Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20041110ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 10, 2004 5:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITEVISIT: Noon_--~Jpl~~2ou~./~ ~ F~ '/~'~-~ y r own. 533 W. lot), 134 W. Hopkins, and 629 W. Smuggler. ranc~s (vacant II. III. IV. V. VI. Roll call Approval of minutes - October 11, 2004 Public Comments Commissioner member comments Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) Project Monitoring IX. VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #31) VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. 435 W. Main Street- Major Development (Conceptual) continue to Nov. 17th B. 701 W. Main - Historic Landmark Lot Split, GMQS Exemption, Demolition, Relocation and Variances, continue to Dec. 8th C. 110 E. Bleeker 8t~ - Substantial amendment, continue to Dec. D. 114 Neale Ave. - Maj or Development (Conceptual) continued public hearing (20 min.) Drawings will be presented at the meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. None WORKSESSION A. 533 W. Francis- vacant lot (25 min.) B. 134 W. Hopkins (25 min.) C. 629 W. Smuggler (25 min.) D. Pedestrian Amenity Code Amendment Referral (25 min.) ADJOURN_ 7:00 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 314 E. Hyman A venue- Major Development Review (Conceptual) and Parking Waiver- Continued Public Hearing DATE: November 17, 2004 SUMMARY: The subject property, built before 1886, is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures and located in the Commercial Core Historic District. It has been the home of The Motherlode restaurant since 1959, and before that the building was occupied by a saloon and a grocery store. The applicant requests HPC Conceptual approval to rehab the historically significant portion of this structure, demolish additions which would be considered non-contributing, and to construct a three story addition. The board is asked to waive all of the required parking beyond the spaces that can be reasonably accommodated on the site. This project requires further review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council related to Growth Management Exemptions. Since the last meeting, the applicant has made an amendment to the project that involves pulling a portion of the building forward to meet the street. Staff finds this to be appropriate and in keeping with the direction that is strongly expressed in the guidelines, to place new construction in the Commercial Core Historic District against the sidewalk. Staff finds that this direction should be taken even a bit further by bringing the second story forward in this area as well, to create a better transition between The Motherlode and the taller massing in the back. Continuation with this direction is recommended. Staff does not support the project without such an amendment. . APPLICANT: Regent Properties, with authorization to apply from the current property owners. The applicant is represented by Poss Architecture and Planning. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-007 ADDRESS: 314 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots Nand 0, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: CC, Commercial Core. MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) _. The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval. of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location and form of the envelope of the structure(s} and/or addition(s} as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant. Staff Response: Recently, the HPC has been contemplating new tools to analyze the appropriateness of proposals to alter historic structures. The following questions are likely to be the center of future discussions, and may be helpful for HPC to at least reference for this project (note that the questions do not serve as formal decision making criteria at this time): - 1. Why is the property significant? 2. What are the key features of the property? 3. What is the character ofthe context? How sensitive is the context to changes? 4. How would the proposed work affect the property's integrity assessment score? 5. What is the potential for cumulative alterations that may affect the integrity of the property? The property is significant as one of a handful of remaining structures that were built between 1879 and 1885, immediately following Aspen's incorporation. Along with the other oldest examples, which are 302 E. Hopkins (the white Carpenter Gothic house that has the earliest documented construction date; 1883),316 E. Hopkins (Genre Bistro), 303 E. Main Street (home of Matsuhisa), 309 E. Main (Alderfer's), 413 E. Hyman, and 101 S. Mill (the Elli's building), The Motherlode indicates the earliest character of town. The Motherlode is a false front building which, although strongly associated with the 19th century development of the West, is a rarity now since most were either destroyed by fire or replaced with masonry buildings as towns prospered. The building is relatively unaltered except for minor modifications to the storefront, and replacement of some materials. Key features of the property include the alignment of the fayade with the sidewalk edge, if s flat """" fayade, and one story height. The context is sensitive to change in that the site is located in a historic district, where there is a desire to maintain important patterns. Except for the open space 2 on this lot and next to the Wheeler, the block has a stronger sense of buildings being aligned with the sidewalk edge than some other downtown areas. The block is clearly physically dominated by the Wheeler Opera house. HPC has developed a system for assigning a score to determine the integrity that a designated building possesses, by analyzing it in terms of factors such as whether it is in its original location, and whether or not it retains original features and materials. While some points are deducted for additions which are of a dramatically different scale, this has relatively little weight compared to the degree of authenticity that the historic building itself has. Staff s attached integrity scoring form