designed with gentle (5%) grades without any road
crossings.
2. When the Cut and Cover tunnel is installed across the Marolt Property more direct
and shorter trail connections to the School Campus will be built from town and the
Cemetery Lane Neighborhood
3. The Construction of the Castle Creek Bridge in the shown location is clear from
the landing zone of para-gliders and hang-gliders.
4. The existing 30 foot high cottonwood trees along Castle Creek Road would not be
disturbed
5. Utility relocation and re-design will be inexpensive and limited
6. The pedestrian bridges cost considerably less than under-crossings
7. Traffic disturbance will be kept to a minimum as the bridges will be prefabricated
off-site and installed in one evening
8. Restoration of the Marolt Property
a. The Marolt Property was once a pristine area of native vegetations before it
was cleared and used for mining and agricultural purposes
b. The wetland pond will serve as a vital area for wildlife and hydric plant
species
9. The cool water from the pond helps minimize "dust devils" (sporadic wind gusts)
making it a safer place for the flyers to land.
10. The visual disturbance from the landform is minimal, both from the North and
South. At its highest point a person driving an auto through the roundabout should
be looking at traffic entering the roundabout. In a matter of seconds the occupant
of the auto will be past the landform.
11. The landform will be graded with slopes not exceeding 3:1. It will look drastically
different than it appears now. The slopes will be landscaped with native
vegetations and grasses.
12. The view to the Aspen Chapel will not be impacted
EXHIBIT
13. The Grading on the west side of the Castle Creek Bridge will just be an extension
of the existing church plateau. The grade difference over to the Maroon Creek
Road Bridge is only 1.6 feet.
a. Retaining walls for the trail will be a maximum of 6' high
14. The construction of the wetland area was done with a major cost savings, as the
fill from the ponds did not have to be hauled off-site
15. The Pedestrian Bridges could be used by Nordic skiers in the winter to access the
Moore Open Space trails
16. The Pedestrian Bridges will be of the same Architectural materials as the Chapel
and will serve as a Symbolic Gateway to the Maroon Bells and The Ashcroft area.
It will enhance rather than detract form the Chapel.
17. Children can safely cross the road without stopping
EXHIBIT
Meadowood Home Owners Association
P.O. Box 8774
Aspen, Colorado 81612 I-s -i em
July 12, 2000
RE: Proposed Castle Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Dear County Commissioners,
The Meadowood Board of Directors voted unanimously today to oppose the proposed
bridge over Castle Creek Road. As hard as this community has worked to preserve open
space,reduce unwanted signage, overhead power lines and other urban blights we find it
outrageous that you would consider and or approve of a large bridge in an open space
area with the high visibility of the proposed bike trail bridge.
We agree on the need for safety for pedestrians crossing Castle Creek Road as we all
travel Castle Creek Road daily and cross Castle Creek Road to access Aspen by foot and
bicycle. However, there certainly must be a more acceptable alternative than the
proposed bridge. Why not go under ground as the highway department did so well for the
hwy 82 underpass west of the rotary. How about crossing Castle Creek Road near the
Marolt Housing and Hospital entry ?
We understand this choice is driven largely by cost. However, surely the cost of better
and more attractive alternatives is minimal compared to the exceedingly high cost of our
open space land and the millions spent to purchase land county wide, particularly given
the location of this proposed bridge at the very entrance to Aspen.
This letter is intended to be a formal appeal and protect our rights to a more formal
hearing where all of the facts can be discussed. Please let the public know the magnitude
of this bridge and its approach. Share the alternatives and costs. Show us an accurate
rendering of the massive structure and approaches and what it will look like now; not
shielded by trees that will take 40 years to mature.
Sincerely,
Alan Bush
Meadowood Secretary
CC: Mayor Rachel Richards
00 '
Jimr:
.
• Box E
Aspen, Colorado
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss. Copy of Notice
County of Pitkin ) PUBICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY LGIVEN IC TTO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC: On September 05, 2000, the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County,
I, Mitch Bettis, do solemnly swear that I am the anlarado,adoptedResolution197-2000,denying
ppeal with regard to the Maroon Creek
Publisher of THE ASPcN T-vMS: that the same is a weekly Pedestrian Bridge and continuing the appeal
newspaper printed, in, whole or in part, and published in with regard to the Castle Creek Bridge. Construction of the Mar Pedestrian
oon Creek
the County of Pit_kin, State of Colorado and has a c Pedestrian Bridge shall proceed,subject to con-
the ditto..This a
o pproval of a site specific develop-
circulation therein; that said newspaper has been ment plan includes athree-yearvestedproperty
published continuously and uninterruptedly in said rightpursuan Jeane to tte
ones, eputyCount
Jeanette Jones,Deputy County Clerk
Publshed in
County of Piticin, for a period of more.than fifty-two 2001.(75566)The Aspen Times on February 10,
consecutive weeeks next prior to the first publication of the
annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper
has been admitted to the United States mails as second
class matter under the provisions of the Act of ✓(arch 3,
1379, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper
is a a wee_c1y newspaper duty qualified for publishing legal
notices and advertisements with the meaning of the laws of
the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub-
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said.weekly newspaper for the period of__L_consecu-
tive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice
was in the issue of said newspaper dated
y I`d A.D., 20 d\ and that the last pub-
lication ot,�aid notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated t'�P_b. C� A.D., 20 Uk _.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary
public in a.id for the County of PiLkin, State of Colorado,
on this _day of to ��A��.-�M 20 _.
KJ
No tary Public
Nfy cow rn i ssion exp Tres f