The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19950614AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 14, 1995 REGULAR MEETING SISTER CITIES ROOM - SECOND FLOOR CITY HALL 5:00 I. Roll Call II. Commission & Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. Entrance to Aspen- Comments on impacts of proposed alternatives to nationally and locally designated historic resources 6:30 B. 210 W. Main- Minor 6:45 C. 301 E. Hyman- Minor V. OLD BUSINESS 7:00 D. 706 W. Main- Extension of Conceptual approval 15 minute break 7:30 E. 3Q3 E. Main- Final 737 2 00-8-/<24 . 8:00 123 W. Frincis- Worksession 8:30 G c:==-525 W. Hallamm.Wor-keession 9:00 VI. ADJOURN NOTE: It is very important that everyone site visit the properties affected by the Entrance to Aspen alternatives. Meet at the alley , side entrance to City Hall at 12 on Tuesday, June 13. Please call j to confirm that you will be there. HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect Donnelley Erdman The Meadows Collins Block/Alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD:3-8-95) 27----220 W. Main- European Flower 930 King Street- Cunningham 330 Gillespie Jake Vickery The Meadows 130 S. Galena- City Hall 520 Walnut- Greenwood 205 W. Main- Chisolm 610 W. Hallam- Iglehart Leslie Holst Holden/Marolt Aspen Historic Trust 303 E. Main- Kuhn 930 King- Cunningham 939 E. Cooper- Langley Entrance to Aspen Roger Moyer 409 E. Hopkins Holden/Marolt 303 E. Main- Kuhn 420 E. Main 107 Juan Martha Madsen 132 W. Main- Asia 435 W. Main-L'Auberge 706 W. Main (CD:4-27-94) 702 W. Main- Stapleton Linda Smisek 229 W. Hallam- Pinnington 316 E. Hopkins- Howling Wolf 939 E. Cooper- Langley 801 E. Hyman- Elmore Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 4-12-95 Barn and historic house approved final Susan Doddington Melanie Roshko Jeff McMenimen MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Entrance to Aspen DATE: June 14, 1995 Attached is information from the Colorado Department of Transportation describing the six proposed alternatives for the Entrance to Aspen (Buttermilk to Aspen section of Highway 82). HPC is to comment on the affects that each of the alternatives will have on the historic resources. Briefly, the alternatives impact the following sites or structures: Alternative A: no impact on any resources Alternative B: 920 W. Hallam, retaining wall required Marolt ditch, culvert in areas Colorado Midland Right-of-way, remove a portion Power Plant, widen Castle Creek Bridge nearby 834 W. Hallam, take some of right of way 734 W. Hallam, remove structure Alternatives C-F: 835 W. Main, remove structure Maroon Creek Bridge, construct adjacent bridge Holden Marolt, highway crosses site near structures and archaeological remains Marolt ditch, culvert areas Colorado Midland Right-of-way, remove a portion Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of U.S. Department of Transportation regulations, the Highway Department is only obligated to review impacts on those sites and structures which are listed on, or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. HPC is also asked to comment on the impacts to our locally designated resources, 834 W. Hallam, 835 W. Main (Berger), 735 W. Main, and the Main Street Historic District. Representatives of CDOT will attend the meeting along with City Planning Office and Attorney's office representatives. Please review the attached materials carefully. Inventory forms have been attached for the sites for which they have been completed. A site visit is planned for Tuesday, June 14 at 12:00. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , -Â·Â«no Â·+- <. /1 9 4 $ h r -A 4201 East Arkansas Avenue ~~,/ <,O Denver, Colorado 80222 (303) 757-9011 < JUN 0 8 19% ) June 2, 1995 \ L :7 4-,MENT / \ .4,1 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen - Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Certified Local Government (CLG) comments regarding the potential impacts of the State Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Improvement Project on historic resources Dear Ms. Amidon: The â‚¬olorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is requesting comments on the potential impacts of the State Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen highway improvement project on historic sites from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee within their official capacity as a Certified Local Government (CLG). A discussion of the historic resources potentially affected by the proposed project is attached for your review. To clarify, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, requires that CDOT consider comments from interested parties as an integral part of the public process when an undertaking is proposed that affects properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The USDOT Section 4(f) regulations also take into account historic resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition to the Section 106 review, CDOT is also required to complete a Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Entrance to Aspen project, which considers the views of groups such as the CLG. Those properties eligible for or listed on the National Register and therefore subject to Section 106 and 4(f) regulations are the Maroon Creek Bridge, the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, the Colorado Midland Railroad, the Castle Creek Power Plant and 920 W. Hallam. An official determination of eligibility from the SHPO regarding the Marolt Ditch is pending. The additional historic resources of local interest are 834 W. Hallam, the Berger Cabin, 735 W. Main and the Main Street Historic District. CDOT is requesting comments from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee on all historic properties potentially impacted by this undertaking and appropriate mitigation for those impacts. The attached project map indicates the six different alignment alternatives under consideration for this project. Alternative A is considered the "No Action" alternative. Alternative B remains on the current "S" curve alignment, requiring widening of the Castle Creek Bridge and State Highway 82. Both minor and major impacts to the resources along this corridor will occur under this alternative (Castle Creek Power Plant (NR), 920 W. Hallam (NR), 834 W. Hallam and 735 W. Main). Alternatives C, D, E, and F take a new alignment across the Marolt-Thomas Open Space and the northern section of the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex National Historic District. These alternatives include a new bridge across Castle Creek, south of the existing bridge, and impact the Berger Cabin. Alternatives C, D, E, and F each end at the 7th Street entrance to the Main Street (local) Historic District. Preliminary comments regarding affects have been received from both the Compliance Officer and Preservation Specialist with the State Historic - Â· Pfeservation Offiee:-spie results of Section 106 coordmatien-are included-Â·within -the attached- summary statement. We ask that your written comments be sent to us no later than June 19, 1995. Thank you for your assistance, and feel free to contact Sally Pearce, CDOT Staff Historian, at (303) 757-9786 should you have questions or require additional clarification. Very truly yours, -16421 la(94402_-9 Kenneth M. Gambrill Manager Office of Environmental Services Highway 82 - Entrance to Aspen Project Potential Impact to Historic Resources June 2, 1995 INTRODUCTION: PROPOSED ACTION The eolormb-Department of Transportatioirfâ‚¬DOT) in 0conjunetien- withuthe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to improve an approximately 3.2 kilometer (2 mile) segment of Colorado State Highway 82. The study corridor, which lies entirely in Pitkin County, Colorado, extends from the Buttermilk Ski Area (milepost 38.5) to the intersection of 7th and Main Streets on the west side of Aspen (milepost 40.5). All alternatives except the No-Build alternative (A) would require some acquisition of Section 4(f) lands in the form of parklands, recreation areas, greenbelt, open space, or lands from historic properties which lie adjacent to existing State Highway 82. These impacts result from the need to improve existing State Highway 82 on or near the existing State Highway 82 alignment. The action is needed to improve major safety, design and capacity deficiencies of the existing highway. The accident, injury and fatality rates on State Highway 82 are and have been well above the state averages for two lane roads. Existing State Highway 82 between Buttermilk and Main Street experiences traffic volumes of more than 26,000 Weekday Average Daily Traffic (WADT) at Cemetery Lane. Projected traffic volumes for the year 2015 show an increase of approximately 50 % throughout the study corridor. More detailed descriptions of the action under study, the purpose and the need for the improvement of State Highway 82, Entrance to Aspen will be outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DES). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NIIPA), as amended, applies to the historic properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places that may be impacted by this project. The results of Section 106 coordination are included in this summary. Additionally, Section 4(0 lands are publicly owned lands from parks or recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historic sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In this project, one recreation area, one trail system, four open space/park land (greenbelt) areas, six National Register listed or eligible historic resources, three locally designated historic properties, and one locally designated historic district may be impacted by the improvement of State Highway 82. Section 4(f) requires only that historic properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places be included in the evaluation. CDOT is requesting comments from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee on all historic properties potentially impacted by the project and appropriate mitigation. NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC PROPERTIES Maroon Creek Bridge The historic Maroon Creek Bridge is located on State Highway 82, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) northwest of the center of Aspen. The bridge, built in 1888 by the Colorado Midland Railroad, was converted to automobile use in 1929. It.is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as one of the last remaining metal multiple=span high railroad trestles in Colorado. Potential Impacts to the Maroon Creek Bridge - Under Alternative 1 (No-Action) there would be no direct impact to the historic Maroon Creek Bridge; therefore there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. Under the two build alternatives, (Alternatives 2 and 3), the bridge would stay in place and a new bridge would be built to the north. The new bridge would be 220 meters (720 feet) long and would curve toward the historic bridge on the east side. It would be approximately (30 feet) away from the historic bridge at the closest point on the east side and approximately (60 feet) at the closest point on the west side. Alternative 3 would place a transit envelope along the corridor in one of two places. One would be placed on the new bridge and would push the new bridge farther to the north, leaving the distance between the two bridges the same as discussed above. The other option is to place the transit conidor on the existing historic bridge. This would not, however, result in a taking of the historic resource. Should additional structural supports be necessary to strengthen the historic bridge for transit purposes, the SHPO reserves the right to review and approve the alterations prior to making a final determination of no adverse effect. Because the historic bridge will remain in place, there will be no taking, and therefore there will be no 40 involvement. Adaptive reuse of the bridge as a pedestrian or transit crossing of Maroon Creek does not constitute a 4* take because neither of these uses would substantially impair the integrity of the historic resource. The SHPO has detennined that there would be no adverse effect to the historic bridge under these two alternatives, conditional upon review and approval for compatibility of the design of the new bridge. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex The historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex is located on approximately 3.2 hectares (8 acres) on what is now called the Marolt-Thomas property, open space owned by the City of Aspen. Although most of the buildings have been torn down, there are significant remains of the mill structure on the east end of the site: the salt warehouse has been cut in half, but is still in its original location; the sampling works building (barn) has been altered in the interior, but still retains most of its original appearance; and the office building, now known as the Marolt House, was significantly remodeled by the Marolts but is still in its original location. This complex was constructed in 1891 and purchased by the Marolts in the 1930's. The site has been listed on the 2 National Register for its association with the mining history in Aspen, as one of the few remaining structures from the industrial aspects of Aspen's mining history, and because the site is likely to yield archaeological information about the smelting and mining industry in Aspen. Potential Impacts to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - Alternative A (No-Action) and B, (Existing Alignment) would have no direct impacts to the historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, so there would be no Section 4(0 involvement. Under Alternatives C, D, E and Fâ€žthe_new alignment would traverse_ the-property and have_ a direct impact-on the historic resource. Under Alternatives C and E, the total take would be approximately 0.22 hectares (0.53 acres) of the historic site (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) for construction. Although no buildings would be removed, areas of the site where industrial debris of archaeological interest could be located would be disturbed by the new roadway. The proposed edge of highway pavement passes within (280 feet) of the Holden office building (Marolt House), within (135 feet) of the sampling works building, and within (280 feet) of the salt warehouse. The edge of the 50 meter (164-foot) right-of-way width extends to within (230 feet) of the Marolt House, (85 feet) of the sampling building, and (230 feet) of the salt warehouse. This would result in a visual and audible intrusion on the historic site. Under Alternatives D and F, the total take would be approximately 0.3 hectares (0.73 acres) of the historic site (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) for construction. Although no buildings would be removed, areas of the site where industrial debris of archaeological interest could be located would be disturbed by the new roadway and the separate transit envelope. The proposed edge of highway pavement passes within (260 feet) of the Holden office building (Marolt House), within (115 feet) of the sampling works building, and within (260 feet) of the salt warehouse. The edge of the 50 meter (164-foot) right-of-way width extends to within (210 feet) of the Marolt House, (65 feet) of the sampling building, and (210 feet) of the salt warehouse. This would result in a visual and audible intrusion on the historic site. The SHPO has determined that there would be an adverse effect to this resource under Alternatives C, D, E and F. The SHPO has requested that CDOT consider the following two alternatives, which they state would avoid an adverse effect: 1) shift the pavement edge to the north to entirely miss the National Historic District (NHD) boundary, and 2) extend the length of the cut and cover past the NHD to directly connect with the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. If these conditions could be met, and subject to berm and landscape review and approval, the SHPO would agree to a no-adverse effect detennination. In addition, the SHPO is requiring a oIl-site historic archaeological survey be conducted within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) within the boundaries of the National Historic District. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Harm to the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - Prior to construction of State Highway 82 improvements, a Memorandum of Agreement between the SHPO, CDOT, FHWA and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be executed to 3 mitigate the adverse effects of Alternatives C, D, E and F. Possible mitigation measures might include slight reductions in right-of-way width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right- of-way, shifting the pavement edge to miss the NHD, conducting a historic archaeological survey, and SHPO review and approval of berm design and landscaping plans that partially screen buildings on the property from the highway. Marolt Ditch This ditch, using water from Castle Creek, crosses the Marolt-Thomas Open Space from the southeast, passing around the Marolt House before turning north toward the golf course and eventually reaching the Roaring Fork River. It was constructed in approximately 1902 for irrigation purposes; A. E. Carlton, owner of the Colorado Midland Railroad, owned and operated this property during that time for cattle ranching. The Marolt family took possession of the land in the 1930's, maintaining the ditch for irrigation purposes for their farming and ranching operation. Survey forms are being prepared in order to help determine the eligibility of the ditch to the National Register of Historic Places and subsequent review under Section 106. Potential Impacts to the Marolt Ditch - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), there would be no impact to the ditch. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F impact the ditch slightly, by requiring the existing culvert to be extended the width of the improved roadway. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Harm to the Marolt Ditch - Efforts to minimize harm to this potential Section 4(f) property will include designing the "preferred alignment" with the least possible right-of-way width where it crosses the ditch. ,Colorado Midland Railroad The Colorado Midland Railroad arrived in Aspen in 1887, a month after the Denver and Rio Grande. Very little of the railroad grade remains in Pitkin County, as the majority was obliterated by the construction of State Highway 82. One short segment remains intact from the junction of Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82 to the Aspen city limits, crossing through approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres) of the Marolt-Thomas property. The line is eligible for the National Register as the first standard gauge railroad to penetrate the Rockies, and for its association with Jerome Wheeler and the early railroad history in Colorado. Potential Impacts to the Colorado Midland Railroad - Under the No-Action (Alternative A), there would be no direct impacts to the remaining segment of the historic railroad grade on the Marolt-Thomas property. However, under the remaining five alternatives, a Very small portion of the total 1.6 hectares (4 acre) railroad grade (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) would be lost to right-oflway acquisition. Alternatives B, C and E would use 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres) of the historic railroad grade. Alternatives D and F would require a take of 0.17 (0.42 acres). The SHPO has determined that this loss would not effect the historic resource under the five build alternatives. 