for this building as it exists today awards it a perfect score of 100 points. In staff s opinion the proposed project will not eliminate enough points to jeopardize the designation of the building, but is arguably damaging to it through the finding that building fonn, scale and association would all be reduced in value. There will be no remaining potential for future additions to the property if this project is built, because it represents a build out to the maximum allowed. The applicant plans to take advantage of a GMQS exemption that permits one free market unit to be added to a landmark property without growth management implications, and one to be built with mitigation. Desi!!n Guideline review Conceptual review focuses on tile height, scale, massing and proportions of a proposal. A list of the design guidelines relevant to Conceptual Review is attached as "Exhibit B," Only those guidelines which staff finds warrant discussion are included in the memo. Please note that staff is addressing fewer guidelines than were included in the applicanf s letter because some of those guidelines relate to topics which are reserved for final review, and because staff does not find that Chapter 11, "New Buildings on Landmark Lots," is pertinent. The application does not comment in any detail on work that will affect the historic portion of the building, however, staff assumes that repairs and restoration work will be undertaken to the extent needed. Nothing has been proposed to alter the front 30 feet of the existing structure that is clearly on the 1904 Sanborne maps. The series of additions to the back do not appear to have any historic merit, or value from the street view. Staff supports the request to demolish these pieces. The Motherlode will not have a basement excavated below it. The new construction will be kept entirely on the north side of the building. As noted above, The Motherlode is the oldest building on this block, and one of the oldest buildings in town. As evidenced by the historic photograph in the application, this was once a street lined with one and two story commercial buildings, greatly overshadowed by the 1889 Opera House. Although the discussions with the applicant about their intention to reflect the character of the larger masonry buildings in the Commercial Core have been very challenging and interesting, and staff fully respects the design experience and ideas of the architectural team, we feel that the current proposal is not paying enough attention to the Structure that it needs to relate to most directly, The design guideline which is most troubling to us in this regard is guidelines 10.3, below. , -' 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate, ,-.,. At the last meeting, the board was very divided with regard to a decision on this project. Minutes are attached. It appears to staff that the issue is, which takes priority; this new development needing to have a dialogue with the block/district, or the addition needing to have a dialogue with the historic building? These are not mutually exclusive goals and the guidelines support the achievement of both, In staffs opinion, the amendment that has been submitted goes a long way towards improving compatibility with the district by bringing the construction forward. The guidelines are very clear on the issue of building setback in this neighborhood, They state the fact that historically, ground level floors of the buildings were oriented to pedestrian views, with large display windows. The uniform wall of building fronts is vitally important 0 the historic integrity of the district and should be preserved. Some pockets of open space may be desirable downtown, but there is a significant difference between the character of the outdoor seating at The Motherlode today (which provides nice vitality to the street) and the open spaces in front of the Isis or next to the Elks building. There is no assurance that the courtyard that was shown in previous proposals for this property would remain as outdoor dining. There are other options for this function besides leaving part of the parcel vacant. The idea of the DEPP sidewalk project was to create enough space to have some dining against the building or the curb. Some restaurants, such as Pinons, have created rooftop decks. Staff does not feel that setting the building back to create a courtyard along the street is appropriate, particularly given the significant deterioration of the fayade line downtown over the years. Pulling the new construction forward recreates the historic development pattern that is visible in photographs, where a two story building can be seen next to subject structure, """ The second, and just as important, reason that staff supports the general direction the project is taking now is that previous version lacked a sensitive transition between the two building phases. It did not acknowledge the value of the fact that The Motherlode is completely different than the adjacent masonry commercial buildings since it was built before the mining economy really began to prosper. There is a very striking difference in height and materials when the addition meets the back of The Motherlode. Staff finds this would best be addressed by having a two story element in the project, which would function much as the connector that HPC looks for in residential projects, but in a manner more suited to commercial architecture and economics, The one story addition that is proposed diminishes the unique character of The Motherlode to some degree and doesn't differentiate itself enough. A two story addition at the front lot line would create a better stepping up of heights from the designated structure and minimize the appearance of the rear mass looming over the historic landmark. The relevant guidelines are below, (Note: Although guidelines 10,6, 10.7, and 10,8 discuss scale issues, as written they are more suited to other neighborhoods in Aspen so they are not being cited,) ,- 4 13.8 Maintain the alignment offacades at the sidewalk's edge. o Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible. o Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. o Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. o The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown, o Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally, 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby, o The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. 