Two critical matters related to the push to build the South Bridge over the Roaring Fork River were before Glenwood Springs City Council for their June 18 regular meeting.
The first arose from a special executive session meeting between Council and City Attorney Karl Hanlon regarding Garfield County’s legal action last week in District Court seeking an injunction while the court determines if the bridge project should be required to go through the county’s 1041 review process.
Following the discussion, Hanlon was appointed to defend the City in the lawsuit. A 1041 review, involving public hearings before both the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, would present a substantial delay to the project.
City staff is hoping to put the estimated $80 million project out to bid as soon as mid-September, and commence with construction next year if the bids come in favorably.
The second potential delay in that timeline came at the tail end of the regular meeting when Council voted 4-3 to proceed with any right-of-way acquisition necessary to build the bridge and connections on either side to Airport Road and Colorado Highway 82.
One contentious property acquisition that’s needed to accommodate the easternmost connection to Highway 82 will most likely also land in court.
To complete the project, the City would need to acquire about a two-acre swath of land at the northern edge of the Jackson Ranch, as well as some land from neighboring Holy Cross Energy.
However, the Jackson Ranch is protected under a long-standing conservation easement held by the Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT), which prohibits any sort of development.
While Holy Cross appears amenable to the land acquisition, the City will need to go to court to enact its eminent domain condemnation powers to acquire the Jackson property, Hanlon advised council.
Appearing before council to address the issue were property owner Sandy Jackson and AVLT Deputy Director Torrey Udall.
The South Bridge project is counter to the objectives of the conservation easement, including protection of valuable wetlands and wildlife habitat, Udall said.
In a letter to the City dated June 17, AVLT also said the City’s stated appraisal value of $545,100 is “well below” the appreciated value of the property if the conservation easement is removed.
Jackson told the story of her father, Carter Jackson, coming to her and her three sisters in 1990 with the idea of preserving the ranch in a conservation easement to prevent it from being commercially developed. They agreed, and the land is now protected as a greenspace buffer zone.
“My father always said, other than his four daughters, the proudest thing for him was this conservation easement on the ranch,” Jackson said. “We tried to do something nice for the community, but apparently the City fathers don’t feel the same.”
“We love that land, we have a tie to that land and we ask you to consider very thoughtfully this decision you’re talking about,” she said.
She also encouraged a proper review of the bridge project through the county’s 1041 process.
Council was clearly torn on the matter, but a majority said it’s still best to proceed on the land acquisition front and at least get to a decision point in the fall when construction bids come in.
“That will give us the full picture of whether we should proceed, or not,” said Councilor Sumner Schachter, who voted along with Councilor Mitchell Weimer, Mayor Marco Dehm and Mayor Pro-Tem Erin Zalinski to proceed with right-of-way acquisitions.
Councilors David Townsley, Ray Schmahl and Steve Smith were opposed, saying it would be premature to acquire land that may not be used if the bridge project gets scrapped.
“I’m sorry this is where we are,” Mayor Dehm said. “But we have to build this bridge for numerous reasons, and to kill it now would be foolish. We have to get to bid so we know where we’re at.”
In other news …
During the regular meeting, 10 people spoke up during the public comments, demanding the City enforce the Planning and Zoning Commission’s April 28 decision to revoke a special use permit for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in West Glenwood.
The City has said its hands are tied by supremacy laws, exempting the federal government from local zoning regulations. The City has obtained verbal legal opinions outside of its own counsel, and have been advised “you’re not wrong” in not having a legal leg to stand on, City Manager Steve Boyd said.
Soon to follow was a debrief from Police Chief Joseph Deras regarding the traffic gridlock that resulted after I-70 was closed through the South Canyon area during the June 9 Paradise Creek Fire.
Deras admitted things could have been handled better to prevent traffic from building up in Glenwood during the closure, and allowing a better traffic flow after the interstate reopened. As it was, traffic was backed up well into the night.
Better communication with upvalley entities in Aspen and Pitkin County to alert motorists of the situation was one takeaway. That way, commuters might have decided to head over McClure Pass the back way to western Garfield County, rather than trying to wait it out in Glenwood Springs, Deras and council members concluded.
Several factors, including being short-staffed to manage the situation, worked against a better handling of the situation, Deras said.
Council also learned from members of the Glenwood Springs Riverside Botanical Gardens project board that the effort to remove, store, relocate and refurbish the historic greenhouse that now sits on the Glenwood Gardens property is within $5,000 of achieving its initial fundraising goal.
The group would like to preserve the greenhouse, which was once part of the historic Redstone Castle spread in the early part of the 20th century, and make it a centerpiece of a botanical garden.
However, their preferred site for the project, on the city-owned former wastewater treatment plant at the confluence of the Roaring Fork and Colorado rivers, is being contested by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA).
The DDA board voted unanimously last week to not support the gardens on that site, as it has for many years been envisioned for development that would tie downtown Glenwood to the riverfront.