4 Mitigation Measures to Minimize Harm to the Colorado Midland Railroad - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4(1) property will include designing the "preferred alignment" with the least possible right-of-way width for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way and avoidance of railroad right-of-way wherever possible. Castle Creek Power Plant The Castle Creek Power Plant-ialocated in C,Rtle_Creek.flanyon.on approximately (18.hectares-_. (1.5 acres) of land, just below the existing State Highway 82 Castle Creek Bridge. Known originally as the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Plant Number 2, the building is a two story, brick warehouse type building with a gabled roof and is now publicly owned. It is eligible to tile National Register for its association with three of Aspen's most significant individuals (H.P. Cowenhoven, D.R.C. Brown, and James H. Deveraux) and as only the second commercially run hydroelectric plant in the country. It was constructed in 1893. Potential Impacts to the Castle Creek Power Plant - There would be no direct impact to the historic Castle Creek Power Plant under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E and F because the existing bridge would remain as a local access route in its present configuration. Under Alternative B, the existing bridge would be widened to the south. The plant building is well below the elevation of the bridge deck and would not be physically affected, and the widened bridge would not intrude visually on the site. In addition, these impacts do not constitute a constructive use of the property. Conceptual bridge design studies indicate that the widened bridge deck would extend two to three feet into the air, space above the plant. Pier placement would not result in a 4(f) use of land from the historic site because they would be placed well to the south of the property, which had been defined as the building and the lot on which it sits as described by the Pitkin County Assessor. Therefore, there will be no 4(f) involvement with this historic resource. The SHPO has determined that there would be no effect to the historic site under Alternative B. 920 West Hallam This historic privately owned house is located on the north side of existing State Highway 82 on approximately 0.1 hectares (0.2 acres) of land just east of the Castle Creek Bridge within the Aspen city limits. The small, one story, wood house, built about 1888, is eligible for the National Register as an unaltered example of the typical late 19th century miner's cottage. Potential Impacts to 920 West Hallam Street - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this historic house. Therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. Alternative B would not require right-of-way acquisition from this property. The structure itself would not be affected, and the distance between the house and the edge of pavement, currently 40 feet, would not be reduced. There are not expected to be visual impacts created by a wider highway because the roadway is already four lanes at this location. However, due to a potential grade difference of approximately three feet, a modest retaining wall 5 and railing may be required to be installed along the pavement edge. This activity constitutes 4(f) involvement with this historic resource. The SHPO has detennined that there would be no adverse effect on this historic resource under Alternative B, subject to their review and approval of the proposed retaining wall and railing design. Mitigation Measures to Minimize Harm to 920 West Hallam - Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include SHPO review and approval of the proposed retaining wall and railing which may be required under Alternative B. LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC PROPERTIES 834 West Hallam This 1889 Victorian residence is located on the north side of existing State Highway 82 on approximately 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres) of land just east of the Castle Creek Bridge within the Aspen city limits. It is currently used as a restaurant. The one and a half story frame house is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places due to significant alterations and lack of significant associations, but has been designated as a local landmark. Potential Impacts to 834 West Hallam - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this locally designated historic house. Alternative B would require a minor right-of-way acquisition from this property of 510 sq. ft., (0.005 hectares or 0.01 acres). The structure itself would not be affected. There are not expected to be visual impacts created by a wider highway because the roadway is already four lanes at this location. Because this structure is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places, the SHPO is not required to comment on the effects of the project on this resource and there is no 4(f) involvement. 734 West Main Street This two story Victorian residence is located on tile north side of existing State Highway 82 at the intersection of 7th Street and West Main Street. Sitting on approximately 0.06 hectares (.14 acres) of land, it is currently used as a Christian Science Center. It is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places due to a lack of significant architectural or historical associations, but has been designated as a local landmark. Potential Impacts to 734 West Main Street - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this locally designated historic house. Alternative B would require the removal of the building, which would constitute a total take. Because this structure is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places, the SHPO is Trot required to comment on the effects of the project on this resource and there is no 40 invblvement. 6 Berger Cabin This privately owned residence, located at 835 Main Street, is on the western edge of the city limits on approximately 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres). The three-room, one story cabin was built in 1947 by local architect Fritz Benedict, who studied with Frank Lloyd Wright. The cabin is not considered eligible to either the National or State Registers of Historic Places because it does not meet the age criteria of 50 years old and is not considered to be exceptionally significant. However, the cabin has been designated as a local historic landmark. Potentialimvactstothe Berger-Cabin =~Undei Alicniativc~ A (No-Action) and B, there would be no direct impact to this locally designated historic house. Alternatives C, D, E, and F would require the removal of the building, which would constitute a total take of 0.23 hectares (0.57 acres). Because this structure is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places, the SHPO is not required to comment on the effects of the project on this resource and there is no 4(f) involvement. Main Street Historic District The historic district was formed in 1975 and extends nine blocks from Monarch to 7th Street. The architectural styles range from miners cabins to mountain chalet-style lodges. The historic district is not listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places due to the significant number of intrusions, but has been designated as a local landmark. Potential Impacts to the Main Street Historic District - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), B, C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this locally designated historic district. Because this district is not eligible for the National or State Registers of Historic Places, the SHPO is not required to comment on the effects of the project on this resource and there is no 4(f) involvement. 7 Alternatives 0 1 No-Action 4 2 Existing Alignment *.-v..n::=:Â·.Â·*Ii.= MC .O Existing Alignment -Alternatives 2 and 3 g- Alternatives 2 and 3 m 6 3 with Scl'diale ol r kltemative 1 5 Transit Envelope CA / New Maroon - -#thL- r--- , .3\ i ... 1 - 04 -- t -- Â· - 4}?st,#Es##62$288}00 \ 2 k.. Creek Bridge 'E Â· -L.A.---- , .... t. *.-.-I ;. # Ii. -.Y j -- . I Â·Â· *. I . tv ....21 4 ' ' . -~'"'" h M-4 â‚¬ I t , I :I . h 9. . â€ž Scale =1: 3,000 i 2 k I U ./ I.:.... 4 includes a separate Alternative 1 50 100 meters Alternative 3 . 0 100 200 300 feet transit envelope \ Ball Field/ r-, Alternattvâ‚¬3 2 and 3 (0/ u Soccer Field / 1-9,1- it.,1 -49.--/:-4/ - Alternative 1 ~*Utatoon Creek Bridge" Â· Â· ~ , 2.- t , r Alternative; 2 and 3 -- 6?# 4 1 , - - - -3 1 V ... I , Golf Course I . I ..V. --Â·Â«2=4'2277777-"==-- ~- Â»' f 4,4 ~ Alternative 1 Aspen . ---AU_/ yc, / / A f. ~~~--'-4Â£1-. **ZZ---- 1 Aspen %.. 1 \ I Tennis Club Alternative 3 includes %9212 ~ Legend: transit envelope . Improvement Alternatives Figure III-10 Alternatives Between Separate Transit Envelope FÂ»///Â»51 For Alternative 3 Buttermilk Ski Area and Maroon Creek Road ntrance to Aspen DEIS May 4, 1995 m -31 ermilk to Creek Road Match Line 'A' 0.1401BVY , * TU 110/ew 111. Alternatives 0 O I I - O r- Alternative A Altematives B, C, D, E, and F 6 43 V.~- Akernative B Q . .0. ..21.... i t. 9 & 1 :13 1 1 le ..:r -': ..1 ...- / IN. i /:r---5 .> ..6. L.....0.-'' i V.-, O. . I . . 828:Â·t>~>1:49*9Â¢iiÂ®0.Â· .~ - - V....:tf~Â· - . CJ.-X-l Alternative A 14 1 - 1.Â»*1 -.Iiallam S.treef I.~ ~~~ "- Aj ./ I. -0-li -4/ -:. r : / /-94*/ ... . , Aspen Golf ; 7 Course -$5'- - ~ .;3' ~-). : 1 , Bleeker.S#41 -Lgex '. Â· 7 -1.'-:t.- *Â·*:=i:=3 1 " 1 - 4, @ - .. , ~'i -- - - 1?.~~'â‚¬~~f-i~ Â· :U - - Â·Â· --rae.*- .. , ;t Â· '.... - ..Fi, / I ..:-4-~~~~~~~"~'"~~~'~~~'*~"~~~~'~~:*r.Â·.-a:'*:i:B:-0::.Ea~;.â‚¬2.3-' .-. S . . . .. 9 ..f, :f.A-t:. - 04 - ...1, lilli I I I I . .- -- Alternatives Marolt-Iliomas, Ul . Â·NA, Caltikekek Bridge 1.1 â€ž-1 ./ ... Main Stree~ C, D, E, and F Â·~ I k Â· rÂ·- f 1 Â¥/ , I. Â·Â· Â· f Alternatives D and F %2 f hil < include a separate ' ' Scale =1: 3,000 transit envelope. 0 50 100 meters Alternatives E and F -C i if. Â·: I I .1. 0 100 200 300 feet include a cut and cover area Â· . f j ." \% 'Cd-- 2:. 4 7: ./3-9--Â· - ..,rr,Â«. %*edÂ¥.~ + / 2-2.-L. Altprns';r'** \\ ' \\. ....t Â·'-'t-.U**=18=-e=C- Legend: . 1,>./. A No-Action 1.1.1. Â·Â·Â·Â·rÂ·,3Â·Â·~~..:Â·Â·~l Improvement Alternatives - , ~ ~ B Existing Alignment / b Separate Transit Envelope 05 0 8 Modified Direct Alignment X//////A For Alternatives D and F D L At Grade Modified Direct Alignment N*525554 Location of Cut and Cover Â¢ Â© D At Grade with Separate for Alternatives E and F gi Transit Envelope Figure III-11 Â§ 6 E Modified Direct Alignment Alternatives Between Cut and Cover Modified Direct Alignment, Maroon Creek Road F Cut and Cover with Separate Transit Envelope and 7th and Main Streets ntrance to Aspen DEIS May 4, 1995 Itt -36 h Line 79' HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 1080PP Photo Information: ASP-U-11 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Roaring Fork Electric Light & Power Co. Full Street Address: 1080 Power Plant Road (Power Station) Legal Description: City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: West of Castle Creek Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Power Station Architectural Style: Late 19th Century Industrial Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Irregular Rectangle Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Fronting Castle Creek to the east, directly north of and below Highway 82 bridge; backs into west bridge abutment Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None historic For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Single-qable with continuous ventilating qabled clesestory on ridge; shed addition to north - corrugated metal Walls: Red brick, common bond, seqmental arch over original door and window openings Foundation / Basement: Chimney(s): New metal flues, south and east sides; both qable ends show location of original brick chimneys, now blocked off Windows: Two over two double hung; some bricked in North addition one over one double hunq Doors: Southeast corner pair of wood paneled doors; new vehicle door, metal Porches: None General Architectural Description: Late 19th Century, brick indus- trial building. Essentially one story, its broad, low-pitched roof terminates in a continuous ventilating clerestory. Openings are placed expeditiously, primarily clustered near doors at the east end of the building. Former suggestion of a connection to Castle Creek (i.e., equipment, turbines) has been removed. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 1080PP FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Maintenance Shop Architect: Original Use: Power Station Builder: (Hydroelectric) Construction Date: Intermediate Use: _ Actual _ Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor_ Moderate Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Metal flues, vehicle door, bricked in windows; dates unknown Additions and Date: CMU shed to northeast corner NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E ---- Ilil-*- - - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The Aspen Mines were furnished electric power bv the Roaring Fork Electric Light & Power Company which was incorporated bv David R.C.Brown, Horace K. Devereau and James M. Downing on April 25, 1887. The hydroelectric plant generated its power from a nine hundred foot water head which ran eight Pelton wheels and ten dvnamos. It was capable of generating one thousand horse power if required. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps ' Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: * Date: * Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: . Local Site Number: 734.WM Photo Information: ASP-A-27 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: John B. Stitzer Residence Full Street Address: 734 West Main 23 Legal Description: Lots K, L & M, Block 18 City and Townsite of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: Main Street Historic District Owner: Private/State/Federal Private Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottaqe Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 2-stories Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Modified Rectangular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Cross qable with enclosed shed porch on rear (north) and side (east); asphalt with gravel ballast on shed roof (lst floor); wood shinales (2nd floor) Walls: 1st: Clapboard; 2nd: Decorative Shinqles Foundation / Basement: Cut Stone Chimney(s): Red brick with corbelled top at center/rear Windows: 1st: Bay window on brackets: shallow one-over-one double- hung; 1st floor typical: one-over-one double-hung; 2nd: one-over-one double-hung Doors: Not original, single lite, double door Porches: Front porch wraps 1/2 front (south) facade and 1/2 side (east) facade - open; supported by turned posts with turned post balustrade General Architectural Description: 2-story Victorian Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 734.WM FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Commercial Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1889 X Actual _ Estimate X Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate Ma-lor X Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Side porch and entrance changes, 1974 to 1975 Additions and Date: Rear additions; shed dormer attached to east gable dormer, date unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or A - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: The historical signi- ficance of this residential structure is that it is representative of a typical two-story Victorian Miner's Cottage during Aspen's Mining Era. This strucqure has the typical front gable with projecting bay window and cross qable. It differs from most of Aspen's miner's cottages in that it is a two-story structure versus a single-story. Built for Eutene C. Stitzer in 1889 and appearing as his residence on the 1893 Bird's Eve View of Aspen. This residence remained in the Stitzer family until 1940. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps 1890, 1893, 1898; 1893 1 Bird's Eve View of Aspen Archaeological Potential: (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 735.WB Photo Information: ASP-E-16 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: None Full Street Address: 735 West Bleeker Legal Description: - - Lots A & B, BLock 18 East Aspen Townsite City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: East End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Miner's Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-1/2 story Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Rectangle Landscaping or Special Setting Features: None Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: T-shaped qable with asphalt shingles Walls: Clapboard with decorative wood shingles at qable end; decorative barge board Foundation / Basement: Concrete Chimney(s): N/A Windows: Paired one-over-one double hung; picture and easement window infill at porch Doors: 1/2 light over wood panel, contemporary Porches: Shed, enclosed with turned posts General Architectural Description: One-story Victorian Miner's Cottage Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 735.WB FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Residential Architect: Unknown Original Use: Residential Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Residential Construction Date: Late 1880's Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: Building Style MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor - Moderate X -4 Major - Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Porch infill; storm windows Additions and Date: Shed addition at southeast corner NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A- B C D E - Map Key Local Rating and Landmark Designation t__~ Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts.and Historical Information: Illustrates the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen when it was dominated by the silver mining industry. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: N (Y or N) Justify: Recorded By: Date: January 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: 834.WH Photo Information: ASP-E-18 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Nellie Mcelimont House Full Street Address: 834 West Hallam Legal Description: Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District or Neighborhood Name: West End Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Residential Architectural Style: Victorian Cottage Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: 1-1/2 + 1-story rear addition Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Simple Rectangle with Rear Extension Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Front (north) 3 mature cottonwoods; side (west) 5 mature cottonwoods; wrought iron fence; drainage ditch Associated Buildings, Features or objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Simple qabled with east shed; asphalt shingles Walls: Clapboard with wood scalloped shingles at qable ends Foundation / Basement: Unknown Chimney(s): Center, simple red brick Windows: One-over-one double-hung with 1 type shallow-projecting bay with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window, supported bv scroll brackets at front and 3 shallow-projecting bay with shed roof with one-over-one double hung window, supported by scroll brackets at west side, hipped attic dormers west and east sides Doors: Front: 2 paneled light/2 panel wood Side: 2/3 light Porches: Front: simple gable, open over entry, turned posts and balusters and simple cut out frieze and brackets General Architectural Description: It basically remains in its original appearance. A two-story structure with a qabled ,Â©orch entry. Other than the linten-head dormers, no unique or elaborite details embellish this structure. Additions have been made to the east side of the entry. Simple front facing gable cottage with east side 1 story porch enclosure and rear 1-story gable extension, flat roof rear extension. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number 834.WH FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Restaurant Architect: Unknown Original Use: Restaurant Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Restaurant Construction Date: 1889 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor ___ . Moderate. _X Major - -- - Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Additions and Date: Side (east) porch extension, shed enclosure, rear hipped roof extension, rear flat roof extension; dates unknown NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or A - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Modifications do not impede character of this building, which along with its site features, presents unified face to street. Associated Contexts and Historical Information: This structure is historically representative of Aspen's early mining era. This modest structure is of historical importance bv illustrating the family/home environment and lifestyles of the average citizen in Aspen which was dominated by the silver mining industry. Tax assessment records show that improvements were made to Lots K&L of Block 10 in 1889 bv Nellie McClimont (also shown as Agnes) who sold the property to John Bolam on 06/10/91. John Bolam's name appears on this structure on the 1896 Willits Engineering Map. He sold the property 08/05/11 to Hatte Johnson. Auton and Ludwick Skiff owned the property from 05/10/38 until 1972 when this building was converted into THE GOLDEN BARREL restaurant. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Courthouse Records; 1896 Willits Map Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: Date: March 1991 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: CMRRB Photo Information: ASP-U-13 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Colorado Midland Railroad Bridge Full Street Address: Legal Description: City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Architectural Style: Railroad Trestle Dimensions: L: X W: = Square Feet: Number of Stories: Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Bridge extends approximately 700 feet over, 200 feet deep, ravine created by Maroon Creek Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): None For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: N/A Walls: N/A Foundation / Basement: N/A Chimney(s): N/A Windows: N/A Doors: N/A Porches: N/A General Architectural Description: The trestle bridge created by, 9 trianqular towers; tower structures made up o f 4 boxed columns) , braced vertically and diagonally by tie rods and braced at third points by horizontal beams; structures rest on concrete piers; con- nections are riveted and bolted; road bed is supported by " I" beams and protected by 3 foot high aluminum railing. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number CMRRB FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Automobile Bridge Architect: Original Use: Railroad Trestle Builder: Intermediate Use: Construction Date: 1888 Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Minor Moderate X Major Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: Trestle converted to automobile bridge: ties and track removed, asphalt paving and aluminum quardrail added; date unknown Additions and Date: NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E - Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic 01 11 - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: In 1888, the Colorado Midland Railroad built this 651 foot span across Maroon Creek. It was altered in 1930 to include a concrete and steel super-structure. Other Recording Information Specific References to the Structure/Building: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: * (Y or N) Justify: * Recorded By: * Date: * Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING/STRUCTURE FORM State Site Number: Local Site Number: MBS Photo Information: ASP-U-2, 3, 5 and 7 Township 10 South Range 85 West Section 12 USGS Quad Name Aspen Year 1960 X 7.5' 15' Building or Structure Name: Marolt Barn and Shed & Livixation Ruins - ----.Full_Street Address: -__._... . Legal Description: City Aspen County Pitkin Historic District/Neighborhood Name: City and Townsite of Aspen Owner: Private/State/Federal Owner's Mailing Address: ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION Building Type: Barn and Shed Architectural Style: Vernacular Farm Dimensions: L: 60 x W: 30 = Square Feet: 1,800 Number of Stories: 1, raised +/- 4'0" off ground level Building Plan (Footprint, Shape): Rectangular Landscaping or Special Setting Features: Livestock yard, ravine of Castle Creek to east, upslope from livixiation (i.e., ore processing) ruins Associated Buildings, Features or Objects - Describe Material and Function (map number / name): To south of barn (east of house) single gable salt shed approximately 500 square feet, corruqated metal roof; horizontal wood slat walls inside closely-spaced vertical posts For the following categories include materials, techniques and styles in the description as appropriate: Roof: Single qable with shed off south qable end Walls: Vertical rough cut wood siding, unpainted Foundation / Basement: Barn = Stone; Shed = Concrete masonrv unit Chimney(s): None Windows: Barn - six over six wood double hung all around upper level Doors: Three approximately 7 feet wide. alternating between 3 windows on west side; east side - three wide, vertical-wood-board doors grouped together Porches: Loading dock runs full length of front (west-facing) under roof eave. Roof eave extension is supported by cantilevered, braced wood frame which creates six (6) bays General Architectural Description: Vernacular single-qabled farm barn with loading dock along west side, livestock yard along east side. Salt shed to the south of the barn was related to ore processing mill downslope (toward Castle Creek). All that remains of of the livixation (ore processing) mill are 2 boiler bases, a monolithic stone retaining wall and some ganged lumber, wooden piers. Page 2 of 2 State Site Number Local Site Number MBS FUNCTION ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY Current Use: Storage Architect: Unknown Original Use: Loading Dock Builder: Unknown Intermediate Use: Farm Construction Date: 1890's Actual X Estimate _ Assessor Based On: MODIFICATIONS AND/OR ADDITIONS Of. Minor Moderate Major - Moved Date Describe Modifications and Date: 2 windows replaced east side; date unknown Additions and Date: None NATIONAL/STATE REGISTER ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA Is listed on National Register; State Register Is eligible for National Register; State Register Meets National Register Criteria: A__ B C D E Map Kev Local Rating and Landmark Designation Significant: Listed on or is eligible for National Register Contributing: Resource has maintained historic or Ll - architectural integrity. 0 Supporting: Original integrity lost due to alterations, however, is "retrievable" with substantial effort. Locally Designated Landmark Justify Assessment: Associated Contexts and Historical Information: * Other Recording Information Specific References to the StructurejBuilding: Pitkin County Court- house Records; Sanborn and Sons Insurance Maps Archaeological Potential: Y (Y or N) Justify: Historic entry to Aspen southeast area of diversei activity and production Recorded By: Glenn Rappaport Date: September 1990 Affiliation: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee - City of Aspen Project Manager: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer/Planner Jly- 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brian McNellis, Planning Assistant THROUGH: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 210 W. Main Street, King Louise Apartments- Minor DATE: June 14, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add a 93 SF air lock entrance at the rear of the existing structure. Two new parking spaces will also be added, accessed by an existing curb cut on Main Street. This structure is not historic but is located in the Main Street Historic District. APPLICANT: Ted and Susann Guy. LOCATION: 210 West Main, Lots P and Q, Block 51, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Section 7-601 has recently been amended through Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 6, Series of 1995. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The addition will have minimal impact by blending with the materials, massing, and roof line of the existing structure. In general, accessing parking off of Main Street is discouraged as it brings pedestrians and vehicles into contact and makes parking areas visible to the street. Staff would encourage the applicant to decrease to one space (the two cars will have to be stacked parking) and/or screen the parking from the street in some manner. 2. Standard: The proposed application reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel. Response: The proposed addition will be located in the rear of the building and will therefore have little impact on the character of the neighborhood or streetscape. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not distract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. - Remponse: The proposal has no impact on the historic si~nificance of any historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application with the condition that it conform to the existing qualities of the building. This includes matching of exterior materials that maintain the log cabin character of the structure. If possible, only one new parking space should be added along with screening. Additional Comments: June 1.1995 Kim Johnson Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 210 W. Main Street Dear Kim, Attached is our application for a 93 SF addition to an existing apartment and our check for $104.00. The property contains 8 studios in two structures. Un its 7 & 8 are located in a one story structure built in the early 60's. Units 1-6 are located in a two story, over garden level structure facing Main Street. The site currently has 7 off street parking spaces. Two new spaces will be created using an existing curb cut and driveway from Main Street. The addition will contain 93 SF and will serve as an air lock entry for a new entrance adjacent to the new parking space. Unit 7 was remodeled this year to rearrange closets, storage and bathrooms into its present configuration. Because this property is in the Historic Overlay, HPC review is required. The proposed changes will not be visible from Main Street, since they occur at the back of the property. New materials will match the existing. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, /72 -,- Theodore K. Guy TKG/bd Enclosures -Y.-1 N 75Â° 09'11*W 60.00' ACHZ] UTILITIES AREA 6,000 +/- 60. FT. / GRAVEL PARKING PVC PIPES ~ CONC. PAD -9/ 1 0 -8 ~ 0 14.7 <D . 1 14.0 - 11.9 UTILITIES- CD q Z - 1 - 4 1 STORY BUILDING e W k 0 40.4 STAIRS GAS 40.8 1-Â»3- UTILITIES P 1 0 R 2 STORY BUILDING C\,1 40.7 0 GARDEN - CONC. DECK LEVEL GARDEN , LEVEL 1 1 C] S 75Â° 09 'If'E 60.00' 0 - 0- IL+ - CONC. WALK S 14Â°50'49"W 100.00' 3NI-1 1~83d0Wd NO ~0N33 0~'-*M ON INI V.1.~ H *ONOO 100'001 0+ 1 N 23.7 Alley 1234-567 1---_ 21>Ff _____ rcglize with 5/8 ingul 4 1 -5060/ new al lock 1 entry relocate exist R r-1 bath fixturce 4-akl. 1 h 11 ice-t I 3-01 0 13â‚¬3,Z~ rertiove exi5ting M-~ 1 Storage (49(t J ~ and bookca96 1 Apt fre\or.ate exIst.:110 Apt 8 -,lick'cr U toilet Stljdio :99 1 and vitlk. I. Â¥c 'C M 1 replace door wl 5 r.ore door cxleting sidewalk to remain 1 exigting 9 talre Existing Apartment 1 , Building with Six , 1 , Studio Apte to Kerria in Exieting Sidewalk to Remain EXIS[i t.*t PALUE 4 0.126 alf, main Â©treet Site Plan / Floor FlaA 2*k @ 1/8"=1'-0' Flan North i'35llad Sheet ill int Cd The Fig Farm Sueannb 1-laircut-ciricA Shop and Reeidence checked Archil.ectural Falvage and Design Box 1167 King Lou/Ge Apartment5 dn I c Ibroll, CO 01621 210 Woot Main St 1 1 (910) 927-3(392 AGn.Ii 00 1 ..f Vertical Board ~ and Battan eiding Match Existing Roof ~ propooed etudio apt with haircutting ehop new ~ L00 Cabin siding to 01:399 match exist 00- \9 North Elevation - Fropoged @ 1/8" = 1' - 0" Existing Vertical Board and Batten Siding 25/Â« U Existing Log Cabin aiding new store.,~ door Weet Elevation - Proposed Â© 1/8"=1'- 0" m U 1 Existing Vertical Board and Battin Siding Exieting Log Cabin Siding E 0 El- Eaot Elevation - Existing @1/8"=1'-0' issued TIle Fig Farr, , Susann'e HaircuttincK printed Shop and Reeidence checked Archiactural Salvage and Design Dox 14 67 King Louise Apartments date 13asalt, CO 81621 210 West Main St (970) 927-3892 , Aspen CO reglaze with 5/8 ineul 01 newcomb air i-----------Il----- ) iii 3068 / I new bath i new airlock i entry relocate eXist / bath fixtures IF , I. 4 1 IN e 1141 i i: e 1111 03 1 1 '. 1 V -1 1 1=:1 1 I 2468 1 -7% \ / remove existing etorage closet ~ ~ ~ Bath ~ and bookcase relocal e exieting /F - -1---------1 ehower. 5irk. and .....4 Apt 8 toilet i 1 1 1 1 5tudio 1 1 1 Kft.teri - Apt 7 +1 4-1 1 1 1 1 EXIEtlne kt 1 1 to remain 1 1 9 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 existing sidewalk to remain ~ existing stairs Sheet Issued printed The Fie Farm Susann's Haircuttina 1] Shop and Residence checked Architectural SalvaÂ® and Des@n i Box 1467 ~ King Louise Apartments i~~ date Dagalt. CO 81621 210 Weet Main St (970) 927-3892 of Asper& CO 1 c-j MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Brian McNellis THROUGH: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservati6n Officer RE: 301 E. Hyman Avenue, Prospector Lodge- Minor DATE: -_.. June 14, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to replace existing wood siding on the South and West facing r sides of building with aluminum/steel siding. This strudture is not historic but is located within the Commercial Core Historic District. APPLICANT: Thomas A. Stevens, Prospector Lodge LOCATION: 301 East Hyman, City of Aspen. PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H, " Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found ih Section 7-601 of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. Section 7-601 has recently been amended through Planning and Zoning Commission, Resolution 6, Series of 1995. 1. Standard: The proposed application is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is ]adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: The proposed siding appears to be compatible with existing siding and will in no way alter the existing design of the building or surrounding area. Staff generally supports the use of natural materials. However, due to the deteriorating condition of the existing wood, it's required maintenance, and the fact that this is not a historic structure, the installation of aluminum/steel siding may be beneficial. 2. Standard: The proposed applidation reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel. Response: The application will have little impact on the character of the neighborhood. From a visual standpoint, the proposed siding closely resembles the 'existing. There are not many examples of the use of synthetic siding in the Commercial Core. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not distract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal has no impact on the historic significance of any historic structure. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The proposal has no impact on the architectural character or integrity of any historic structure. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 4) Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the Minor Development application where needed with the condition that the new siding match the existing as closely as possible. Additional Comments: PROSPUQFQR 1 May 25th, 1995 Amy Amidon City ofAspen 130 South Galina Asp-enT, CO 81611 Dear Amy, I am writing on behalf of The Board of Managers ofthe Piospector Lodge at Aspen, 301 East Hyman. As you may recall from our phone conversation ofMay 16th The Board is looking for an economical solution to a continuing maintenance problem The South and West facing sides of our building require repainting every year. This not only is a tremendous expense, but also is an inconvenience to owners and guest staying at the Prospector. One solution would be to install a more durable siding on these two sides. The choices we have are vinyl, steel or aluminum Since metal siding more closely replicates the look ofthe current redwood siding in style anh texture, we feel that this might be the best choice. Since the property is in the historical downtown core area, we wanted to get approval from the City before proceeding. I am sending some information on a siding that we hope will be acceptable. As you can see, the newer metal siding it is very difficult to distinguish from standard wood clapboard siding. Ifyou would like to see actual samples I can arrange~to have some sent to you. With painting season upon us, we have to decide ifwe should paint again, or have siding installed. We would appreciate your response as soon as possible. My address is Premiere Property Brokers, 1877 Broadway #601, Boulder CO 80302, or call me at 303- 449-7720. Reart, UNT Thomas A Stevens i Prospector Homeowner ; Enclosure %6-E/h ec: , Fletcher Handley Dr. Rae perls j MAY 3 1 1995 ~ Dr. Elaine Miller Pete Lusich 6-.... 1 (X DE:'58.--NÂ·. 1..., p / William Blake 4 f... Â£ .l,l NUM SPECIFICATIONS .LUMINUM SIDING COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES DOUBLE 4" Double 4" has an R factor of 3.82. quipment required to F. All accessories used with Alcoa Aluminum Siding w't-,M.&17,74':2:.â„¢ ~ a Aluminum Siding and shal[ be A[coa Siding accessories designed for use wit St' 44~ igs or specified herein. the siding and having the same ftnish. III. INSTALLATION, WORKMANSHIP aluminum sheet A. Before starting work, verify governing dimensions at 2Â»2 1 1. 12%4Ij i.li ',000 psi, minimum yield building; examine, clean and repair, if necessary, any lent. adjoining work on which this work in any way is St~fif' 1/1/~~ ., , 4~-~j .~l ied for use in residential dependent for its proper installation. - :.4'r- p",70.1,1 t,â„¢ 11.3~ :ions with elevations up B. Install in accordance with the Alcoa Siding s of a different nature, application manual, latest edition (available from -un.,- Â·#f,77.hg"lillie#- cts forfurther details and---_ __ Alcoa -Bpilding Products)..Alcoa.accessory trim items )ility. ildll-Be :Bed with the'siding. ---4 be nominal 12'6" (3810) C. Special details shown on the drawings shall be included as part of installation. ) exposure (or 10" [254] D. Upon completion (general roofing, installation, ~ orizontal edges, th" cleaning), contractor shall clean all aluminum work. 1.094" (2.4) diameter E. Dissimilar materials - - 1 -47,/,Al&.121. il approximately 18" 1) Care must be exercised in placing aluminum in g of every panel, thus contact with metals or materials not compatible .â€ž Your choice of(*ED Double 4"... and to permit with aluminum. our two woodgrain panels: Western Â· within the wall to 2) Dissimilar materials shall be painted or otherwise OakÂ® in an Alumalure 2000Â® finish, ; shall be provided on protected when they are in contact with aluminum, iters in the nail hem of or when drainage from them passes over aluminum. and Country Oaki in a PVC-coated Lansion and contraction finish. IV. CERTIFICATION OF CONFORMANCE - the bottom lock of all Alcoa Aluminum Siding products meet or exceed the h ends to provide for the panels. following specifications and/or code approvals: A. American Architectural Manufacturers Association all receive a special 27 imum paint adhesion. (AAMA) Speciftcation 1402.86 -"Standard Speciftcations for Aluminum Siding, Soffit and iall be a two-coat acrylic Fascia." 89â‚¬& in that includes *m&* d a baked.on, B. FHA Minimum Property Standard 4900.1 for One- ** BNEESEE . PVC (Plastisol) . )at. The Alcoa Country and Two-Family Dwellings. C. FHA Minimum Property Standards 4910.1 for 4NTS .... Multifamily Dwellings. operation that includes limMamÂ®EÂ¥* d a baked-on, high- D. Department of Defense (DOD 4720.21) Specifications for Military Family Housing. 410 â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢ stisol coatings are lie film thickness of the E. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBC)) Report No. 1478. cker than other siding F. Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA) Research Report ver a flat wall, has an No. 84-51. ]CI300[ . If applied over Mil, the :imately 1.10. Alcoa G. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI) Report No. 80200. Double 4' R factor of 4.1, while Uninsulated: 4N, .024' (.610) gauge EL SIDING SPECIFICATIONS Rnish: Alumalure 2000 I ftnish applied to a 5-stage zinc phosphate pretreatment system. OCEIXI - . - j Double 4' Country Oak G-90 29-gauge First coat is a corrosion-inhibitive primer. Second c6at consists I 1 Uninsulated: 4NTS, M designation A-361 of roll-applied PVC in a striated pattern, resulting in a 3.5-mill - (1~1.61 (10~.61 Â· .024Â· (.610) gauge ~timate strength of (minimum thickness) topcoat. .019' (.483) gauge ~ COLORS Insulated: 41TS, 6nch, respectively. EZEEmE~(toil ,(101.6) u Finish: White, Heritage Grey, Alabaster, Colonial Blue, Parchment, 49 Mels*ER 1 1 PVC Coating , Musket Brown, Sandtone and Meadowland. l utt, 12'6" (3810) length, ' PRODUCT WEIGHT ~horizontal clapboard, Illz" , huare per carton. The Approximately 90 pounds per square. A 2==ECE 4- 4 Double 4- Western Oak trd, tb" (12.7) butt, 12' WARRANTY -Er t t Insulated: 410, rton. The 12" Vertical Lifetime 50-year transferable, non-prorated limited warranty - ===== 0.19' (-483) gauge Finish: , packaged 1 square per including 50-year limited hail protection. 1 J Alumalure 2000 ossed woodgrain. GENERAL INFORMATION All Alcoa Legacy Series Steel Siding panels should be ins 24 pcs- per ctn. - 12'6' (3810) length Ihloride (PVC) enamel to manufacturer's recommended application procedures. 1-11-LUA. 19U1LL11NLI liCUUUL 15 â€ž WE'VE BUILT OUR : REPUTATION BY A ., ~' PROTECTING YouRS. 1* Ima. The supplier of choice for ten J.fi?&-R-nskz~,1 ---~jix~~ta.7 f the largest commercial buildings in 5 the world - and hundreds of \ ~-M-....Ta<10=~fltr-:12.yâ‚¬?Â·ax31Mhetefiritter'Â·Â»1 thousands of single-family homes from coast to coast. It's the name more 5 architects, builders and homeowners know and trust for exterior building A..im Â£ products. Why? Quite simply, Alcoa , means quality. And it Reans the most ..._--- .-- .2.64=----9=1-1%931%7':5''I~L. - 1 - g Â£-1Rit@tiline,4%**efie;Ibilit~rQ - -UC-#&==*nÂ·--â€¢:7-Q ' * : products available - everything you ... /Â£49'-Te~ChÂ£*Ari<5/2(11;=filu'll'flmi.fiLI'l.BliA'- P.effiftil-il---JFEE:';-F&31 need for virtually any application - ~5994%21.~=*52***~23* from distinctive sidings and designer - accessories...to soffits and rain r M.~ - ... + :'ll;?7-/ 11 removal systems. Known for more than a century as the j.. J ~10= &'llk" 5&4*% i:3 6- 4 li:aderin aluminum building products, IKIRI|**71:1:e i Fit.21 Â·.f K'.Â· iliil;11 3.::â€¢ Alcoa has joined with Mastic to become the leading supplier of vinyl - 1 siding and exterior products as well. And Alcoa supports all of its product E- lines with extensive research and development - a continuing F investment that ensures product 1 innovations designed with an + 6% - uncompromising commitment to meeting - and exceeding - the M eeds and preferences of our stomers. TABLE OF CONTENTS - LAKE FOREST 1 ALUMINUM/ EXTERIORSâ„¢ ........... 