13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity. o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms. o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged. o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are inappropriate. Staff still has reservations about the bay window element of the addition that projects out over the roof of The Motherlode, however that falls into the category of fenestration and can be left for discussion at Final review. With the amendment discussed above, staffs concerns about the material palette would likely be resolved. ON-SITE PARKING The project will generate a requirement for approximately 11 parking spaces. The number cannot be firmly stated at this time because the Planning and Zoning Commission will establish what is required for the affordable housing units during their review. The applicant has included a letter explaining why it is not possible to provide any more than 4 spaces that meet the City's requirements for on-site parking. They are asking that HPC waive everything above that amount. In order to grant a parking waiver, HPC must find that the review standards of Section 26.415.110,C of the Municipal Code are met. They require that: 1. The parking reduction and waiver of payment-in-Iieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district. 5 Staff Response: The property cannot physically accommodate any more legal parking off of the alley. Staff supports HPC granting the parking waiver, as well as waiver of the cash-in-lieu payment, which will generate a cost savings of approximately $100,000 for the developer. - DECISION MAKING OPTIONS: The HPC may: . approve the application, . approve the application with conditions, . disapprove the application, or . continue the application to a date certain to obtain additional information neccssary to make a decision to approve or deny. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC continue the application for restudy of a better transition between the new and old construction. Staff finds that the guidelines call for the location of the new addition along the street, which has been proposed, and the development of some kind of sympathetic transition in massing between the new and old construction. This may best be accomplished by increasing the addition to two stories along the front lot line. Staff finds that the current proposal does not meet the design guidelines and should otherwise be denied """"'I based on conflict with 10.3,13.9, and 13.10. Exhibits: A. Staff memo dated November 17, 2004 B. Relevant Design Guidelines C. Integrity Assessment D. Application '..... 6 Exhibit B: Relevant Design Guidelines for 314 E. Hyman, Conceptual Review 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. o Such an addition is usually similar in character to the original building in terms of materials, finishes and design. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one's ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. o A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the primary building is inappropriate. o An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also is inappropriate, o An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's historic style should be avoided. o An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate. lOA Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. o An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. DA change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. 10.5 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. o Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition should not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured. 10.6 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. o An addition that is lower than or similar to the height of the primary building is preferred. 10.7 If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than a historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a "connector" to link it to the historic building. o A I-story connector is preferred. o The connector should be a minimwn of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building. o The COlmector also should be proportional to the primary building. 10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. o Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate. o Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter the exterior mass of a building. o Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary structures is recommended. 10.9 Roofforms should be similar to those ofthe historic building. o Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. o Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with sloped roofs. 7 10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not de~troy or obscure historically important architectural features. o For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should be avoided, 10.11 On a new addition, use exterior materials that are compatible with the historic materials of the primary building. o The new materials should be either similar or subordinate to the original materials, 10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the historic building. o If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition should be similar. o Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or structure. 13.4 Develop alley facades to create visual interest. o Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. o Balconies, court yards and decks are also encouraged. o Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be covered or protected and clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. 