Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.hpc.19960605 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jake Vickery at 5:20 p.m. with Roger Moyer, Martha Madsen, Melanie Roschko, Susan Dodington, Suzannah Reid, Mark Onorofski and Donnelley Erdman present. Excused was Sven Alstrom. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon, Staff said the Commission had a big agenda for next Wednesday however, the agenda at the end of the month will be light, Tim Malloy with Staff will be talking about downtown enhancement and it should only be an hour. Amidon stated that there is a very important site visit to the Paepcke house, this will be an interesting project for HPC because the house as it stands today has no relation to that historic house the materials have been completely changed and we need to decide architecturally what is important. Amidon said the contractor for the Orbe residence at 712 W. Francis asked her to come to the site because they were doing some demolition and whenever they would pound nails, siding was falling off the house, they have lost an entire section of siding. Amidon said she discussed with them, on site how they were going to go about the remainder of the project. Erik Peltonen, the Building Inspector stopped by to let her know there was no siding on the building, she went to the site and they had already thrown the siding away, taken it to the dump, put new sheathing around, they have preserved the framing. Roger asked who is the contractor. Amy responded that she could not think of it off hand but said the first thing that will change is as a standard condition of approval, she will not sign a building permit until the contractor comes in and meets with HPC. Amy said she thinks a large part of the problem is an architect or an applicant at a table who hears the spiel of how HPC wants something done but they do not talk to the contractor or that person is not listening. Amy stated that she would meet with the Preservation Planner in Boulder to find out the solutions they are looking at for this, what kind of penalty could we possibly have, they have dumped material, it is irreplaceable. Roger said that by pounding a few nails, it is not falling off, it is all blatant. Amy stated that the contractor kept referring that they had racked the building. She does not know what they were doing, the back porch collapsed ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1996 as well, which was not exactly an important element in the sense that it had already been changed but the roof collapsed. Roger asked if Amy had made a list of all the projects, since she has been here where the people have ignored what HPC has done. Amy responded that she can think of them easily. Amy asked the Commission if they thought requiring everyone to post a bond on the project is a necessary thing. Roger stated it is one way to get their attention. Amy agreed. Amy said one thing to think about is they already have to do a lot to work with us, so for the people who are trying to work with us it is an additional burden but this is happening continuously. Donnelley asked if they had begun work on the dilapidate shed in back. Amy said they had not and the latest is they claim that building is not historic, we have a review with them at the next meeting, the lumber, the framing of it is apparently dimensional lumber, but the siding, trim work and door surround certainly looked historic to her. Roger stated that Amy could red tag them. Amy responded that she could. Roger said that will shut them down for a couple of weeks, that is a good message it hits them in the pocket book, at least the contractor. Roger stated that he has given up on it, he talked to a foreman, specifically showed him how to do something and went by the next day and it was all tom off, gone. Amy said that is what she tried to do with this contractor, tell him the appropriate way to do it and he just claimed you can't cut the nail because the board splits, you can't pull it over the nail because the board splits, so that was his argument. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Stan Clausen, Community Development Director stated that this project has had a lot of discussion in terms of what changes might take place, generally 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 whether the terminus might be at the base of Brush Creek Road or whether the line may be entirely on the South side of the Highway or would it be better to go up Galena or Hunter as opposed to Monarch Street. Clausen said that the reply from CDOT is really an environmental clearance based on the consensus over some project parameters that where developed with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) for Snowmass, Aspen and Pitkin County, these things will remain fixed throughout the analysis and the finally ElS can make any of those changes that seem to be appropriate that stem from this analysis. Clausen stated that there have been some minor changes as things have progressed and the engineering has progressed, the ~in" station is still the airport terminal, they have provided for a possible, future CMC station, a North 40 development station, they would service the LRT at the maintenance facility, not far from the existing RFTA maintenance facility, the intercept lot would be the point of auto transfer, the Buttermilk station would be the point of bus transfer and there would be two lanes in from Buttermilk, he said this is all subject to change in the final ElS. Clausen said the rail would go along the South side of the Highway as far as the Buttermilk station and Buttermilk would incorporate a relocated Owl Creek road into a single intersection with Buttermilk parking lot, the new Maroon Creek Bridge would carry two lanes of automobile traffic and a single track of light rail will be located to the South of the existing Maroon Creek Bridge, this would have no impact on the ball fields or Zoline Open Space but would impact private residential development, there would be a station, under consideration for the golf course and the Tennis