4 VINYL SIDING .......... STEEL SIDING ALCOA BRINGS ,Â·i:tÂ·--2,Â·.'i.. 54Â·1Â·22.- r . .~.imm- IT ALL TOGETHER. ~ ~~>441 :L..el ~ ~~ti~ From the ordinary to the ornate... 9 from start to finish...there's only one ~122%Â©12~* you .6-:- ~4Â·143::AL. . 4 m- . 47: 4 4 . 44Â« luff. 11..,1...21#hit 54.., : i. 17.1 0 L - 7-3-91364. #/bigjki#54LHA BMgMma--4*/M L design package. for uncompromising quality and .2 :111.4/,1 commitment toour customers. Alcoa ., 4. 21Â·Int-.2221:04.-54.97 1 - -42-02*.-12>-=-2i *52~~ gives you all the elements to make a -4-9 . :UV...... , ..--'.~. home distinctive. From technical All the beauty Trusted brand names , Choose from a wide : support and design assistance to on- of stained cedar,and , and distinctive , range ofstyles,Â· timd delivery, Alcoa can help you none ofthe main- 8 styles.Â¢ Includes colors and I b make it work. tenance problems. Silhouette. Exteriorsâ„¢ finishes... 1:: Six nature-inspired and now thicker, and all the h If you need additional information or ~ colors and four: stronger Mastic accessories to i istance, contact the Alcoa district distinctive styles. T-lokÂ® Barkwood . complete the job. lager in your area - or call us and Liberty Elite p ct at the ABP Action Line: . - vinyl siding. .-800.962.6973. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W. Main Street- Extension of conceptual approval DATE: June 14, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests that the conceptual approval granted for this project on April 27, 1994 and extended for five months to September 30, 1995. Under Section 7-601-F3(c), an "application for a final development plan must be filed within one year of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the HPC, failure to file such an application shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan previously granted by the HPC." At this time, the applicants for the proposed development at 706 W. Main Street request additional time to prepare final drawings. STAFF EVALUATION: A significant amount of time and effort has been invested in this project, therefore Staff finds that it would not be appropriate to eliminate the conceptual approval. However, it is also Staff's opinion that while the proposed design has many merits in creating a separation between the new and old construction and in restoring the historic house, there is little visual relationship in terms of general design and massing between the new and old construction, especially on the east and west elevations. The proposed design does showcase the historic house and involves very limited demolition, and the overall height of the new construction is 23', which is well below the height limit. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC extend conceptual approval for 706 W. Main Street until September 30, 1995. j SENT MY: 5/31193 ; 15 : 54 . KN & E LA# Or r 1 lt.3-3 9205438:# 2/ 2 LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER and AGmaliatts PC. Jerume Professdimal Buildi,Fg 201 N. MILL STREET, SUrrE 201 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611.3206 B. Joseph Krabodker Mt Kixno Office Curtill B. Sanders Michael C. Topatova Tel: (9701 925Â·6300 9 Krasnoplriletarskaya Nickelal V PmkhornvA Fax: (970) 925-1181 Stlitp Nci 3 Igor 11 PornhkinA 103330 MOSCOW email/int=ne addreâ€¢= RUSS]A â€¢ Admlt ked im lifi mly kfabActrriher.JprfÂ·,rÂ·g A 441:nitt,bd 0 15â€žmiia only May 31, 1995 Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Community Development 130 South Galena Street, Third Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 706 West Main Street Request for Extension of Conceptual Development Approval Dear Amy: This letter sets forth my request for an extension of the conceptual development approval for 706 West Main Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. we are in the process of finalizing the final development application and I anticipate that we will need until September 30, 1995 to complete the application. This will give us plenty of time to do so during the busy summer season. As you requested, I am including copies of the plans that were approved at conceptual development by the HPC in 1994. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very Truly Yours, LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER AND ASSOCIATES PC By: B. JÂ»0#h Krabacher BJK\ch Enclosures as recited krabacher\lamidon.3 j , u--1--- 0 - - - -1 - --1- - \4 1, - - ifr-t-- / \ - ZEn_ 1 \ h 1 , 1--$*. - /7 --* I ... / , I - -4 - " --1= i - ' ' '- 1 - - 1 1,4 '01 & -- =6.- 1 -1 - -41 2 LE_-- %-:/-- 1 . W F ' / 44 K 1------ 1 " I. =====9 -1-52/12==ezzz w 1 ; ' I i - -C ..'-Lb . eli.- 1 - a..: - i X [ f (4-,Â·n*==21- / r-- 9 m i El 7- --r-1 JW-. - /-1 1/Â» -/, r--Il- ill. , A .; -- f. 1 1 -,../. - 1 -1 ; . '1\ - I , lilli lil \Va \ I. f V :395 ---Ite c - lilli 111 n f i - 'f . ! t 1/ , Â»,/ r 9 1 , - . --hm==> - 114Â» *Â«CÂ»+45-1*,. =O_5_â‚¬_1=CeÂ£-=22-iU I y-LP:]_1\1-6__u_ _-_u__pt,-AN-17-16*~i ~~1, r_i----------------- r: 26it983162dg--rlll4 --- -- 1 I -7 0/ 11- f//--#flf--i 11 4- li 1 . }Â£ ~ W<nER SER,/1,18 -# t 1 - - U MAN'-'OUL 606 L ING - - .-I 6 - k }- Cl 61 ' a - 0 55 A 1._- 1- E. 1/ - : -- 7- - A-a -- a G e FE , 10 ,kÂ· 4,- |1| V J SS 50 1- 1/5 ELECTRICAL LINE / BANITARY :5EWEFC T R#teree~'EX A -| I- LU Su : 1 1 Â·-- , 1:.iit. 61:...*...~.i.w..i:g.j.~,.....:.iii : c litd EER***a:iE I *::B.T.PR3:joi.Â¥..%+V.. EXIDTINA--- ~ EXI 51'INd, I ritijite)*a=:85: , =TRUOTURE 111 STRU 41= URE _ - Ct*&*%8*4432 - -:iÂ¢*xma:e: , EXISTI I\Â·la -Â· - Z sTRUcm-JAE ~Lk fER*:t - 2 I r ,5 L - 0 - P lU 1 ul EXISTINd; 5-INJen-1FRE 1 - %499 1 1. h U Â· :13.....~.....E~~~ 1 W . i' b r -O t-' tn .. 1 6Â¢aTINissKu3nl9E illbIEIGF ' v â€¢ iii .W I K M.,Â·- 0 Â· 1 U EL-Ek.-TlOCAL, TELEPHONE ' aÂ»5 LINE * CADLE -T.V; 1-1NED MAIN STREET , EXHIBIT 7 4Â« f t 1 1. KRABACHER BLII L.-13 ING EX i S TING ColÂ¤ PITIONS M AP 1 " = 30'- 0'ki) MARCH I D , *994 EÂ»KER - PAL_LIN INC. .... - 1 1 /1 1 - / 1 $ -- 5*terrk _-I-_ 1.t#,Af'ft))51+ 1- i 3-12)W _17Wt-1.lt' , - UÂ·~6LLÂ·k~W~-m~ - .c-. I. _-EAVe [22â‚¬,ki- -rGZA.â‚¬44 -EN<LLOGUIUE - X Ah Uph i ---- ------ - Â· f.# .1 - .* 6 -9., Â·trâ‚¬54*, ~ 0:: ill Â· ~ Â·Â· .. ... ... . 4 - . C 0 =2 f=Zit \ >22-18%1Â«T'A X'. 1 Â· u*,3. Â·i:.3~ Â· [ -1 1 . I 1 1 tuX 2--fEMAIN.- 1 (\ 1 //1 -4- /: - i . -1 - ~ 4~ 1 2*31\,6 733.- UL..1. . . -=77.5330 .1 00 --a - IFAZE!)44 2 -- _f ,: -Eazee .2 - _2 --2 -Ill *I-- p , ; 4 f _1 \ JEKiel-St L >Â»17- :-5---T . fÂ»ceay=JEEr i -- : 4 169 tÂ¥:045â‚¬2< ci =-4 - :- .... FEEIEbal â€ž-- 4- ia- : Â© 6- 1 21 th /)11 e .' - 41 h . \C 4/ / 12 . . , 4- 1 I --1 . 4.771.1 , 16 +E-r&*LAC . -IMIA : del ---. Y//7 -1 Â£ 1 , -Â»Ativ 9 _jIbLY..4=JV/~~ -,3'p.~ -<i a :|_ 1 2 1 h - ---- -7 -73215 U {-ILD 1 IN O Ndr,z>/ .. 1 < .2/-1--LI!--9 42224: - a l .S ilkeueue . - . 1 3 1/ 4 90 . -- 34 rN FLSNTEE _... - ~ , â‚¬' r... .. 7 -Zil;ZE. puziu, , if // /,0* .i . ]7 I I~~ 144.4>fuff..~ f S - - ~4 / 4 ,/7~ pif N,LL / / % .... I 4 :55,9 - 144:67//Ar ,;oe-â„¢O - 4<cp' w \<*DLE:* : .Â· t O -Th 1 ' CY. - . - - I i /â€¢ -TEOW 'DAmiÂ» 1-_ . - .-2 _CATEâ‚¬â‚¬2 W [NA:A/1 lal El-L, j CN~FIXLABACHEK- *U I LD[ NEA " LAMPDCAPE F'l-AN . _- I'j _= 1 10 ~ 2 UN E '20 I 199+ 1 Ii. 1- --- 1 - -:--1 i ' -Â·lizj___ 4 -k 1 -42 91Â° 4 E- -Crit Li - 1 i / / ---NE=rtr-1~12,1,/ -- * - l 1 14<-1 -_----___- -. 1 Â·1 3~17467bleic ~-wer~to" k-1*;:_ - - / t.=1=~f i 1 - - 1 NX 11 88 4 f i I be - 211.-1- Â· f - 0 <4 0 c '' ll -dE --,4 -1- -40- . >e 17 - 3<* L KI -- 2 1, ---- 0 'lf'mt-J~7 - ------u-*4-- -- - _11_. =31# 1 *121001 0 - 2-ttly - 1 J 1 . 2 roUL y - 1 -.r- 1 1 -=7272-Noua#_ -- 41 1!01 FI_ UNIT - 6 - 0 t- 1-=Ial-13 13/P -1.-. 1-- Ut z 1 --- , Egai40.1._ _ -_.~~10-ur== lut--uu.i==f'â€¢no_ir-z-L----i-â€¢y-i,dot _i.....- - -_.._ ... 1 - -- 11 1 J*/2 .1 , - .49 . I. 01 ' Ah# #A Fl 1 --- .., 1\2 . 4 ) . . -KIâ‚¬66221-152 ELIILDINCI LOWEE LEVEL -FUE,2. FLAN IlÂ©~~f-:A.K. - JU L.>,/ le A494 -Ill e to , 02030 - - NET- LEN,ABLE CAEL,i 5[1\ ~447 fiPÂ») OUE_ Lrbel NITI fLAN - ----AD.UounÂ».541 7-691<Â£ 980*...- 57-- Ec)441 Â· 4.-70:[P NOVE*7852_ 2,9, 7114 - - . 91094- 64=ick 694* 4 --* - - -1,864- 9 2. P.U. 11 -1 6. 34' J t---C:4. V - 14*: I . i. . : -49 / -- q Â· : .i'. IR- -1 k '6 4 4 - -- I t ft ' 1 11 C zju 44, ' I . - Â·Â·.Â£ , 1-- 4 2.. , ! 0 1 , 1 1. t . 1 -7 % ..i .6 1 k. 11 1 1 1 L ..4 , 1 4 19 2 -- 77 il 1 1 1 1 LÂ«*3- '1'' , G D in 1, 1 1. 1:1 \ 1 1 -r . 3 Cal A r-- i t=?1 92.-4 0--4 - -8 2 9 - 11 -lt - --4 13 11 If Ki --4 1 r 1 - - L:--ru:c-1-1=66 C 1 X-T--1 4 - 1 ;12 4-4 -I '- A / 1 --1- 7 Nk I B 9 + 4 31 IO~ -i. 4$ 1 1 .i- 1 AL-1 .L bn\\ 1 4, 1 - 01 4 m In 63 I-- I--I--- -L -~2 ~~~ ~~1 2 #,4 19 , 1 ./ . 11 1 1 - --- r 0 8 , 9 -70 Ul! L--14- -L 12 40 --i-11 h - 6 Ji L I _-- - 1-*--_11 13 [-1 -11 =ft 9 1 2 0- + 6 m 1-5 p - 1 z i-[ __ _1/1 1 ]1\4 1 1 L_1 t - * 1 -0. /1 1,~ -4 E-4--el-t- 0 . 14{1 , E i -0 41 rt-H â€¢-J 1~fillt61-2 0 -Â·-~- -ru_* 1 1 1,; 1 . & 1 kit I i lili 11--1- 443 3 1 - 1 U &1-T - 31 7 18 . I [El ftÂ· -/ru 2 6 ril E -1 1. 0-'.=44 1 /1 ../.-*.--.-I - --*-I.- I.----- 4 0 , '7 1 7 1 0 0, t ,3 h 6 1 -- -I J MAI 5 T [24- E- E T d. ... . I N /NVU - DN14 791 tr - --1 -- -- I +--bu. - =uz.PXâ‚¬O --1.- 1 1 / 1 ' 1 -i- 1fWA ~5184 -_+ *m==* t .\ -2220,Â£12- IL-__ ~T --t t r Â«r=lca A -- . - - -17 Z X 13 -2 -2- . \ - -LIZEZILe*-20 --unr -f=mâ€ž __ . '12. -2-*LEW - - -- 6 - Li - 11 1 - 44. --1 ,,1 I f / 71r ' CEÂ»x 19.16- i =14-1 14 -- S 1 - 1 - - --11=:=Eli L---Lk- T i i ... .. 7E1â‚¬2â‚¬:64.NEK Â©UILPING OFFER LEVEL 1,1,29Â·F*FA,2. - -- JUL->r' 19 1114 _20.* -10 1 -- ---Ca-K5Â«; N iiI- lE*6.BLE 61 12â‚¬ ULM-loN 1 594:, 1~ . 1 91.9@ - ~ EXHIBIT -- --Â· gotÂ»,1 Ei-E- LEM,I,46; r:>u/X N~NCINEMA=-62. 61 11=14 j. -0 ....2. I... .. -â€ž-- -...__._ .__ .... .._... , , 1 0,14" ' Â·---1.-r-rt Frt-tl t-'~ 1 4 9 - 2 - 1 123 ~ I-4 -rn .-' - i, UlLIL' IllÂ» 1 1---E. 11. rn 7 + r " r'11 < 1 1 9 '.lilli lili. -1 #~ JI LE 1 L -Fa 1 0 ., ~fiTPial-- t 23*31_|tÂ·i[1-1141.... 1.4 1 \\ -- - i'I . *hz- I 111_111-LU ..411%~ t.Â».- 1 1.1-Pa E JOILCUITE '4 1% LE [~-[23 97 Â· IL_ -/1 ,>0\111 1,1 1 /----*. ------ 'LI 0 f \*l itt 1 1 =* -4-L--1 1 ~~~~~1 33' ' 1 1 t.. /i0.2 1 1 A 17 iii 1./7 h N , -*-lit ..21-22~fj h -74 li : 1 . , -1 I .,-ri i i.3 0 7.37 - flu , C I 1 4 ' i 3 lilli - 1 ~ -9--_ft -ll| ' ~ It -, 411 Ulll-LU t> -T]1 - [-r[1 0 122 2 1-JECILIT .-Â¥ w --Â·= ~ -12 - T . :11!l 'IK i"Mitrrn-T - _t, 06 1-' a ir x mnp ----2 i uj/141:t. / k/ ,//---' 1 . --h- ..Ill--- -----*-. - I El ./4 n --mMI+I.lenia mL[33 7--m 7'Elluumn FRA fi===91Â·r--11 Â»#ri vi n zzllir--11rl ,-1 1 Ld!~M~lilid j 11 lip=III 11'~31 11 1141 11 Il Il ' "Ell lili 11 -- 1 11Ei lihil It=11 1!1 / li,ki -Ill 7 - I-31311[Â«1Â¤-113-111*ir]3 i i~r---r EIN ----IMBKifiT ~ LU Flf!11 1~1 . r 1 ----11 1 AF==177~11=71,1=11 1 * 11, -luuÂ»11 1 filiuvil~ -lir=t-m - M 1 1 r---- 1 i t 1 l b .E==L - IN O A -r H E L E VAT 10 N EA o T 5 L E YAT 1 0 14 2-KIKA-27-A 0-4 -2. K_-20_F F ICE. -------------- - JUl- V (e.<-|1947 1 *I 6 I e.1 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 303 E. Main Street- Final ~ Date: June 14, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Final development approval to construct an addition along the east side and to the rear of the existing historic house, to build lightwells and to rotate the existing outbuilding. This house, the Thomas Hynes house, was built in 1885 and is almost completely unaltered. The rear addition to the building is thought to have been constructed very soon after 1885. The outbuilding was constructed sometime before 1893. This site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Aspen Landmark. Conceptual review for this project was granted, after several meetings, on July 13, 1994. Since then worksessions have been held to discuss the intrusion of the tower element into the viewplane, to discuss changes to proposed lightwells and to discuss materials. Conceptual approval was granted with four conditions: (1) That the tower be altered to have a cross gabled roof and that the roof height be as low as possible. (2) That the proposed lightwells be minimized as much as possible and that the west lightwell be eliminated if possible. (3) That the shed be rotated so that the skylights not be visible on the street. (4) That two parking spaces would be waived. The applicant has requested vested rights, which requires a public hearing. All projects are automatically vested for a year and a half. APPLICA~T: Niklaus Kuhn, owner, represented by Roget Kuhn and Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 303 E. Main Street, Lot A and a portion of Lot B, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when -- the subject site is in an "H, " Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: This site lies within the Commercial Core and is therefore zoned CC. In this zone district, there are no building setbacks required and the height limit is 40 feet. Typically, additions to a historic structure are placed to the rear of the parcel to minimize visibility. In the case-of a corner lot, it is more difficult-to conceal new " - mass in this way. Staff is in favor of the addition as proposed along the east wall and the minimalistic physical connection which is created between the new and old buildings. Most of the new square footage is placed in the tower structure. Staff finds that this design is appropriate because it is compatible with the historic structure, and the mass is set back sufficiently from the front of the existing structure. As we are all aware, this site is listed on the National Register, and it is HPC's job to make sure that designation is not jeopardized. While Staff finds the design of the new addition is excellent, it represents a very substantial change to this resource. This house sits on a prominent corner and the new addition will be very visible. The applicant has made a sacrifice by proposing an FAR (4,336 sq. ft.) which is only about 64% of what is permitted, but that does not necessarily make the change easier to swallow, as the mass on the site nearly triples. Attached is a description from the applicant of the elements of the project which have been revised since Conceptual approval. First, a stairwell has been located in front of the new addition, and the roof has been extended to protect the area from snow. Staff finds this solution acceptable. A lightwell on the south has been reduced in size. HPC indicated at Conceptual review that it would be preferable to have a grate instead of a railing around this lightwell. A second deck has been added on the top floor of the tower, along with a new door and a window change on the south. Staff finds these changes acceptable, however the third floor deck may add to the bulk of the tower. The first two floors of the tower are proposed to be brick. In Staff's opinion, the brick might be more appropriate only at the first floor, again to avoid adding to the massiveness of this element and to better relate to the historic house. Brick is also proposed for the north, east and south walls of the east (one story) addition. The east wall of the addition is only three feet away from the neighboring building, and the applicant has been concerned about maintaining clapboards in this tight space. Staff finds that the brick will provide a good contrast to the historic resource and ties the addition and tower together. On the south elevation of the addition, a second story window has been given a "hood" to match the projecting bay window on the historic house. Staff finds that this element may be too imitative of the historic structure. -Tl-re fuuÂ£ cuildllions of approval set=t Conceptual appear to have been met. Staff is uncertain how the skylights on the outbuilding are going to be dealt with. A significant basement is planned for the site. In a previous meeting, HPC voted that the historic house cannot be relocated in any way. The applicant must determine a way to excavate the basement with the house in situ. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: This house is one of a group of three Victorian residences along Main Street, and lies in the vicinity of a large number of historic structures. The proposal before HPC illustrates not what is typical of this neighborhood, but rather their future potential for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: The proposal is in the spirit of the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation." The original house Will remain completely intact. The addition is compatible with the historic resource, and the tower element, while significantly taller than the house seems to be a good resolution which allows the applicant to take advantage of some of the allowed F.A.R. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural integrity of this structure will not be greatly impacted, because the new addition will only attach to the historic house along the roof. The west wall of the addition will abut the historic house, and no wall openings are planned. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any Of the following alternatives: 1) Final approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Final approval with conditions, to be met before issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action and continue the meeting, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the - ----Developmerit Review Standards. - 4) Deny Final Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC grant Final approval with the following conditions: (1) Brick shall only be used on the first floor level of the addition. e,212#,FE (2) The:#ast wall of the historic house will become an interior wall, and interior alterations are usually not reviewed by HPC. Because of the significance of the structure and the fact that the wall was once exterior, any future proposals to alter this wall in any way, for instance by removing the existing windows or adding new openings must be reviewed hy HPC. (3) The historic house may not be relocated, even temporarily. (4) Eliminate the hood on the second floor window of the south elevation of the addition. Additional Comments: ATmCHMENT 1 LAND USE APPII(ZATION FUUM , 1) Project Name 9503 +A/rr MAI N Â« / K Ull-00 -- 60% bÂ·Agr- rA AÂ·\ M 1*Ser , LOT- A~~~4 -Twa- ~2*PX op Uor 6 2140# 00 1 0\1-3 01= Pa:BH, (indicate street address; lot & ~ock Ii=ber, legal ddscription where appmpriate) 3 ) Present =ling ~/0~/ 4) Iot Size 41*0 5) Applicant' s Name, Mdress & Phone # 8 \04 U) 483 b R D. Pa 90 1 4 89'FE:>14 - ~ 12 4 - 6 j 402- 6) Represatative's Nane. Ackiress & Ebace # i J AddELI~ V lat.60Â£1 -- *26'HTTEDO 1036, 56,60 7) Type of Applimtion (please check all that apply): Conditional Use 01 SPA CorGrtnal Historic Dev. Special Review Final SPA Final Histcnic Dev. 8040 Greenline . Oonceptal POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin --~- Final POD - _ Historic Danolition Mountain yiew Plane - Subdj-visian Historic Designation Corxdominizmization Text/Map Amendment (NOS Allatnent Iot Split/Int Lizie X veÂ«e'P (NOS E=ption Adjustment p CM 1* 9 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; approorimatp sq. ft.; râ€¢mher of bedroans; any previous approvals granted to the property). A 6 *fee:? PMTED Â£ 0@A *70 AO . 0 9) Descrintion of Development Application A REA* fewltÂ© d. COCE FTUAL. 10) Have you attached the following? â‚¬ Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents K Respense to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents >Â¥ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application SUPPLEMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IMPORTANT Three sets of clear, fully labeled drawings must be submitted in a format no larger than 11"X17", OR one dozen sets of blueprints may be submitted in lieu of the 1 1 "X17" format. APPLICANT: W low- tuRA ADDRESS: 6 03> 9 84/F MA / 14 9[,- ZONE DISTRICT: ) LOT SIZE (SQUARE FEET) 4,6 00 EXISTING FAR: juli ALLOWABLE FAR: 63% 0 ( 1-Â£5 4--4007) PROPOSED FAR: 459/ (,47 a Alt(Prl) EXISTING NET LEASABLE (Commercial): 1 4/0 PROPOSED NET LEASABLE (Commercial): 9, \ 6 0 APNL 0 EADâ‚¬ i 9,219' 8>ELG.0 EXISTING % OF SITE COVERAGE: /6967 A 1 0/ ' D l /0 PROPOSED % OF SITE COVERAGE: 0 7 '57 66 54 EXIST[NG Â°/0 OF OPEN SPACE: 1, %06 PROPOSED % OF OPEN SPACE: l64j 84% EXISTING MAXIMUM HEIGHT: \6.5- 14\Del-, 19 EfLE. PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT: U -3 91 EtÂ© 9> o MIDPT. 