13.8 Maintain the alignment offacades at the sidewalk's edge. o Place as much of the facade of the building at the property line as possible, o Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. o Where a portion of a building must be set back from the sidewalk, use landscape elements to define the sidewalk edge. 13.9 Maintain the average perceived scale of two-story buildings at the sidewalk. o The design of a 3-story building should in some way acknowledge the 2-story character of the downtown. o Floor-to-floor heights should appear to be similar to those seen historically. In particular, the windows in new construction should appear similar in height to those seen traditionally, 13.10 True three-story buildings will be considered on a case-by-case basis. o In general, a proposed three-story building must demonstrate that it has no negative impact on smaller, historic structures nearby. o The height and proportions of all facade components must appear to be in scale with nearby historic buildings. 13.11 Consider dividing larger buildings into "modules" that are similar in width to buildings seen historically. o Where buildings are planned to exceed one lot width, use' a change in design features to suggest the traditional building widths. Changes in facade material, window design, facade height or decorative details are examples of techniques that may be considered. These variations should be expressed throughout the depth of the structure such that the composition appears to be a collection of smaller buildings. 13.12 Rectangular forms should be dominant on Commercial Core facades. o Rectangular forms should be vertically oriented. o The facade should appear as predominantly flat, with any decorative elements and projecting or setback "articulations" appearing to be subordinate to the dominant form, 13.13 Use flat roof lines as the dominant roofform. 8 """'" """ ~.... o A flat roof, or one that gently slopes to the rear of a site, should be the dominant roof form. o Parapets on side facades should step down towards the rear of the building. o False fronts and parapets with horizontal emphasis also may be considered, 13.14 Along a rear facade, using building forms that step down in scale toward the alley is encouraged. o Consider using additive forms, such as sheds, stairs and decks to reduce the perceived scale. These forms should however, remain subordinate to the primary structure. o Use projecting roofs at tlle ground floor over entrances, decks and for separate utility structures in order to establish a human scale that invites pedestrian activity. 13.15 Contemporary interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. o A contemporary design that draws upon the fundamental similarities among historic buildings without copying them is preferred. This will allow them to be seen as products of their own time and yet be compatible with their historic neighbors. o The literal imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. o In essence, infill should be a balance of new and old in design. 13.16 Develop the ground floor level of all projects to encourage pedestrian activity. o Consider using storefronts to provide pedestrian interest along the street. Storefronts should maintain the historic scale and key elements such as large display windows and transoms. o Large storefront display windows, located at the street level, where goods or services are visible from the street, are particularly encouraged. o The primary building entrance should be at street level. "Garden level" entrances are inappropriate. 13.17 Maintain the distinction between the street level and the upper floor. o The first floor of the primary facade should be predominantly transparent glass. o Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. o Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate. o Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship, 13.18 Maintain the repetition of similar shapes and details along the block. o Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. In general, tlley should be twice as tall as they are wide. o Headers and sills of windows on new buildings should maintain the traditional placement relative to cornices and belt courses. 13.19 Maintain the pattern created by recessed entry ways that are repeated along a block. o Set the door back from the front facade approximately 4 feet. This is an adequate amount to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians. o Where entries are recessed, the building line at the sidewalk edge should be maintained by the upper floor(s). o Use transoms over doorways to maintain the full vertical height of the storefront. 13.20 The general alignment of horizontal features ou building fronts should be maintained. o Typical elements that align include window moldings, tops of display windows, cornices, copings and parapets at the tops of buildings. o When large buildings are designed to appear as several buildings, there should be some slight variation in alignments between the facade elements. 9 Exhibit C- INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT-19TH CENTURY COMMERCIAL Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. - . LOCATION Location is tile place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 10- The structure is in its original location. 8- The structure has been moved within the original site but still maintains the original alignment and proximity to the street. 5- The structure has been moved to another site, still within the historic Aspen townsite. 0- The structure has been moved to a location which is dissimilar to the original site. POINTS: 10 TOTAL POINTS (MAXIMUM OF 10) = 10 . DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. BUILDING FORM 10- The original plan form, based on Sanborne maps or other authenticating documentation, is unaltered and there are no recent additions. 8- The structure has been expanded but the original plan form is intact and the addition(s) would meet the design guidelines, 6- The structure has been expanded in a less desirable maimer, but the character of the form of the building from the streetview has been preserved. 