Club subdivision, there would be a station at the Moore property Maroon Creek road with a small transfer facility. Clausen stated that one lane of traffic in bound will proceed from the Maroon Creek road intersection on a round about intersection with Cemetery Lane and then along the alignment that will come as close to the Castle Creek embankment as possible, along with the lightrail, these would come in at a new bridge approximately on direct alignment with Main Street, the Berger Cabin will have to be relocated on site but will allow the Cabin to remain functionally in place, Main Street would be a double track in the center, Main Street would be two lanes of traffic until the intersection of 3rd at which point there would be one lane of traffic and one lane of parking, outbound will have the same configuration for Main Street, the Christian Science library will not be impacted as a building although there may be some easing of the curb radius, two lanes will continue outbound over the Castle Creek bridge and the two lanes would carry until a double left turn at which point there will be a single outbound lane. 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 Melanie asked why the Christian Science building will be impacted if it will go from three lanes to two, can't it swing out away from it to lessen the width and ease that curve without getting near the building. Clausen responded that he thinks they are operating entirely within the right-of-way that exists, but right now it is a very square comer and they would change it to a 20' radius or something which would not necessarily impact the front yard of the building but swing the sidewalk in a different way. Jake asked where the four lane, coming up valley will stop and turn into one lane. Clausen responded in this configuration the four lane will become two lanes at Buttermilk. Jake stated so it is one lane in from Buttermilk. Clausen said it is essentially one lane in each direction, inbound is one lane but on the outbound lane is carried as two lanes through the S curves as far as Maroon Creek road to compensate for the slow design speed of the curves, the engineering thought is by having two lanes it will minimize any possibilities of congestion and back ups because the capacity will be increased. Jake asked what will happen to the existing Maroon Creek bridge. Clausen responded that it is slated to be turned into a pedestrian bridge, an engineering analysis has determined that it would not sustain continued use by heavy traffic. Donnelley asked what if the light rail alternative is abandoned, can the present scheme for routing traffic still be done. Clausen responded that is a complex question in the sense that this is designed as a piece, the single travel lane for automobile traffic is compensated for by the capacity of the light rail. Vickery asked about the points in the road where the tracks will cross the road. Clausen responded that the tracks cross through the center of the round about, a gate will go down when the train comes through, it should be understood that the actual crossing at the round about will require 10-15 seconds, the disruption will be very brief. Vickery asked what the frequency of the trains will be. Clausen responded the trains would mn every 10 minutes in each direction so there will actually be a train every five minutes, crossing at that point. Jake asked if the train runs at the same speed as the automobiles, do they have priority. Clausen said the train would be capable of running at high 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 speed 50-55 miles an hour, the train will have facilities for signal preemption, before it comes to a stop light it sends a message to the light to turn it green, it will always have green lights. Roger asked what Clausen's opinion of the impact on historical resources for this design and where will the bikeway link be in relationship to all of this. Clausen stated they have not designed bikeways, he said he knows there has been great concern about Main Street and the effect of having a lightrail in the center of Main Street, particularly trolley wires, he thinks this can be well integrated with Main Street and with good urban design work. Susan stated that the streets that were mentioned that it might turn on, of all, Monarch seems an awfully busy intersection, Hunter is a possibility or further up Main Street. Clausen said there is a task force that is looking into other options, in the original proposal CDOT determined that for their analysis they needed to have a functional terminus at either end and Monarch seemed to them as viable a street as any, the quarter mile zone that is drawn around a station stop, when it included the station stop at Monarch and Main and Rubey Park really covered the downtown area, the concept is to have it running along the curb on Monarch and on Durant. Clausen stated that in assessing this, one assessment is the compatibility of the system concept with historic Main Street, generally and another is the compatibility of the program with various specific historical resources such as the Berger Cabin and the Christian Science library, another key area is the Holden/Marolt. Clausen said the other alternative they are analyzing is the modified direct alignment, which has essentially all the same elements except the one way couplet, everything is carried in a modified direct alignment into Main Street, the consequence is the Cemetery Lane intersection is eliminated and bring Cemetery Lane as the exclusive roadway right in on Castle Creek bridge. Martha asked if the project is phased. Clausen said the cost is being analyzed very thoroughly as part of the supplementary draft and an activity will be taking place at the end of the month to deal with the financing. Martha said she has heard, strictly rumors everything from it would cost $15 per passenger to come from down valley therefore that would limit the ridership. Clausen stated that if a four lane highway is built that has the least direct cost, 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 but