13> 4 7â‚¬ AK- PROPOSED % OF DEMOLITION: / EXISTING NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: PROPOSED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS: 1, 1 10 E AP 00!4 R,A, 467\91 (44 EXISTING ON-SITE PARKING SPACES: / 4 040 7(71 26--5 Th 00145 ?'011 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: , . Â·' ../ ' -/ Â· 6.La/Yv 4,8~1~'~ SETBACKS: EX]STING: ALLOWABLE: PROPOSED: 0 Front: 16,4 Front: Front: /4, 4 Reac Rean CÂ» Rear. 0 Side: 472.42,4 Side: -- Side: D , Rio Combined Frt/Rc 4 0.6 Combined FrURr: f-3 Combined Frt/Rr: 16./â‚¬ EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES/ LAED &*(**4194 04 AuÂ£tl ENCROACHMENTS: VARIATIONS REQUESTED (eligible for Landmarks only: character compatibility finding must be made by HPC): Am@'b %*91'AP:TEN TOP- M 1114AT-108 09 NeN Â¥*u:>ry.,Â» N Er ,-A. *EA BLL. FAR: Minimum Distance Between Buildings: SETBACKS: Front: Parking Spaces: p n . Reac Open Space (Commercial): , ' Side: Height (Cottage Infill Only): ' Combined Frt/Rr: Site Coverage (Cottage Infill Only): 1*/0.0 JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 303 EAST MAIN FINAL SUBMITTAL 6-6-95 SUMMARY AND SPECIFIC REPLIES 1. The design is the same as submitted for conceptual with the following changes: A. A new porch rooftÂ¥58 been added to the North Elevation of the Addition to protect the stair to the basement. B. The large light-well to the South existing house has been reduced to a small light well. C. A deck and double door have been added to the West Elevation of the upper floor of tower. A round top window has been added to the South Elevation of the top floor of the tower. D. The use of brick and brick detailing on the lower two floors of the tower E. The use of brick and brick detailing on the North, East and South Elevations of the "Side Addition". F. A door has been added to South Elevation of the "Side Addition". j 1, 4 Lt Â© MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Historic Preservation Committee From: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer Re: 303 E. Main Street, Conceptual Development- Public hearing, Continued from June 22, 1994. Date: July 13, 1994 SUMMARY: The applicant requests Conceptual development approval to construct an addition along the east side and to the rear of the existing historic house, to build lightwells and to relocate the existing outbuilding. This house, the Thomas Hynes house, was built in 1885 and is almost completely unaltered. The rear addition to the building is thought to have been constructed very soon after 1885. The outbuilding was constructed sometime before 1893. This site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is an Aspen Landmark. HPC began review of this project on April 20, and tabled the application twice to allow the applicant time for restudy. ( Overall, the Committee has seemed to be in favor of some aspects of the addition, but requested restudy and more information on the form on the addition, the connection/differentiation between old and new, whether or not brick was to be used on the addition, details on the lightwells, a site plan and landscape plan and some justification for why the house and outbuilding were to be moved. A number of issues have been resolved. The historic house is no longer proposed to be moved. An exterior staircase which was to be located on the west side of the building along with a new shed roof attached to the existing porch have been eliminated. A lightwell is no longer proposed directly in front of the historic house. APPLICANT: Niklaus Kuhn, owner, represented by Roget Kuhn and Jake Vickery. LOCATION: 303 E. Main Street, Lot A and a portion of Lot B, Block 80, City and Townsite of Aspen. SITE, AREA AND BULK INFORMATION: Please see the attached information, provided by the applicant. , j Development Review Standards 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in character with designated historic structures located on 1 , / the parcel and with development on adjacent parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark... Response: This site lies within the Commercial Core and is therefore zoned CC. In this zone district, there are no building setbacks required and the height limit is 40 feet. Typically, additions to a historic structure are placed --Â·to the rear of the=parcel to minimize visibility. In the case of a corner lot, it is more difficult to conceal new mass in this way. Staff is in favor of the addition as proposed along the east wall and the minimalistic physical connection which is created between the new and old buildings. Because the historic house is not to be moved, there has been a change in the design of the addition along the east. Staff finds that this design is appropriate because it is compatible with the historic structure, the mass is set back sufficiently from the front of the existing structure and the roof form attempts to contain water drainage on the property and direct it away from the neighboring building. Most of the new square footage is placed in the tower structure. Staff has had very serious concerns about the f impact of the tower, especially the height and block- like nature of it, on the historic resources. Several renditions of the tower are included in this packet. Tower #1 is the first tower that was presented to the committee. Staff is finding more favor for this design and the architect has indicated that it would be possible to lower the ridge at least a couple of feet. This design shows about three feet of mass cut out at the corners which would seem to decrease the bulk of the tower somewhat. In addition, a strong line is created just below the third floor balcony which seems to draw the eye down a bit. Tower #2 was presented in May. Staff finds that the hip roof form does not relate as well to the rest of the project as does a gable form. However, there is a break in the wall at 22 feet, which is topped off with a transparent (glass) area and a roof which has very little bulk and can have a very flat slope. This solution offers the biggest decrease in height (could be as low as about 28') but again is a big departure from the rest of the existing forms. , , Tower #3 was presented at the last meeting and is still the proposed design. It is possible to lower this ridge height approximately 2' (bringing it to 34'). There is little break in the wall plane for that entire height. , At this time, Staff finds that Tower #1, with at least a two foot reduction in height is probably the best solution proposed. Tower #2 has a lot of positive elements as well. Tower #3 is very compatible with the historic structure but does not provide a lot of relief in terms of bulk. The largest lightwell has been relocated to the south courtyard. Staff finds this location is appropriate. Additional lightwells are still proposed in front of the addition _(north) and on_the-- we.st si.de of the- historic ..._ - , structure. Staff does not object to the north lightwell, but would prefer to maintain a green area along the west side of the building. HPC should ,discuss whether grates or railings would be have less of a visual impact on the site. Staff still prefers that the "outdoor" parking space be eliminated and the outbuilding kept in its original orientation (gable end to the street) when it is moved forward. Rotating the shed changes its relationship to the street and exposes the skylights (which were not meant to be visible to the public). In addition, it places roof drainage directly onto the sidewalk. The applicant has asked for a waiver of two parking spaces, with the intention of using the bottom floor of the tower as storage and maybe for parking in the future. Three spaces are required, and the "outdoor" space would serve as one legal space. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the two spaces in the tower be legal spaces and that HPC only waive the one outside space, due to the upcoming GMQS exemption review by P&Z and their recent discomfort with HPC parking waivers. The applicant has indicated however that they only want one legal space on the site and that they will take their chances. As we are all aware, this site is listed on the National Register, and it is HPC's job to make sure that designation is not jeopardized. While Staff finds the design of the new addition is excellent, it represents a very substantial change to this resource. This house sits on a prominent corner and the new addition will be very visible. The applicant has made a sacrifice by proposing an FAR (4,336 sq. ft.) which is only about 64% of what is permitted, but that does not necessarily make the change easier to swallow, as the mass on the site nearly triples. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is . consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the l parcel proposed for development. r 1 Response: This house is one of a group Of three Victorian residences along Main Street, and lies in the vicinity of a large number of historic structures. The proposal before HPC illustrates not what is typical of this neighborhood, but rather their future potential for development. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the cultural value of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or:-on adjacent parcels. Response: While staff is not opposed to the design as presented, the possibility exists that the house could be de-listed from the National Register if alterations to the structure compromise its historic significance. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish or detract from the architectural integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: The architectural integrity of this structure will not be greatly impacted, because the new addition will only attach to the historic house along the roof. The west wall of the addition will abut the historic house, and no wall openings are planned at this time. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Conceptual approval as proposed, finding that the Development Review Standards have been met. 2) Conceptual approval with conditions, to be met at Final. 3) Table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain, allowing the applicant time to revise the proposal to meet the Development Review Standards. 4) Deny Conceptual Development approval, finding that the Development Review Standards have not been met. RECOMMENDATION: For the review on June 22, Staff indicated that conceptual approval would be recommended to HPC with the resolution of the following issues: 1) The applicant shall return to the flat roof/deck option on the east addition. 2) The basement stairway shall be located inside the jexisting structure. j 3) The shed roof on the west side of the porch shall be eliminated. 4) Lightwells with flat grates may be created in the courtyard area on the south side of the existing building, but the area along the Main Street and Monarch Street sidewalks shall be green space. 5) The applicant shall study all options for altering the tower including reworking parking, relocating or eliminating some of the living or storage space in the tower or even placing the first floor of the tower slightly below grade (this would result in a change in floor heights between the east side addition and the tower.) 6) The applicant shall study keeping the outbuilding in its gable-end-to-the street orientation. At this time, Staff finds that point number one has been resolved satisfactorily through a new design and that points 2 and 3 have been accomplished. Under point 4, the largest lightwell has been relocated to the south courtyard. Lightwells are still proposed on the north side of the new addition (previously the light well was placed in front of the historic structure) and along the west side of the building. Staff still prefers that the western lightwell be eliminated, but is willing to compromise as it has been reduced in size. Flat grates over the lightwell might still be preferable to a fence. In regard to point 5, a number of alternatives for the design of the tower and ways to lower it have been included in this t packet. Staff finds that an appropriate solution can be chosen from these studies. Finally, under point 6, Staff is still in * support of keeping the outbuilding in its existing orientation (resulting in the elimination of a proposed parking space. With the solution of points 4, 5 and 6 as recommended above, Staff recommends Conceptual approval be granted for this project. Additional Comments: j 9: 21-14'2, . 294 ly'.. 4*. 1421 \-- 3-~ yt 1 . k f J. I. -/ r 4 4 f i :424.4 , ..37 1 - T ...r ! k Â·~ : :.h' ..: ft 8 i :i Fli F .. Â· I .... V . 1 .1 0 - -t M - r. i | G .- 21,1 :i:*-, . iii r.Â»s - . t.:: 7 f-. ttill -0--I- ---- I \4 -=-=.=-=:-I.-0-0-=-=r--- -- ...... .- ...1~ ----- . 6 -'. 4.-. - . ... 3 4 ... 'i: ,- .0 V.. --I... Â· -- a./.f-:7 , 1 ..... 4 . A . , Â·* iii.Â· 1,i 11 . 14==* .41 -i . Â· ;. .... ' ts alli" :lititii Aii:r:illig. 4.J Â· -... .... 4 . ... ... â€¢ - 4 , tt-' Â· Â·l. t ..- kit. . .. - 3-.1. f-: 4 . '47 4 .Al . â‚¬4 1 1 il . :* 4 i:.i! tod 1 . ..... 1-!Ii ; ~' f-'| 1 '5 1 :+ 4 , i. -- MONARCH STREET ELEVATION (WESD 0,>V . t. 1 .-I 6,04 i.. . frvi 64*.t -. /1 1133' .2 62Â·Â· 4%'- '99?,0 -.2. . a .- -:%44,>95,34 #, 1 3.7,+ 4 --40 313 i .,4, 7 . .. \ 2 I / / . :Â·. 11% 110 ..2:rZEZh . - lil--1 - .:: 1 ~ . ./1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 3 11 + - 1 11 :. -Il . . 41 1 1 .31 i I 1 1 :5 0 - 1 1 , 1 1 . % r 4. . 1 - i 1 1 1 1 '1 1 Iii t. ;41 - - i . 1:i Ph 1 I ill : i- ~ ~1Â·1 1 6,', j:I,l f . iIi PAÂ«I _ . Â»Ber -- ------ -- 4(u-ru\ . 0541-4,7*IAA 6 '[0*12-- PtÂ»*FlÂ»IÂ« .2 <FEV IF ED 1,7,44~ JWHN/303 EAST MAIN O/ 4 8 fG - -- _ -4 re#T- 3 - . . 4. i 11 -- : ....f all . A-Er- - , 19 4 'fi J . 4 . 7.=01=91 72.* '- litÂ£~ith- 434 :4~ . 1 1, 1'49 . . I /. j . 111. . 94 . ....% ':. *,4 4444â‚¬t; 3, Â· ,Â·6 7--------. . I I : . .*:. . 1 Aâ€¢4Â» Â·30. Â·Â· 1 â‚¬21 - 1 .RAAEÂ· :flill L i . : +Mate.de: 0 - - .-*- -I ---.-- - - . . jeter, . - ... .4 - I ' . . . -~ . .139>:Ill :T - lin =- 1..1141 31 5 f! . ir J ' '4 4 . 1,111 ..:r t,p:FR-:-Ile 1 ; h ...... . ......... - . I â€ž 4 i ~'I 1 ~!~~Il' Bpl~ 91! :Â·.Â· Ai EU 1 . I. 11 4 10. 1 - .....- 1& '-,4, r . . . + .14 . I . ..9 fli 42 - 1, . 40Â· Â· I I iii 64.e. ... ..e - I ....49 C dilll . illl, 11 i . Â»1.-C .4 I 0. â€¢ *r/UÂ· t. . .1.9/%80... Â· 22 - .0 . 4* Fa~ 'Tr /7,19 4:- 1 4 . MONARCH STREET ELEVATION.(WEST) m 40 (jEE U !96 -1.1.94) - - ' '1 - . 1 - 1 1 ' . : I b. 2 li I M. 2, 1 | 1 1 X 3 I " 4 KUHN/308.EAST MAINA- Â·4; 2&34Â·.. Â·. Â· . . i:t * * 0.-2*. , e:+ + Â·*k:â€¢'1" .9 1. j . / BEEE -4. IiÂ¥~ 44~ I =m=Pr '17 241 Â· .. 311/ 984. I . * - :2. 4 ..ek. . I. IveÂ·- * I .....1. â€¢I Â· ty,1 0 imi&ZA -, 96 4.79 *4+UyÂ·>14'44&*f.4 ,' ; r: ~ 44:1444*~~~~~i:..24 Â·+ ~'~ . - A....'' Â·''t'/ I 'll ''*' 4 4. rÂ·-Â·44...14 1' 3- 1.1 . -,1.~ ?)4~4-~~Ae#'Pqhy#3~ .Â· ~i /, .Â»#:2, f .t'.-4..4 ~~#: 7, . 1 '5Â« i .. . /9Â£ERÂ·/ . I - . .. -.. . .. I . 1 . â€¢ 4 - . I . . . S .. 1 .. â„¢2Â¥1%-3Â¥**DOMzri-(wee iMe,irr#. 4. - KUHN/303 EAST MAIN .. Â· Â·tiâ€¢Â· . I . 3...4 . .' Â· i. â„¢*.1 - .. 4 1 J - 1 - J 02.- 0 ...1 *I- ... . 4 4 1. S I. I .S. 01 Â· Wk ./ * .. 14 I ./. 78& .#/ '/ u ..4 <E=1 . ... E 0 *IND Â»0- . 0 lt- ... <lil --* . t.oweg-.iEL,AzIEINE-l ~,~ 0 ... \ FL=;F. LIHS - / il --I- ,-' --t- - ,-I \ 4- -+ / 1. I ./. m 7 . :Zil:*0,3 ye%:*-'4*13: ~ -ov i. 01 - \ . ~~t -1 ,/ f ~ ~ ~ - 1-00! 1 --1 * . i.i-4+jq.3.Fvlj&64--24 !: I i-- - ~ | - (23 ~41*â€ž/ v -i r~ 491.2 - 1 ... 1 1 +10192 1 - Tls"- -t 12 1 \ 14'77%*TE. 1,LA34' 52.1.,AJFE - i_i- 1 + / 4*xy;4101 /\4 '41:fl, 12.-Â·Ae .-Â· 21...0.; a. %3. I -i-~ - -I~-El - il . . 13 ..2 ... --+L * , .St/Â» -1*MÂ»r@41 1 7=Ng - 1 .. ' I ./ 1 3 4% Â· ..i ~ It:*al.,4. " /'\. -FÂ»MH4 SK h- ~51*11-1 14*v02*,t541 . IL . .... 4 bA// .40 fq'biad,16 \H. WlÂ¢2414 ,~ 4117&416 - â‚¬ 3. ... ~- -7,13*25. - e... .12 - I . r L.2Â»1~10:1 . 1... r. ~ . 1,141-,f *ELL fi '-- i : 3413.r1; 4Â£4~vaÂ»- 1*14 - 33.4,3*442. t~~:.Â»4Â·J :.'-:1 .. .. 1 : . . . 1Â»1 I ? NEW 6*11Â£ (*1) .< ~12 -84*140 . 1 1 IH BXJÂ«4 *044Â· 2 .Â· WA>*. 1 1 1 *0*40*@ 1 :4Â· -?Â· 6 . ....1 ~1;4:4>2Â¥*297:423*434 1... 4...... 1 . 1 l - 111 111:sr~r>ttft.: P: * 2 1. 4 1 1 1 1 1 E :yiÂ¢!eni.- ,~q/.4 ~.. h k... - .. . \ ... . . ..1 1-.~ ---- r 4 2 4Mto (Her Mplâ‚¬*03232 dbrit af VfF -â€ž reS...-~~F6*80 -7,7,14 - -- ------ .. Â·* 4 1 1 1 KUHN/303 EAST MAIN. 26 -24 FEar + 1 . I -â€¢'--â€¢UU;~UUA~mMAAW*C~A :Â· '- X/Â· --- % Â·----IrUCA;AUAAU~C<n.nCC-~I - -:-:--AUt, A E l T. 1 . 1 . /9 ,/9 . - t - ....Er#m - .-4 . -.1 r. 1 3 1.~~lilld .1 1# t,e ..1*Â£ Mt . , Â£-4.1- 1 . 01 -1 4 f /7// 1 2 :42114.liT T.---7 i Â·1.11 31 - d- j:~*4 1 iÂ· 1 ' L...ZEJ .-3,5- -ze## -,#: 46' 4.,2 04 '. . . -.Veelil7Â» i .... -ial 1/ / 1 / .-I ral 11 7 E .4 - E ' , .. '41 4' 57. Jill -6,1 li It=. 4. I 1 . .1 - 11 .1 -- --- .1- 1 .-I - -- == , 1 --==.C -=1=W -lu= 1 1 U .. , ..11 I . 1 1- . /1 j Â· 1 9 . Â· 4 I Lil Il 1-1 --.Atll , Â· I. 1 \\ 0 1 \UU / Â£ 1 41' . 6 1 -1 r ./ 3 - U -1 1 . 11... .*-4 . - tu , . 1 --- te . ali 7 2. f , v 1 -1 Â·. i.,m=...â€¢ tilial: -71 1./ 11 0 -~~9~= --+4,71- 0. . FEEEEF- 1 11 1 ':+ELIÂ· T . â€¢ . r Â· ' -1-Â·1~.=111==11=1 'r ... -.1 7.. 1 1. .1/,14+P i It .. i . 9 ~ ~; i Â£ 1. 4 1 7 1.-- ... .. ----I 'e. 1 . 1 4 4 J - 3:%> .. 1 li .:2/ ./.16 1%3l . 2 1 'Â»Â¥422: 11 lip..4 . 1 1 1 rea 1 1 //BaL. 1 . 1 .4 . ... . j I -4. - L -4*~444w1Â·rt'A , , 1 1 , . - ... ..7 . f - 120>â‚¬ I. 4 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 , , .... .~./. t~ ~Â· , .~ 4* li I *@-9 L -9 (193AA) Nel.LVA313 133 WIS HOWÂ¥N@IN Iii&*128 A A =-UPENTRANCE TO ASPEN EIS 4(F) AND HISTORIC RESOURCES The FHWA and CDOT, in preparation of this EIS must ask the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for an "effect determination" prior to release of the draft EIS. The SHPO has 30 days from receipt of a request to comment on the DEIS to inform the Federal Agency of their determination. In anticipation of their official review, the Colorado SHPO has asked FHWA/CDOT to obtain "additional information from the Aspen HPC which is a Certified Local Government prior to submitting their official comment." It should be understood that their is no formal SHPO regulation to obtain the written comments of the local CLG. It is a matter of policy for the Colorado Historical Society to seek the comments of any CLG. The Colorado Historical Society has no formal procedure to solicit local comments. It should be noted that the Federal agency proposing actions that may impact properties listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is required to "seek information in accordance with agency planning processes from local governments...public and private organizations and other parties likely to have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties in the area.4 What is 4(f) and Section 106? 0 40 refers to a required section of any EIS document. The purpose of this section is to document the considerations and alternatives for "a determination that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of land from a public owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance as determined by the Federal, State, or local official having jurisdiction thereof, [or] any land from a historic site of national, State or local significance.." â€¢ For historic sites or properties listed or eligible for inclusion on the National or State register of Historic places, the State Historic Preservation Officer must comment on how any alternative under consideration will impact these historic sites. This is done through the process called "Section 106 Review". These findings are then coordinated with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent Federal Agency and effected local governments. â€¢ While the SHPO will only comment on properties eligible or listed for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places under the Section 106 process, they are interested in learning more about locally designated historic properties. This information will be considered by the Federal Agency in the DEIS under the section called Historic Resources. 1 Federal Register, Volume 51., No. 169, Tuesday, September 2, 1986 2 Reference: Code of Federal Regulations - 771.35 COMMUNITY MATTERS, INC., LITTLETON, COLORADO ASPEN HPC 6/14/95 ~ What is the Appropriate Role of the Aspen HPC? â€¢ Aspen is one of 11 Certified Local Governments in the State of Colorado. CLG's came in existence in 1980 to expand the state-federal partnership to the local level. â€¢ The written comments of the CLG will be tak,Â¢(0i~~~iq8ideration by the SHPO in their assessment of effects as required under SecttE.3/ â€¢ The Federal Agency proposing the action will consider the views of the SHPO and CLG in the development of a preferred alternative in the FEIS. They will be particularly interested in suggestions which will preserve historic properties that would otherwise be damaged or destroyed. COMMUNITY MATTERS, INC., LITTLETON, COLORADO ASPEN HPC 6/14/95 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project PRELImINAn i $ 4,1 0 M u j v LI~1 *~ Highway 82 - Entrance to Aspen Project Draft 4(f) Statement June 12, 1995 WHAT IS 4(f)? Section 4(f) lands are publicly owned lands from parks or recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or from historic sites listed on or eligible for the National Regiser of Historic Places. Impacts to parks, open space, and historic structures and sites on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places result from the need to improve existing State Highway 82 on or near the existing State Highway 82 alignment. Impacts to these resources are covered by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 which was amended and recodified in 1983. The pertinent section of the law states: (c) The Secretary may approve a transportation program or project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and wildfowl refuge, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisidiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if - (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. The United State DOT has adopted regulations to guide implementation of this section of federal law. This regulation clarifies that the requirements of 4(f) apply only to historic properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) unless the Administration determines otherwise. The Colorado Department of Transportation is preparing this document as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) being prepared for Project STA 082A-008, Entrance to Aspen. The FHWA Regional administrator will be responsible for determining that this project meets the criteria and procedures set forth in this process. 