0- The structure has been expanded to the detriment of the streetscape elevation. "" .. ! POINTS: 8 ROOF FORM/CORNICE LINE 10- The original roof form and decorative cornice are unaltered. There is no rooftop addition, 8- The roof form has been altered by a rooftop addition, but the addition would meet the design guidelines. 1- The rooftop addition conflicts with the characteristic roof form of the building. POINTS: 10 SCALE 5- The original scale and proportions of the building are intact. 3- The building has been expanded, but the ability to perceive the original size of the structure is preserved. 0- The scale ofthe building has been negatively affected by a large addition, whose features do not reflect the scale or proportions of the historic structure. '"",,, I POINTS: 5 10 -~.._..-----...'''.", . -------....,.,""'-'-----~~^'" MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Maroon Creek Bridge Referral Comment DATE: November 17, 2004 SUMMARY: Please see the attached information provided by Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the new Maroon Creek Bridge. Their memo explains HPC's role in the process of providing a referral comment to the Colorado Historical Society on whether or not the new bridge has a negative effect on the historically designated bridge (which we drive on as part of Highway 82 today.) HPC does not have a formal regulatory role through our own ordinance, because only the existing bridge itself, and not any adjacent land or airspace, are designated. Ideally, the new bridge would have a greater separation from the old. This is not an area with much flexibility because of the width of the right-of-way. The design is meant to reflect some of the character of the historic truss form, albeit in concrete. CDOT does have two other design alternatives in addition to the one in the HPC packet, which will be presented at the meeting. Each design has been evaluated in terms of its environmental impact on the river basin below. As stated in the CDOT letter, a number of citizens, elected officials, and staff have expressed concern over the initial suggestion that the historic bridge would be closed off for use until such time as rail might be installed. Abandoning the bridge may be detrimental because there would be less motivation to maintain the structure, and it also deprives the public of the opportunity to be on the structure and experience the beautiful views on the south side. The historic bridge could be the location for interpretive markers that are currently on the bike trail, illustrating the history of the railroad in the valley. The CDOT memo includes information regarding railings that might be necessary to allow pedestrian and bike access. HPC is asked to provide comments to CDOT at this meeting, or no later than December 1, 2004, 1 c DEPARTMENT OF TR~NSPORTATlON rn\ironmelllal Pwgrarns Hram:h 4:!O I [asl Arkansas :\ \I.'nue !knH'r, Clllnr;h.!l' R()~:!:! L~(n l 7)7 .Q:!5q November 10. 2004 Ms. Amy Guthrie Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO XI611 RE: SH X2 Entrance to Aspen EIS. Maroon Creek Bridge, Determination of Effect and Proposed Bridge Design This letter and the attached materials constitutes the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and Colorado Department of Transportation's (COOT) request for comment on the proposed design ofa new bridge that will carry State Highway X2 over Maroon Creek. The new bridge will be located adjacent to the historic Maroon Creek bridge (5PTl36). an iron plate deck girder built in IXXX and presently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We also request concurrence on a revised determination of effect for the historic bridge. c Proieet Baek!!round The Maroon Creek bridge was identified as part of the historic survey for the State Highway X2. Entrance to Aspen Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was signed in 1997. The preferred alternative for the project, as noted in the EIS. proposed the construction ofa new bridge 17 meters (55 feet) north of the existing historic bridge. In consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 1997. COOT and FHW A determined that construction of the new bridge would result in no adverse etTect to the Maroon Creek Bridge, provided the SHPO had an opportunity to review and approve the new bridge design and any modifications to the historic bridge. COOT, in cooperation with the City of Aspen. Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village, is preparing final construction plans for the new Maroon Creek Bridge, The bridge replacement project will conform to the requirements of the current applicable federal and state regulations. specifically the SH 82 Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision (ROD), dated August 1998, and applicable Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with Aspen and Pitkin County. At a special meeting of the Aspen lIistoric Preservation Committee (HPC) on June 6.1996. a resolution was passed that contained Certitied Local Government comments on the Entrance to Aspen Improvement Project. The following paragraph concerning the Maroon Creek Bridge is excerpted trom that resolution: c "Maroon Creek Bridge - A new highway bridge will be built adjacent to the existing bridge. HPC concurs that there will be no impact to the Maroon Creek Bridge. HPC shall be allowed to comment on architectural compatibility and placement issues related to the ncw bridge. In addttion. any changes madc directly to the Maroon Creek Bridge must be reviewed by IIPC due to the bridge's inclusion on the City Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures," c Ms_ Guthrie November 10,2004 Page 20f3 One of the requirements outlined in the ROD (page 30, section e) is to provide, ".. ,SHPO and the local Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) the opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility and placement of the new bridge structure(s) across Maroon Creek,.." Proposed New Bridl!e Desil!n On October 21, 2004, the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of Commissioners advised the project team to proceed with final design of the recommended option for the bridge replacement. The recommended bridge option is a three span