has greater indirect cost by way of offsite improvements, offsite impacts have to be considered, the costs are pretty close one way or another. Melanie asked if there is any way to swing the lightrail further South since Berger Cabin will be moved anyway. Clausen stated that although it has never been recorded, CDOT made sort of a handshake agreement with the people at the Villa's to stay approximately 60' away from their buildings. Melanie stated she heard 30'. Melanie said she understands this entrance in can not be underground because the grades are so different. Clausen stated that there has been quite a bit of debate about undergrounding, there are considerably more people who experience the Marolt open space as a view unfolding as you drive into town than there are people actually on it recreating and if you put everyone underground you have to ask yourself is that an entry into Aspen that would really be appreciated by the number of people that actually use it. Amy said next to the Holden Milling and Smelting Complex is about the location of the foundations of the old mill itself and she said she didn't think we want to impact that area with bridge abutments any more than we have to, in addition she did not know the boundaries of the Berger properties but they would like to do an on site relocation of that and the more you move the bridge down the less possible that is. Amy said there were some specific sites that need to be addressed. Amy said in all the alternatives, the Maroon Creek bridge will be left intact. Roger asked if the new bridge would be same height, higher or lower. Amy responded that they do not know yet, she said that we all have mixed feelings about the way the pedestrian bridge looks, but the experience is incredible, getting a look at the old bridge and we will put interpretive signs that talk about how the railroad used to come in and looking at the valley is beautiful. Vickery said Roger's point is well taken, if the new bridge was somewhat lower in relationship it might make the old bridge more visible. Amy said we may want to request a pedestrian walkway somehow, she is suggesting it is too early to get into that sort of plot now. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 Suzannah said she heard the new bridge would help people see the existing bridge structure. Amy stated that all were in agreement with the comments on the Maroon Creek Bridge, Colorado Midland Right-of-way, Castle Creek Power Plant and 920 W. Hallam. That we find the impact not unacceptable and mitigation' s available. Amy said that historically this is where the train came into town, the Colorado-Midland train came right across Holden Marolt and into town at the base of Shadow Mountain. Vickery asked if the modified direct alignment is part of Alternative H. Amy responded that it is an option within Alternative H. Vickery said if we were to superimpose, particularly the modified direct alignment the location of the archeological survey, do you think this runs through that area. Amy responded that she thinks there are archeological remains all around the site, but the ones in particular are in the embankment that are seen from the existing bike bridge. Amy said those won't be touched. Amy stated that she feels we need them to confirm that and avoid that, the new Castle Creek bridge is probably going to impact it, we need to make them aware that the abutments have to be carefully placed. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the HPC forward comments to CDOT in the form of a resolution as drafted by Staff with the recommended findings altered as per Staff's notes taken at this meeting and the below alterations to the memo; For Holden Marolt the comments were that both of the alternatives greatly impact the site and its use as a museum. The cut and cover does not seem to accomplish much. There is some favoritism of alternative H Castle Creek alignment because it would result in slower traffic movement and about half the traffic volume and it is further away from the historic resource. There is the possibility of berms but we want to make sure to preserve the visual connection between users of the train and the road 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 and the site. We are concerned about the location of the archeological remains on the hillside and how the bridge impacts them. Amy asked if the Board wanted to mention the Colorado Midland Right-of-way, did we want to express concern about the road base being elevated or close to the existing grade. Amy stated that on the Colo. Midland Right-of-way we want the new road surface to be close to the existing grade. On the Berger cabin there is a question as to whether the cabin can (even) be moved and if not we do not want to see that building demolished. Possibly explore the idea of lowering the road way in that area. For the Smith Elisha House, Thomas Hynes House (Kuhn) and Main Street in general we have a concern with the placement of the poles, stations, gates etc. We may prefer to see the train on one side or the other as opposed to down the center of the road. We strongly encourage investigation of alternative powers that would not require the polls, wires etc. Second by Suzannah. Discussion: Vickery asked what is important about having the grade similar to the existing grade on the Midland Right-of-way, what are we getting. Amy responded that the idea is to minimize the destruction or changes to the Right-of-way. Susan stated that at the Wheeler it was stated that the traffic influx is not going to be as great as people think, she said Europeans are geared to trains and Americans are geared to 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5~ 1996 cars and she feels it will never change. Amy stated that our valley has one of the highest riderships, in the bus system in the country and we certainly have international clientele. Suzannah stated that part of this entire concept is to encourage people to stay here as well as allowing people to come here and to drive less. All in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk 9