2 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project ... ... 1.9 n n . 3- 3=1.-3 4 PHELIi,Ibirmi i PROPOSED ACTION The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to improve an approximately 3.2 kilometer (2 mile) segment of Colorado State Highway 82. The study corridor, which lies entirely in Pitkin County, Colorado, extends from the Buttermilk Ski Area (milepost 38.5) to the intersection of 7th and Main Streets on the west side of Aspen Onilepost 40.5). More detailed descriptions of the action under study, the purpose and the need for the improvement of State Highway 82, Entrance to Aspen are outlined in the preceding Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Refer to Section I for a statement of purpose and need, and Section III for a detailed discussion of the alternatives. The methodology for naming the alternatives is summarized below. Attached is a map identifying the alignment alternatives. All alternatives except the No-Action alternative would require some acquisition of Section 4(f) lands in the form of parklands, recreation areas, greenbelt, open space, or lands from historic properties which lie adjacent to existing State Highway 82. In this project, one recreation area, one trail system, four open space/park land (greenbelt) areas, six National Register listed or potentially eligible historic sites, three locally designated historic structures, and one locally designated historic district may be impacted by any improvement of State Highway 82. One of the historic sites is an historic ditch (the Marolt Ditch) which is currently being reviewed for an official determination of eligiblity for listing on the National Register. Figure S-2 from the DEIS identifies the general alignment alternatives evaluated in the DEIS and in this 4(f) evaluation. Section 4(f) and Locally Designated Historic Properties As discussed in Section IV and VI of the DEIS, 12 properties are potentially subject to Section 4(f) review because they may be impacted by alternatives under consideration for this project. In addition, three locally designated historic structures and a local historic district are also located in this project corridor. These locally designated historic structures and district are not subject to a 4(f) evaluation, but are evaluated in the DEIS. 3 m -nnorn na I Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project 4(f) PROPERTIES This section describes each of the properties eligible for 4(f) consideration. Figure 1 shows the location of each 4(f) resource. 1. Aspen Trail System - The Aspen Trail System includes 20 biking/hiking trails and 7 Nordic trails within the Aspen area. Within the State Highway 82 study corridor, the trail system includes approximately 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) of paved biking/hiking trail and 0.48 kilometers (0.3 miles) of gravel biking/hiking trail. The trails within this corridor include the Airport Business Center Trail, the High School Bike Path, the Marolt Trail, the Moore Nordic Trail, the Maroon Creek Nordic Trail, and the Thomas/Marolt Nordic Trail. The paved Airport Business Center trail runs along the north side of existing State Highway 82 from Milepoint 38.5 near the Buttermilk Ski Area into the City of Aspen. The High School Bike Path is along the south side of existing State Highway 82 from Milepoint 40.1 at Maroon Creek Road into the City of Aspen. The unpaved Marolt trail runs from the existing State Highway 82 at the Castle Creek bridge (Milepoint 40.4) and south along Castle Creek through the Marolt-Thomas property. The trails are used primarily for public recreation and receive extensive use during the summer tourist season for biking and hiking. They are also used in the winter for cross-country ski trails. The system is owned and maintained by the City of Aspen, but crosses private lands where easements have been obtained. 2. Zoline Ranch Open Space - The Zoline Open Space is located on the northwest side of the Maroon Creek Bridge at about Milepoint 39.2 This 18.2-hectare property (45 acres) on the north side of existing State Highway 82 was purchased by the City of Aspen for use as open space. The parcel of land currently has no recreation facilities or improvements located on the property. The Airport Business Trail passes through a portion of the propeny. 3. Aspen City Golf Course - The City Golf Course is a 63.1 hectare (156 acres) facility on the north side of existing State Highway 82. It stretches from the west end of the existing Maroon Creek Bridge to Cemetery Lane. The course is utilized primarily for public recreation, and receives extensive use during the summer tourist season and is used extensively by cross country skiers during the winter. The city also owns a soccer/baseball field that lies immediately northeast of the Maroon Creek Bridge and State Highway 82 and is part of the golf course property. This field, adjacent to the golf course on the west, is approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) in size and receives considerable public use for football, soccer, softball, and other seasonal activities. There are currently no plans to change the use of this area or expand the existing facilities. A ponion of the Aspen Trail System forms the southern boundary of the golf course in the vicinity of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space. 4. Moore Property Open Space - Pitkin County purchased the Moore property in 1992. for open space. The property is approximately 26.25 hectares (64.87 acres) and is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82. The space is a "passive park" with no plans to construct fields for active recreation. The property will be crossed by trails and there may be benches or picnic tables at various locations on the property. 4 t /+ I Â£/ t ' ~'. -'' ')j Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project r:: i i L. fit IG2 .1 uit:19*/ 6 V,: *dt.,4 1 JA ~-~ 11~&-mmwam.... 5. Marolt-Thomas Open Space - The City of Aspen presently owns a tract of land adjoining State Highway 82 on the south between Castle Creek and the Maroon Creek Road. This city- owned open space property (Marolt-Thomas) is a triangle-shaped piece of land consisting of approximately 29.9 hectares (74 acres). Also included on this site are two historical sites currently listed on the National Register of Historical Places: the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, which includes the local historical museum and the Colorado Midland Railroad grade. A third historic resource, the Marolt Ditch is currently being assessed for National Register eligibility. All are discussed below. The Marolt-Thomas property consists of land which was donated to or purchased by the City of Aspen to be kept and used as open space. The property is presently in pasture with portions of the site used for the Aspen Community Gardens. (A PUBLIC VOTE IS NECESSARY IF THE PROPERTY IS CONVERTED TO ANOTHER USE???) The land is skirted on its north, south, and east sides by sections of the Aspen Trail System. The majority of the parcel is intended for passive recreation with no recreational facilities or improvements (structures, ball fields, backstops) located on the property. The property is also used for para-sailing and hang gliding landings. A small section of the property on the south side near the Castle Creek Road has been developed for employee housing. 6. Bugsy Barnard Park - This park was created in 1971 and was part of the City's purchase of the Golf Course land. The park is approximately 0.81 hectares (2 acres), In 1993 it was upgraded to a more formal park with two ponds and an irrigation system. The park is named for Dr. Robert "Bugsy" Barnard, the mayor of Aspen from 1966 to 1970. 7. Maroon Creek Bridge - The historic Maroon Creek Bridge is located on State Highway 82, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) northwest of the center of Aspen. The bridge, built in 1888 by the Colorado Midland Railroad, was converted to automobile use in 1929. The structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as one of the last remaining metal multiple-span high railroad trestles in Colorado. 8. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - The historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex is located on approximately 3.2 hectares (8 acres) on what is now called the Marolt-Thomas Open Space owned by the City of Aspen. Although most of the buildings have been torn down, there are potentially significant archeological remains of the mill structure on the east end of the site: the salt warehouse has been cut in half, but is still in its original location; the sampling works building (barn) has been altered on the interior, but still retains most of its original exterior appearance; and the office building, now known as the Marolt House, was significantly remodeled by the Marolts but is still in its original location. This complex was constructed in 1891 and purchased by the Marolts in the 1930's. The site has been listed on the National Register for its association with the mining history in Aspen, as one of the few remaining structures from the industrial aspects of Aspen's mining history, and because the site is likely to yield archaeological information about the smelting and mining industry in Aspen. 5 Â¤ - 7 -7. r1 f.-1 Â· 04% Met Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project ELI htli, .Fllf 9. Marolt Ditch - This ditch, using water from Castle Creek, crosses the Marolt-Thomas Open Space from the southeast, passing around the Marolt House before turning north toward the golf course and eventually reaching the Roaring Fork River. It was constructed in approximately 1902 for irrigation purposes; A. E. Carlton, owner of the Colorado Midland Railroad, owned and operated this property during that time for cattle ranching. The Marolt family took possession of the land in the 1930's, maintaining the ditch for irrigation purposes for their farming and ranching operation. Survey forms are being prepared in order to help determine the eligibility of the ditch to the National Register of Historic Places and subsequent review under Section 106 and 4(f). 10. Colorado Midland Railroad - The Colorado Midland Railroad arrived in Aspen in 1887, a month after the Denver and Rio Grande. Very little of the railroad grade remains in Pitkin County, as the majority was obliterated by the construction of State Highway 82. One short segment remains intaqt from the junction of Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82 to the Aspen city limits, crossing through approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres) of the Marolt-Thomas property. The line is eligible for the National Register as the first standard gauge railroad to penetrate the Rockies, and for its association with Jerome Wheeler and the early railroad history in Colorado. 11. Castle Creek Power Plant - The Castle Creek Power Plant is located in Castle Creek Canyon on approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of land, just below and to the north of the existing State Highway 82 Castle Creek Bridge. It was constructed in 1893. Known originally as the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Plant Number 2, the building is a two story, brick warehouse type building with a gabled roof and is now owned by the City of Aspen. It is eligible for listing on the National Register for its association with three of Aspen's most significant individuals (H.P. Cowenhoven, D.R.C. Brown, and James H. Deveraux) and as only the second commercially run hydroelectric plant in the country. 12. 920 West Hallam - This historic privately owned house is located on the north side of existing State Highway 82 on approximately 0.08 hectares (0.2 acres) of land just east of the Castle Creek Bridge within the Aspen city limits. The small, one story, wood house, built about 1888, is eligible for listing on the National Register as a good example of the typical late 19th century miner's cottage. IMPACTS TO SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES A description of impacts to the 4(f) properties identified is presented below and is summarized in Table A-1. The comments of the SHPO regarding the effects of each alternative on each historic property is also included. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has also been asked to comment on the impacts to both the 4(f) and locally designated historic properties. A full description of the alternatives evaluated for the Entrance To Aspen can be found in Section III of the DES. All build alternatives under consideration impact 4(f) properties to some extent. Refer to Figure S-2 for a description of the alternatives under consideration. 6 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project ~*~ rn,Lim:.t Table A-1 Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources Project Corridor Segment Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Maroon Creek Road to 4(f) Resource Road 7th and Main Street Alternative 23BCDEF 1) Aspen Trail Bike path Bike path Bike path Bike path Bike path Bike path Bike path System take:831 take: 837 take: 611 take: 565 take: 610 take: 561 take: 610 meters. meters. meters. meters. meters. meters. meters. 0.25 ha 026 ha 0.19 ha 0.17 ha 0.19 ha. 0.17 ha 0.19 ha (0.63 ac) (0.63 ac) (0.46 ac) (0.42 ac) (O.46 ac) (0.42 ac) (0A6 ac) Induded in Included in Indudedin Induded in Included in Included in Induded in #2,#3,&#4 #2,#3,&#4 #5 below #5 below #5 below #5 below #5 below below below 2) Zoline Open Space 1.2 ha 1.4 ha NA N/A NA IVA N/A (18.2 ha [45.0 ac]) (3.0 ac) (3.5 ac) 3) Aspen Golf 1.2 ha 1.4 ha 141/A IVA N/A N/A NA Course (85.0 ha (3,0 ac) (3.5 ac) [210.0 ac]) 4) Moore Open 0.6 ha 0.9 ha 14/A NA N/A 14/A N/A Space (1.6 ac) (2.4 ac) (26.3 ha [64.9 ac]) 5) Marolt-Thomas N/A IVA 1.2 ha 2.6 ha 2.9 ha 2.6 ha 2.9 ha Open Space (3.0 ac) (6.5 ac) (15 a4 (6.5 ac) (7.3 aâ‚¬1 00.1 ha [74.26 ac]) returns 0.8 ha returns 0.9 ha (2.0 ac) to (22 ac) to open space open space 6) Bugsy Barnard N/A N/A No impact NA NA N/A NA Park (0.81 ha [2.0 ac]) 7) Maroon Creek No Impact No Impact N/A N/A N/A NA N/A Bridge 8) Holden Smelting NA N/A N/A 0.22 ha 0.30 ha 0.22 ha 0.30 ha & Milling Complex (0.53 ac) (0.73 ac) (0.53 ac) (0.73 ac) (3.2 ha [8.0 ac] induded in #5 induded in #5 induded in #5 induded in #5 included in #5 above) above; above; above; above; potential potential potential potential historic historic historic historic archaeology archaeology archaeology archaeology and visual and visual and visual and visual impacts impacts impact impacts 9) Marolt Ditch NA N/A 32.0 m 32.0 m 39.6 m 32.0 m 39.6 m (100 ft) (100 ft) (130 ft) (100 ft) (130 ft) 7 141 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project ~1 il 1 1 " . 1 . r â€ž& .â€ž,Im :w~kA k: 10) Colorado IVA '9 0.13 ha 0.13 ha 0.17 ha 0.13 ha 0.17 ha* Midland Railroad (0.32 ac) (0.32 ac) (0.42 ac) (0.32 ac) (0.42 ac) (1.6 ha [4.0 ac] included in #5 above) 11) Castle Creek NA N/A No impact WA N/A .NA N/A Power Plant (0.6 ha [1.5 ac]) 12) 920 Hallam St. N/A N/A No impact N/A N/A N/A NA (0.1 ha [0.2 ac] ) NOTE: 1 hectare (ha) = 2.471 acres (ac) 1 meter On) = 3.281 feet (ft) 1. Aspen Trail System - Within the Buttermilk Ski Area to Maroon Creek Road section, there are three alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), there would be no direct impacts to the Aspen Trail System, and therefore no Section 4(f) involvement. However, under the other two alternatives evaluated in the DEIS, impacts to the trail system occur. Alternative 2 results in a take of approximately 768 meters (2518 feet) from the Airport Business Trail; 26 meters (85 feet) from the Moore Nordic Trail; and 37 meters (120 feet) from the Maroon Creek Nordic Trail. Alternative 3 requires approximately 774 meters (2538 feet) of the Airport Business Center Trail; 26 meters (85 feet) from the Moore Nordic Trail; and 37 meters (120 feet) from the Maroon Oeek Nordic Trail. Within the Maroon Creek Road to 7th Street and Main Street section, there are six alternatives. Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A), there would be no direct impacts to the Aspen Trail System, and therefore no Section 4(f) involvement. However, under the remaining five alternatives, impacts to the trail system occur. Alternative B requires a 611 meter (2005 feet) take from the High School Bike Path. There would be no other impacts to the trail system. Alternatives C and E would require taking 311 meters (1020 feet) from the High School Bike Path; 102 meters (335 feet) from the Marolt Trail; and 152 meters (500 feet) from the Thomas/Marolt Nordic Trail. Alternatives D and F would require taking 320 meters (1050 feet) from the High School Bike Path; 126 meters (415 feet) from the Marolt Trail; and 164 (540 feet) from the Thomas/Marolt Nordic Trail. 2. Zoline Open Space - Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), there would be no direct impacts to the Zoline Open Space, and therefore, no Section 4(f) involvement. The impacts to this open space would be only slightly different under the two Build alternatives. The improvements under Alternative 2 would result in a take of approximately 1.2 hectares (3 acres) from a total of 45 acres designated as open space for the City of Aspen. Under Alternative.3, the take would be 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres). The area needed for right-of-way is currently undeveloped open space. The take is necessary to construct a new bridge north of the existing Maroon Creek Bridge in order to leave this National Register historic bridge in place as a pedestrian or transit crossing of Maroon Creek. 8 ...Â·.~Â·.-,El LIE*:14.- VI'.:+1'1 14(.4..,.t Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project 561 WWO atik, Ls Â·Â·Â·A Â·j.. 9 L 3. Aspen City Golf Course- There will be no direct impacts to the Aspen City Golf Course under the No-Action Alternative; therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. The impacts to the golf course would be similar under the two Build alternatives. The widening under Alternative 2 would result in a total take of approximately 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) from a total of 120 acres. Of the total take, 0.4 hectares (0.9 acres) would be from a developed playing field, located immediately east of the Maroon Creek Bridge. Approximately 0.8 hectares (2.1 acres) are currently undeveloped golf course propert or are in the Maroon Creek channel. Alternative 3 would require a total take of 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres). Of the total take, approximately 0.9 hectares (2.4 acres) are currently undeveloped golf course property or are in the Maroon Creek channel. The area needed for right-of-way that is currently used for recreation 0.5 hectares (1.1 acres), is a playing field, located immediately east of the Maroon Creek drainage. This take would be necessary to construct a new bridge north of the existing Maroon Oeek Bridge in order to leave this National Register historic bridge in place as a pedestrian crossing of Maroon Oeek. The Maroon Creek Bridge is discussed below. 4. Moore Open Space - Under the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), there would be no direct impacts to the Moore Open Space, and therefore, no Section 4(f) involvement. The widening under Alternative 2 would result in a take of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.6 acres) from a total of 26.25 hectares (64.87 acres) designated as open space for the City of Aspen. Under Alternative 3, the take would be 0.9 hectares (2.4 acres). The area needed for right-of-way is currently undeveloped openÂ· space. 