structure with a concrete box girder superstructure (Attachment I). The design team was also advised to proceed with the design of an "A Frame" style pier substructure, (Attachment 2), which is architecturally compatible with the existing historic bridge. The new bridge will be 73 feet wide, including 2 travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders, a raised median, and a 12-foot- wide sidewalk. The structure will be located as described in the ROD, north of the existing bridge. Final design has evolved from concepts developed during the earlier environmental documentation process, with thc following exceptions: 1. The 12-foot sidewalk on the bridge deck will provide pedestrianlbike access across the creek valley, rathcr than via a walkway suspended under the bridge. The sidewalk on the deck was selected because it is a better environment for the trail user. and allows a more favorable tie-in to the surface trail. c 2. The new bridge will be closer to the existing bridge than was described in the ElS and ROD (originally a 15-foot gap, now about 1 foot at the closest point). This change in proximity is to provide as narrow a transportation corridor as possible to minimize impacts to the exiting city recreational facilities and the Maroon Creek basin, [n addition, public comments from the October 21, 2004 Public Open House favored adaptively reusing the existing bridge as a south side pedestrian crossing that would connect the Pomegranite/Inn at Aspen neighborhood to the pedestrian underpass under the highway at the Aspen Golf and Tennis Club. To accomplish this, barriers and/or extended fencing will be required on the historic bridge (Attachment 3). These features are necessary to convert the existing bridge to a pedestrian crossing, but will likely not be a part of this bridge replacement project. FHW A and CDOT request comments and approval of the Aspen HPC on the architectural compatibility and placement issues related to the proposed new bridge. Determinations of Effect. Maroon Creek Bridl!e As noted above. in consultation with the SHPO (correspondence dated June 16, 1997), CDOT determined that the preferred alternative for the project would result in no adverse effect to 5PTl36 provided the SHPO had an opportunity to review the design plans for the new bridge and any modifications on the historic bridge. In addition, the Final EIS, dated August 1997, page V-38, section V-4j, states that, "The SlIPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect to the historic bridge under the preferred alternative because the historic bridge will remain in place. Adaptive reuse as a pedestrian or transit crossing of Maroon Creek does not constitute a significant impact because neither of these uses would substantially impair the integrity of the historic structure." c Since 1997. there has been a change to the location of the proposed new bridge. As described earlier in this correspondencc. the new bridge location has changed such that it will still be constructed to the north c \.1 s. (iuthn.: No\t;mb.;:r \0. 20tl-t Pagc3of3 of the hiswric bridge. but at its closest point it will be approximately I foot trom the edge of the historic bridge. Although the new bridge will be closer to the existing bridge than was originally planned. the historic bridge will remain in place and be fully visible on the south side. On the north side. the piers of the historic bridge will be visible between the piers of the proposed bridge. The historic bridge is an iron plate deck girder with stone masonry abutments and pier pedestals with iron four-leg bent piers. The proposed new bridge is a three span stmcture. with a concrete box girder superstmeture and an "A Frame style pier substmcture. which is architecturally compatible with the features of the existing historic bridge. COOT has determined that the proposed bridge design and changes in the bridge location will result in no adverse effect to the existing historic bridge. c In addition, if the bridge is adapted for pedestrian or transit crossing. it will require some modifications. Tbe adaptive reuse of the bridge as described above would require the addition of fencing/barriers (Attachment 3). At this time. it is known that the existing "W" beam barrier on the bridge would be retrofitted with a 4-foot high chain link or other transparent fencing to preserve existing views from the bridge. A 6.S-foot tall chain-link or other transparent fence would also be installed on the centerline of the existing bridge. As per the June 6, 1996 resolution by the HPC, these potential changes to the historic bridge must be reviewed by the HPe. COOT has dctermined that these additions to the bridge stmcture will result in no adverse e{fecl to the integrity of the historic bridge. It is possible that additional modiftcations to the bridge may be required as part of an adaptive reuse; any changes that are not described in this letter will be submitted to the Aspen IIPC and the SHPO for review. W c hereby request your comment on the new bridge design and your concurrence with the determination of effect to the historic Maroon Creek Bridge in writing by December l. 2004. Your response is necessary for FHW A's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If you require additional information. please contact COOT Senior Staff Historian Lisa Schoch at (303) SI2-42SX. Very tmly yours, --'-", . ./---\ ..~.)0,~,...-w:p--- ! 61' Brad Beckham. Manager ! Environmental Programs Branch Enclosures cc: l"ammie SmIth. CDOT Region ., Ralph Trapani, Parsons FikCF'RF c .- - r> ::J o g i i W o " 'f~ ~ '~~ ,,,,,i i "i .-/ ~ -_.~}.- /' . r .....-.~I' o.J7'1' it~~ I ~. '- c c c ~ "D I ~ :s ~ d iA\ ~ . I . '" ~ V> :> 51 dn ~~ 0'" ",Z ",-I "'0 ....", ~i! "'- 0"" I J: - Vl d AJ - ("\ ~~ 0)> oAJ =nO ::So ~Z -I J:("\ '"AJ ?S1Tl "'1Tl ~/I; C\tD ~AJ -- 00 ~C) ellTl :X>AJ ~1Tl !:i-l ;-AJ ~O '"I :g" -1- J:-I ~ :s '" ~ !~ ~ C Z g ~ " d ~ V> ... ~-1i ~ I'TI~" v; OC::::Z:r. :j iiiV'l z <~O::o" ~ :::tl 't I'TI ~ d~~~~ ~~~~~ 8~:::tll;gtD ZZc::E~ tDn:t_::lD ~*!l:i:!~ l \ C~ f;l;:tl~ ZO);! ~i:!1'= "~n "'a-iS 5:;:_ ~z~ c~~ c""" z~ nz ~" ~~ ". .... Z '"