5. Marolt-Thomas Open Space - There would be no direct impacts to the Marolt-Thomas property under Alternative A (No-Action), therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) involvement Under Alternatives B, C, D, E, F the existing highway would be improved, requiring acquisition of various amounts of land from the 74.26 acre open space property. Alternatives C and E would require 50 meters (164 feet) of total right-of-way width and Alternatives D and F would require 56 meters (184 feet). Alternative B would result in a take of approximately 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) of right-of-way from the designated open space. Alternative C would result in a take of approximately 2.6 hectares (6.5 acres) of open space. Approximately 2.9 hectares (7.3 acres) would be taken from the property under Alternative D, while 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres), ( of which .8 ha will be returned to open space) would be required under Alternative E. Finally, 2.0 hectares (5.1 acres), of which 0.9 ha would be returned to open space would be taken under Alternative F. All of these numbers include right-of-way takes from the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex as well as the Colorado Midland Railroad,Â· which are discussed below. Since this open space is undeveloped, there would be no loss of facilities or functions, however, this would result in a visual and audible intrusion on the open space site. 6. Bugsy Barnard Park - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), B, C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this park. Therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. 9 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project 7 -m - LE u #1CLI I... JW&(WaV 7. Maroon Creek Bridge - Under Alternative 1 (No-Action) there would be no direct impact to the historic Maroon Creek Bridge; therefore there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. Under the two build alternatives, the bridge would stay in place and a new bridge would be built to the north. The new bridge would be 220 meters (720 feet) long and would curve toward the historic bridge on the east side. It would be approximately (30 feet) away from the historic bridge at the closest point on the east side and approximately (60 feet) at the closest point on the west side. Alternative 3 would place a transit envelope along the corridor in one of two places. One option would be to place the transit envelope on the new bridge and push the new bridge farther to the north, leaving the distance between the two bridges the same as discussed above. The other option is to place the transit corridor on the existing historic bridge. This would not, however, result in a taking of the historic resource. Should additional structural supports be necessary to strengthen the historic bridge for transit purposes, the SHPO reserves the right to review and approve the alterations prior to making a final determination of no adverse Â·effect. Because the historic bridge will remain in place, there will be no taking. Adaptive reuse of the bridge as a pedestrian or transit crossing of Maroon Creek does not constitute a 4(f) take or a constructive use because neither of these uses would substantially impair the integrity of the historic resource. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect to the historic bridge under these two alternatives, conditional upon review and approval for compatibility of the design of the new bridge. 8. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - Alternative A (No-Action) and B (Existing Alignment) would have no direct impacts to the historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, so there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. Under Alternatives C, D, E and F, the new alignment would traverse the property and have a direct impact on the historic resource. Under Alternatives C and E, the total take would be approximately 0.3 hectares (0.73 acres) of the historic site (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) for construction. Although no buildings would be removed, areas of the site where industrial debris of archaeological interest could be located could be disturbed by the new paved roadway. The proposed edge of highway pavement passes within (280 feet) of the Holden office building (Marolt House), within (135 feet) of the sampling works building which houses the Aspen Museum, and within (280 feet) of the salt warehouse. The edge of the 50 meter (164-foot) right-of-way width extends to within (230 feet) of the Marolt House, (85 feet) of the sampling building, and (230 feet) of the salt warehouse. Under Alternatives D and F, the total take would be approximately 0.3 hectares (0.73 acres) of the historic site (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) for construction. Although no buildings would be removed, areas of the site where industrial debris of archaeological interest could be located could be disturbed by the new paved roadway and the separate transit envelope. 10 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project 4- - 4&- 0 0 Ed fu n 1-1 -1 - 6 W. li "LI- fi kilk ~ The proposed edge of highway pavement passes within (260 feet) of the Holden office building (Marolt House), within (115 feet) of the sampling works building, and within (260 feet) of the salt warehouse. The edge of the 50 meter (164-foot) right-of-way width extends to within (210 feet) of the Marolt House, (65 feet) of the sampling building, and (210 feet) of the salt warehouse. The SHPO has determined that there would be an adverse effect to this resource under Alternatives C, D, E and F. The SHPO has requested that CDOT consider the following two alternatives, which they state would avoid an adverse effect: 1) shift the pavement edge to the north to entirely miss the National Historic District (NHD) boundary, and 2) extend the length of the cut and cover past the NHD to directly connect with the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. The two alternatives would be determined a no adverse effect, subject to berm and landscape review and approval. In addition, the SHPO is requiring a on-site historic archaeological survey be conducted within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) within the boundaries of the National Historic District. 9. Marolt Ditch - This resource is currently being evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Under Alternatives A (No-Action), there would be no impact to the ditch. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F impact the ditch slightly, by requiring the existing culvert to be extended the width of the improved roadway 32 to 39.6 meters. The SHPO has determined that, even if this resource is determined to be eligible, there will be no significant effect to the resource. 10. Colorado Midland Railroad - Under the No-Action (Alternative A), there would be no direct impacts to the remaining segment of the historic railroad grade on the Marolt-Thomas property. However, under the five build alternatives, a small portion of the total 1.6 hectares (4 acre) railroad grade (included in the Marolt-Thomas open space land) would be lost to right-of- way acquisition. Alternatives B, C and E would use 0.13 hectares (0.32 acres) of the historic railroad grade. Alternatives D and F would require a take of 0.1 (0.42 acres). The SHPO has determined that this loss would not effect the historic resource under the five build alternatives. 11. Castle Creek Power Plant - There would be no direct impact to the historic Castle Creek Power Plant under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E and F because the existing bridge would remain as a local access route in its present configuration. Under Alternative B, the existing bridge would be widened to the south. The plant building is well below the elevation of the bridge deck and would not be physically affected, and the widened bridge would not intrude visually on the site. In addition, these impacts do not constitute a constructive use of the property since there will be no imposition on the site of the power plant since the SHPO has determined that there will be no effect on the historic site with Alternate B. Pier placement would not result in a 40 use of land from the historic site because they would be placed well to the south of the property. Therefore, there will be no 4(f) involvement with this historic resource. The SHPO has determined that there would be no effect to the historic site under Alternative B. 11 -rr=m OmmliAflsâ‚¬03.7 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project E 'IL'-11,111.0 'n w 12. 920 West Hallam Street - Under Alternatives A (No-Action), C, D, E, and F there would be no direct impact to this historic house. Therefore, there would be no Section 4(f) involvement. Alternative B would not require right-of-way acquisition from this property. The structure itself would not be affected, and the distance between the house and the edge of pavement, currently 40 feet, would not be reduced. There are not expected to be visual impacts created by a wider highway because the roadway is already four lanes at this location. However, due to a potential grade difference of approximately three feet, a modest retaining wall and railing may be required to be installed along the pavement edge. This activity constitutes 4(f) involvement with this historic resource. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect on this historic resource under Alternative B, subject to their review and approval of the proposed retaining wall and railing design. STATE HIGHWAY 82 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES Resources protected under 4(f) may not be taken unless there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the use of such land and the program or project must include all planning to minimize harm tot he 4(f) resource. This section evaluates measures and alternatives that may be available to avoid impacts to each property evaluated under 4(f). 1. Aspen Trail System - Only the No-Action Alternatives would avoid taking right-of-way from the Aspen Trail System. Construction of any of the build alternatives would result in losses from 0.17 hectares (0.42 acres) to 0.26 hectares (0.63 acres) from the trail system. Because the trail system travels west to east and is parallel to State Highway 82 on the north side, the relocation of SH 82 to the north between Buttermilk Ski Area and the entrance to Aspen would result in greater takes of both the trail system and the City Golf Course. Shifting the alignment to the south would result in more severe impacts to the Marolt-Thomas open space, Moore Open Space, the Â·historic Colorado Midland Railroad grade for all Build alternatives. Shifting the alignment to the south would also impact the High School Bike Path between Maroon Creek Road and the Marolt Trail for Alternatives A and B. Therefore, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives that meet the purpose and need of this project which avoid impacting the Aspen Trail System without impacting other 4(f) properties. 12 =J/i;//ti.t'1%131%03!m'm Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project -- ~ rl - 9 / Ap p PRELIMit. Â£/ 2 U Ld ~ 0 2. Zoline Open Space - Only Alternative 1, the No-Action, would avoid taking right-of-way from the Zoline Open Space. Construction of any of the remaining two build alternatives in this area would result in the loss of approximately 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) to 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres). The location of the new Maroon Creek bridge, the need to avoid encroachment on the existing historic bridge, and the presence of (HOW MANY?) commercial and residential properties south of existing SH 82 near this bridge make acquisition of right-of-way from the southeast portion of this open space the most prudent alternative. Therefore, there are no prudent alternatives under all Build alternatives that meet the purpose and need of this project which would avoid taking land from this recreational property. 3. Aspen City Golf Course - Only Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative would avoid taking right-of-way from the Aspen City Golf Course. Construction of any of the remaining two build alternatives in this area would result in the loss of approximately 1.2 hectares 0.0 acres) to 1.4 hectares (3.5 acres) from the golf course. The location of the new Maroon Creek Bridge, the need to avoid encroachment on the existing historic bridge, and the presence of (HOW MANY?) commercial and residential properties south of existing SH 82 near this bridge make acquisition of right-of-way from the southwest portion of the golf course the most prudent approach. Therefore, there are no prudent alternatives to avoiding the Aspen City Golf Course under all Build alternatives that meet the purpose and need of this project. 4. Moore Property Open Space - Only Alternative 1, the No-Action, would avoid taking right- of-way from the Moore Property Open Space. Construction of any of the remaining two build alternatives in this area would result in the loss of approximately 0.6 hectares (1.6 acres) to 0.9 hectares (2.4 acres) from the Moore Property Open Space. Shifting this alignment to the south would result in a greater take of the Moore Open Space property and shifting to the north would require additional takes from the Aspen Golf Course property. Therefore, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives under any Build alternatives that meet the purpose and need of this project. 5. Marolt-Thomas Open Space - Alternative A, the No-Action, is the only alternative which avoids Section 4(f) land in this area. Under the five build alternatives, acquisition of Section 4(f) land varies from 1.2 hectares (3 acres) to 2.9 hectares (7.3 acres). Shifting the alignment of Alternatives A and B to the south would result in a greater take of of the Marolt-Thomas Open Space and the High School Bike Path. A shift to the north would create design problems in reaching the Main Street connection within the Aspen city limits at an acceptable design standard for the alignment and approach curves. Shifting the alignment of Alternatives C,D,E and F to the north a sufficient distance to avoid the Marolt-Thomas Open Space is not feasible since this open space property extends north beyond the city limits of Aspen. Therefore, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives that meet the purpose and need of this project that avoid the taking of open space. 6.Bugsy Barnard Park - There will be no 4(f) involvement with this property since no property will be taken by any alternative. 13 11 1 Mt) Efll :... . : 9 U Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project . I L. .. Iiâ€¢ h I 11 U U U 7. Maroon Creek Bridge - The No-Action alternative is the only alternative that will not impact this bridge. Alternative B will effect this bridge since a new bridge will be constructed to the north of this structure. This Alternative will include either a transit envelope on the new structure, or use the existing structure for a transit purposes. In either case there will be 4(f) involvement with this property under Alternative B that cannot be avoided since there will be a visual impact from the new structure on the current structure. 8. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - Alternatives A and B would avoid taking land from this historic property. A take would be necessary under Alternatives C, D, E and F. Within these four alternatives, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives to taking Section 4(f) land. Shifting the alignment to the south would result in a greater impact on the historic property. A reduced highway right-of-way would still impact the historic site and would not meet the needs of the project or be acceptable to the local residents and local government. Shifting the alignment to the north to avoid this property is feasible, however, such a shift would move the alignment closer to a residential complex opposite Castle Creek (The Villas) off units. DOCUMENT) Shifting of the alignment to the north to avoid taking this resource will be further evaluated through the EIS process. 9. Marolt Ditch - Alternative A, the No-Action, is the only alternative which avoids effecting this potential Section 4(f) property. Under all build alternatives, an extension of the existing culvert under SH82 will occur. The SHPO has provided a preliminary indication that should the ditch be determined eligible for listing on the National Register, the extension of the culven will not be an adverse effect on this resource. There is no feasible or prudent alternative that avoids an impact on this property that meets the purpose and need of* this project since this is linear resource that must be crossed with any build alternaitve. 10. Colorado Midland Railroad - There would be no Section 4(f) involvement under Alternative A, the No-Action alternative. The remaining five build alternatives all require a minor take of the railroad grade near the intersection of Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82. Under these alternatives, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives. Shifting the alignment to the north would result in a greater take of the City Golf Course located on the north side of existing State Highway 82. Shifting farther to the south would result in a greater loss of the historic railroad grade and more severe impact to Marolt-Thomas open space. Therefore, there are no prudent and feasible alternatives within these alternatives which would avoid taking Section 4(f) land and meet the purpose and need of this project. 11. Castle Creek Power Plant - There will be no 4(f) involvement with this historic resource. 12. 920 West Hallam - There would be no Section 4(f) involvement under Alternative A, the No-Action alternative or Alternatives C,D,E, or F. Alternative B would impact this property since an approximately three foot high retaining wall must be constructed due to grade differences between the new alignment and the property. 14 r:121*INWIA,.Ill Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project . r.. 7. '--' -1 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM All properties protected by 4(f) that are impacted by *a federal transportation project must include all possible planning to minimize harm the property if they cannot be avoided by a feasible or prudent alternative. Table A-2 identifies the potentially available measures for each property impacted by a proposed alternative. There is no alternative which mitigates impacts to one or more of the 4(f) properties in this area without affecting the other propenies as they are located north and south of existing State Highway 82 and abut proposed alignment for all alternatives with new alignments under consideration. This section discusses potential measures to mitigate the impacts of each alternative under consideration on each effected 4(f) property. 1. Aspen Trail System - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4(f) property will include: - Designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width to avoid taking part of the trail. - If the trail cannot be avoided, it will be relocated along (ON?) highway right-of-way. - CDOT and FHWA also make the commitment to relocate and replace all existing trails impacted by this highway construction project. 2. Zoline Open Space - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4 (f) property will include: - Designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway property back to the City of Aspen as open space. - Although not required, CDOT will make every reasonable effon to replace any lost park or open space land or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parks or open space land. 15 lai Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project i t.219â€¢mv.Wâ€¢â€¢Au2 3. Aspen City Golf Course - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4 (f) property will include: - Designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway property back to the City of Aspen as open space. - Although not required, CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost park or open space land or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parks or open space land. 4. Moore Property Open Space - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4 (f) property will include: - Designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway property back to the Pitkin County as open space. - Although not required, CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost park or open space land or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parks or open space land. 5. Marolt-Thomas Open Space - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4(f) property will include: - Designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway property back to the City of Aspen as open space. - Although not required, CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost park or open space land or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parks or open space land. 6. Bugsy Barnard Park - There will be no 4(f) involvement. 7. Maroon Creek Bridge - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4(f) property include: - The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility of the new bridge structure included in Alternative B. - If the Maroon Creek bridge is used for transit purposes and requires some structural modification, a photographic record, plans and drawings of the bridge before and after modification will be provided to the SHPO. With this mitigation the SHPO has determined that there will be no significant effect to this bridge. 16 Rn - p.1 0 F I ; J r : Â· ; i i i 1 j i Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project 8. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - Shifting the pavement edge to the north a sufficient distance to miss the National Historic District the State Historical Preservation Office has determined that there would be no adverse effect to this property. If the pavement edget cannot be shifted to the north, a Memorandum of Agreement between the SHPO, CDOT, FHWA and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be executed prior to construction to mitigate the adverse effects of Alternatives C, D, E and F. Possible mitigation measures might include: - conducting a historic archaeological survey and monitoring during construction, - slight reductions in right-of-way width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, - extension of the cut and cover to the bridge abutment (structural delineation) under alternatives E and F, and - SHPO review and approval of berm design and landscaping plans that partially screen buildings on the property from the highway under alternative C and D. 9. Marolt Ditch - Efforts to minimize harm to this potential Section 4(f) property will include: - designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width where it crosses the ditch. With this mitigation the SHPO has determined that there will be no adverse effect to this property. 10. Colorado Midland Railroad - Efforts to minimize harm to this Section 4(f) property will include: - designing the "preferred alternative" with the least possible right-of-way width for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, and avoidance of railroad right-of-way wherever possible. With this mitigation the SHPO has determined that there will be no adverse effect to this property. 11. Castle Creek Power Plant - There will be no 4(f) involvement. 17 '111 92> ---% r,-- r. [~3. :1-11 if- M 0 F. 71 fl f;\ n "7 - Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project ----j b..6 W 12. 920 West Hallam - Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: - SHPO review and approval of the proposed retaining wall and railing required under Alternative B. With this mitigation the SHPO has determined that there will be no adverse effect to this property. In addition to the mitigation strategies listed in this document, CDOT and FHWA will continue to take all steps necessary to reduce and minimize impacts to the 4(f) properties listed in this document These mitigation opportunities will come during actual design of the highway facility in each alternative section and may include construction and replacement of sidewalks and appropriate landscaping between Castle Oeek and 7th Ave and assuring design of the preferred alternative is architecturally and environmentally consistent with the surrounding landscape. COORDINATION This project and all alternatives under consideration have been coordinated over the past two years with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and other agencies responsible for administration of 4(f) properties within the State Highway 82 study corridor. In addition to the public meetings, several smaller coordination meetings have been held with Pitkin County and the City of Aspen representatives to explain the project's Alternatives and impacts in greater detail. Informal meeting with SHPO staff to discuss the alternatives and the impacts on 4(f0 properties have been held. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission has been asked to comment on the impact of the alternatives on both properties on or eligible for inclusion on the Federal Register and locally designated historic sites. 18 Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project FIL-. i L6 ...,2~.AL Table A-2 Proposed Mitigations to Section 4(f) Resources 4(0 Resource Proposed Mitigation 1) Aspen Trail System Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way width to avoid taking part of the trail. If the trail cannot be avoided, it Will be relocated. 2) Zoline Open Space Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway (18.2 ha [45.0 ac]) property back to the City of Aspen as open space. CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost parkland or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parkland. 3) Aspen Golf Course Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway (85.0 ha [210.0 ac]) property back to the City of Aspen as open space. CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost parkland or compensate the City. of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parkland. 4) Moore Open Space Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway (26.3 ha [64.9 ac]) property back to the City of Aspen as open space. CDOT will make every reasonable effort to replace any lost parkland or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parkland. 5) Marolt-Thomas Open Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way Space width and/or selecting an alternative that would return some highway propeny back to the City of Aspen as open space. CDOT will make (30.1 ha [8.0 ac]) every reasonable effort to replace any lost parkland or compensate the City of Aspen for the reasonable cost of purchasing replacement parkland. 6) Bugsy Barnard Park There will be no *f) involvement. (0.81 ha [2.0 ac]) 7) Maroon Creek The SHPO will be provided opportunity to comment on the architectural Bridge compatibility of the design of the new structure in Alt. B. A photo record, design plans and drawings will be provided to the SHPO if existing bridge is modified in anyway to accomodate transit. 19 Fil Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Project in EN" rÂ·--â€¢ r Â· i. h PhELI hz ki Ilip' Ah 8) Holden Smelting & A shift of the pavement edge to miss the NHD will be evaluated. If this Milling Complex shift is not feasible or prudent, prior to Construction of State Highway 82 improvements, a Memorandum of Agreement between the SHPO, (3.2 ha [8.0 ac]) CDOT, FHWA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will Included in #5 above be executed to mitigate the adverse effects of Alternatives C, D, E, and F. Possible mitigation measures might include conducting a historic archaeological survey, slight reductions in right-of-way width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, extending the cut and cover to the bridge portal, and SHPO review and. approval of berm design and landscaping plans that partially screen buildings on the property from the highway. 9) Marolt Ditch Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way width where it crosses the ditch. 10) Colorado Midland Designing the preferred alternative with the least possible right-of-way Railroad width for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, and avoidance of railroad right-of-way wherever possible. (1.6 ha [ 4.0 ac]) Included in #5 above 11) 'Castle Creek There will be no *f) involvement. Power Plant (0.6 ha [1.5 ac]) 12) 920 Hallam Street SHPO review and approval of the proposed retaining wall and railing which may be required under Alternative B. (0.1 ha [0.2 ac]) 20 ENRANCE TO ASPEN E15 580110N 4( D PR0FERTIE5 EPEN 11all. 5Y51EM N * 0 LELEAP: TIEHACK 4 '4 ------- *PEN l'w. 5Â¥3!EM :' JL SKI AREA -, - 1 = 1- "1 OPEN 5F,ai PIUmY ir O terancpzopmY E--*EE*MMMWIR/E/--- ' --..4 '' NOre SOLE : -EEEBE'efiff..F..-----21/imil~#84 f14 11 000 'ROUW. f -/EaililiEEME,/-5lpillifimilill-Immi//:E/~ili~ililli4 3(LA F.3 Pl]55Y PARNARP PARK i =N 90%)2 : - S \1 11 1 , - - 4\\ ; <CA511.E CIEEK POWER 0 1 - I , It ./ A 920 HALLAM - - 9 9 - / 854 HALLAM ---1-- --I --- , , 1 0 0 1 I. XEEE- .... - -fl ' . 4,'': .... - PEI?212(APINP-h L 1 11-5. 22/ 1 -0 0 - 734 W. MAI'i~~ /-7 ,1 - 000 NEUW - - 414#-STREET-- - 0. 0/-- m)@Ppo c t'.-\, \, - CITY OF 1 /0, . ; . t cr-- '*-' 1 . I / : ASPEN 0- 1 i /1 1 / 1 i 4 : i < r--' MALOr-'iHOWS ' 1 :.....: : OmASPKE ------ N < WUUEN5Na,%& \ FO; / / -1 MUING COMPLEX \ ki \ . 0 :l , 0 / /1 ; 02 1 R t 0 29, . 1 +t \1 l\1< 6/ **3:-00 r Entrance to Aspen EIS Zoline Ranch Open Space - The Zoline Open converted to automobile use in 1929. It is listed just below the exiting State Highway 82 Castle Space is located at the northwest side of the on the National Register of Historic Places as Creek Bridge. Known originally as the Roaring Section 4(f) Property Descriptions Maroon Creek Bridge at about Milepoint 39.2. one of the last remaining metal multiple-span Fork Electric Light and Power Plant Number 2, This 18.2-hectare property (45 acres) on the high railroad trestles. the building is a two-story, brick warehouse type north side of existing State Highway 82 was building with a gabled roof and is now publicly Section 4(f) properties are publicly-owned lands purchased by the City of Aspen for use as open Holden Smelting and Milling Complex - The owned. It is eligible for the National Register for parks cr recreation areas, wildlife or space. This parcel of land has no recreational historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex is for its association with three of Aspen's mogt waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, facilities located on the property and remains located on approximately 3.2 hectares (8 acres) significant individuals (H.P. Cowenhoven, D.R.C. state, or local significant. Use of 4(f) lands for unimproved to date. There is currently a on what is now called the Marolt-Thomas Open Brown, and James H. Deveraux) and as the a highway project can only be approved if: (1) proposal to place part of a new golf course on Space owned by the City of Aspen. Although second commercially run hydroelectric plant in there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the this land. most of the buildings have been torn down, there the country. It was constructed in 1893. use of such lands, and (2) the project includes all are significant remains of the mill structure on possible planning to minimize harm to the land Aspen Citv Golf Course - The City Golf Course the east end of the site; the salt warehouse has 920 West Hallam - This privately owned house resulting from the encroachment. is a 48.6-hectare (120-acre) facility on the north been cut in half, but is still in its original is located on the north side of existing State side of existing State Highway 82. It stretches location; the sampling works building (barn) has Highway 82 on approximately 0.08 hectares (0.2 Thirteen properties subject to Section 4(f) review from the west end of the existing Maroon Creek been altered in the interior, but still retins most acres) of land just east of Castle Creek Bridge may be impacted by the alternatives under Bridge to Cemetery Lane. The course is utilized of its original appearance; and the office within the Aspen city limits. The small, one- consideration for this project, and eleven are primarily for public recreation, and receives building, now known as the Marolt House, was story wood house, built around 1888, is eligible described here, The other two properties, Bugsy extensive use during the summer tourist season. significantly remodeled by the Marolt family, but for the National Register as an unaltered example Barnard Park and 834 West Hallam, are still The City also owns a new soccer/baseball field is still in its original location. The site has been of the late 19th century miner's cottage. being researched. that lies immediately northeast of the Maroon listed on the National Register for its association Creek Bridge and State Highway 82 and is part with the mining history in Aspen, as one of the Bereer Cabin - This privately-owned residence, Aspen Trail Svstem - The Aspen Trail System of the golf course property. This field, adjacent few remaining structures from the industrial located at 835 Main Street, is on the western includes 20 biking/hiking trails and 7 Nordic to the golf course on the west, is approximately aspects of Aspen's mining history, and because edge of the City limits, on approximately 0.47 trails within the Aspen area. Within the State 1.2 hectares 0 acres) in size and receives the site is likely to yield archaeological hectares (1.16 acres). The three-room, one story Highway 82 study corridor, the tril system considerable public use for football, soccer, information about the smelting and mining cabin was built in 1947 by local architect Fritz includes approximately 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) softball, and other seasonal activities. industry in Aspen. Benedict, who studies with Frank Lloyd Wright of paved biking/hiking trail and 0.48 kilometers The cabin is not considered eligible to either the (0.3 miles) of gravel biking/hiking trail. The Marolt-Thomas Open Soace - The City of Colorado Midland Railroad - The Colorado National or State Registers of Historic Places paved trail runs along the north side of existing Aspen presently owns a tract of land adjoining Midland Railroad arrived in Aspen in 1887, a because it does not meet the age criteria of 50 State Highway 82 from Milepoint 37.9 near the State Highway 82 on the south between Castle month after the Denver and Rio Grand Railroad. years old and is not considered to be Airport Business Center, into the City of Aspen, Creek and the Maroon Creek Road. The City- Very little of the railroad grade remains in Pitkin exceptionally significant. However, the cabin and along the south side of existing State owned open space property to the south of State County, as the majority was obliterated by the has been designated as a local historic landmarkÂ® Highway 82 from Milepoint 40.1 at Maroon Highway 82 (Marolt-Thomas) is a triangle- construction of State Highway 82. One short Creek Road into the City of Aspen. The shaped piece of land consisting of approximately segment remains intact from the junction of Moore Property Open Space - Pitkin County unpaved trail runs from the existing State 29.9 hectares 04 acres). Also included on this Maroon Creek Road and State Highway 82 to recently purchased the Moore property for open Highway 82 at the Castle Creek Bridge site are two historical sites: the Holden Smelting the Aspen city limits, crossing through space. The property is approximately 26.25 (Milepoint 40.4) and south along Castle Creek and Milling Complex, and the Colorado Midland approximately 1.6 hectares (4 acres) of the hectares (64.87 acres) and is located on the through the Marolt-Thomas property. The trail Railroad grade. The property is presently in Marolt-Thomas property. The line is eligible for northwest corner of the intersection of Maroon is used primarily for public recreation and pasture land with a portion of the site used for the National Register as the first standard gauge Creek Road and State Highway 82. The space is receives extensive use during the summer tourist the Aspen Community Garden. railroad to penetrate the Rockies, and for its anticipated to be a "passive park" witb. no plans season as a biking and hiking trail. It is also association with Jerome Wheeler and the early to construct man-made fields or active recreation. used in the winter as a cross-country ski trail. Maroon Creek BridEe - The historic Maroon railroad history in Colorado. The property will be crossed by trails and there The system is owned and maintained by the City Creek Bridge is located on State Highway 82, may be benches or picnic tables at various of Aspen, but crosses private lands where approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) northwest Castle Creek Power Plant - The Castle Creek locations. easements have been obtained. of the center of Aspen. The bridge, built in 1888 Power Plant is located in Castle Creek Canyon by the Colorado Midland Railroad, was on approximately 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres) of land, W *atchut ..,. 40 * ( ft ; N J 11\ 44' 4, 'h; ; : 2 f/, '' / 1 .2 t * ....../ W.... 4.:322' ..: 7Â· Â·x. 3 yy 4400 A* 39.8 k iti n Creek Road a r N 1% / ; 11 p Â· I Hi 4 1 4 0,~ / 4 r 6 1 f iii il 2 ./. 7 3 itt 4: ... I ... 19 til ... * % %.: th <. ,%.P, 00 1 & , 1 . $4 11 %%. â€¢.Vi t'. .â‚¬ '43. 3 A 'X, e.>. r... i 4. I 1 4 . I % mÂ· . ..4 : 4 .li t ..>.. 4Â«44 , ..... I .â€¢ *1 11 1 <*A ~:~ -*'~**~ 4,1,111,0 M; I ' a V V.%, e....:A ..4 I..... ......... \ ........... 1 V., I e>.1*@.*a~;**aph#rezz, 4 t 1*:A .:*Â»......... .4. t. ... 1%:A .40*'00 /, %, I I. I. 'Eis...2*24:Â· ::...: m<:*:Â·/ ./.X:â€¢IÂ·.XÂ·y ./ % I ..4 4 6 leel / , D # 1 *. I .r %' 0 0 13 , ,~ <12Â·Â·Â· * I $ . tti r. .................4. ...hi * .........Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·........~Â·Â·./ I " , ..9:" ...... \9 \ .2 / 4/ L,i : .. I ,. â€ž Â·1 46.2. , 4, /// 23. A .1 ./. ...........; I ..... ...... . / I .... .. . .. 1% r...: , I I --- \ if ./ ... ....4..4 .......................... ....... *A. 2 : .4, 1UE; i. 6 i....r-- ') :(12.ir..~i :Â·i l....MtliBIrEer- , :t -: %,4 ; ti ,/ H 4 i::l:i i :I.Â·Â· ........... ,. ............... I . .. : A.. : I , . ~ ... i:.tif~ il 3 2,;21. ...'.' I . , , . I R : . . . I ' I . . e â€¢ B â€¢ . I , i:Â·Â·Â·~Â·Â· : .. iI4 9#J j / f-i i Â§ . '1.:.:i j /,3. i: f ... I.: : .. I . I. *' f i " i 41.7 4...i i . ; .. ........... 9Â»3.*sa ................... .. ifT ........... ::: 2.-Â·Â·Â·: 1.. :f Â· 1 I : r % :; i 1 I. ........ Â·Â·Â·;-1 R j :--=--~c :FÂ·I-'-, ,~:# r~.7::Tr] Â· 83 ..... I j :Â·f:*-'**li -~-2.:'Â£ ' ' i , MP 40.5 01 :.%.....il C....32 0-1 1:Â·-Â·Â·Â·Â·41 1 . : : i g i â€žrÂ·Â·i y- il: . .: I I ~ 1 3-7 M-71 87 t:j- i i i 1.:f-~~.i I . Ii! 73.t-~~~) :~~:~.::~i' lie i r', Li-Â·Â·i I Il [2,~fn li I if~;3 3.6 .... %...... l....0 ! f! E' El ...... : 1 ......Â·' " i: : *i: ........ 3 ly .. 2-;4&J i j CL i L_ : 1 4--3 111. Alternatives 1001 00Â£ SIO}OUI 00 I SlUQUIPAOidUIT SluamoAoiduq .................. uO11O091211II IE ""."*1"1 4 UO 02%101UI IERUmod ................... : 1 L Lj 4 ...... ..0. 111. Alternatives 04 Alternatives 1/0 9 - .IC 8 1 No-Action ik J. 24 331 8 4 Z Existing Alignment %1%...1=:*k.... == 00 Existing Alignment ~f--Altentatives 2 and 3 -~- --- <<~' Alternative 1 1 Transit Envelope Alternatives 2 and 3 (9 Â§ 3 with Separate \0 i i New Maroon ~ 2 Creek Bridge j g -- .Â· 1 1 CO<3~ ilh %Â¥ .-P t 6.1 1 % -1 1 1 4, 4 \\ 1 '' -Il , ..,-- :: i . .=:5828>8 . 1.--7 b t. : i .44*097 I , f*777--f p~-1-6.--1.:7--1 i 1, I .622NgÂ§%~ i Buttermilk rf ~ ...... :< 42: , Ski Area u GU.: A ....4.. -"'-4-41&V /77Â»4 .... ZE27--'Â·+--- â€žÂ·'Â· Â·Â·,Â·â€žâ€žâ€žâ€ž,.... 1 1 1 1.1111111.. .....: .... i UN I :Ir\ '9**83:- $9 3 ti*Rab>Sake--74-2 : ; :1 0 &:f: Â· 1 & â€¢7Â·X'.exÂ·*Ze>6 < < r V # 5 ~ ~ I % B .1 3?$= \ : 9/ \ i i 11 p , 0,----_' I Â·Â». < / Alternative 1 0 50 100 meters L Altemadvt i includes a separate %0>. 7 0 100 200 300 feet transit envelope Ball Field/ r. Alternatives 2 and 3 4 Ch u Soccer Field i Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3 NÂ«Mhtgon Creek Bridge?i .t.... ....... 11'11,1 1 Â·ate~21. :~::,4. ......... Aspen ...... Golf Course ... 11 lilli 1.. a Â·Â·Â·12*..:72< <:2592Â·22/%7*'2"*'~ ....... ..:;9144:Z:. ; . . it- f.*. 3 1 Â·i t ./ ... .t ..4 --1 I I. m .... . 1 .: I. 2 -c# :h.3*6,4. w. ................ . . i : . ...'3. 1...sÂ·Â·Â·' Â· 1 .. i ': ..... 3 . t , 6 f Alternative 1 , Aspen . ' ~Â· h Tennis Club Alternative 3 ' 1 i includes separate Legend: transit envelope *3**%%*@Mt Improvement Alternatives Figure III-10 Alternatives Between Separate Transit Envelope Buttermilk Ski Area and 3;ZE395 For Alternative 3 ALJEIGA..CDR Maroon Creek Road Entrance to Aspen DEIS May 17,1995 111 - 33 tch Line'A' / purl qmgvq / la ourl 40}EIN 1 . ,/1 , 444. 4, 0 4 *Oa 0.0 . '40' 3% I U 4 *a A - /:i â€¢â€¢ , , 4, / 8-11 11 / 1 Iln A. Flo .. * P M 41 41 0 8. . , W MR R.8 4 r z. .. 4....4.-2 I â‚¬ 2.2 aD 2 FN .. I. :. 4 0 95 2 8 0 .1 gs gR. h / li I :. mE om N f 0 = :q Oad O.0 & 3 B. 10 P g '11 . 1 00 M / it i :11 8 9 C- 1 2 0: Maroon Creek Road 3.98 2 H K to 7th and Main Street ,%'2 6 }~ 2 / !:: â€ž '. 8 M 1 , 4. 0. ?t fl M Â¤ ow> 51 4 k / & 0 111 4 i $ %Â·t '. ng Qi :jitz kg 0 3 g Â»A . 1 1% 2 mimii& Re& Fli #k ki Â· r . : ..4 % Ra %& BR'& * R m F Â¤. RE : 2<TA ~~Ckoo 9 Â¤ 9 0 Â¥ E Q. W & M Â£ 2 8 - S: 9% 65 Ria i R. 2 1Â£ 7%44. 1 j * %% ,.4 fl 1 4 1 Ra 11 i ... .#di i m 1% 1 1.:4 1 "26 al.-Â·Â· 2 EN B B r 0= . % 1. 9 m ..............4....= I .. %b l; 14 . .%.. 1 un 1 U.% 1 99 r. #.....74.. , % :.........1 4 . r.. F . it / I . ., t. t. .. 4% Â£73 .%.... ..% :lili:::.0.Â¢**4 ......, /0 i ?.1 \.': 0,/' - , . 1. . ..................4.4 .0 9 4%..: " 07 .... ..... %...... Z Lrn ' ..... 1 ' '... ; f.'i I .: imt . - Â·,r 4- 5- W J..m.. ......... li \ aa . ......MI.- U \ .1.\ . 1 i..., I .....-..V.' ....I- , Â£ 1 1 1 %: Ld I L l: . . , : .i I .3: ........: I Â· E .... ......... I : C : ... ./ 8 :...... i i : i... ..1 0 f : " f 1 1 -E.8...ISE.B.di.-" * ,1 : ...... Â£4 %' 4-â€¢Â·Â·b ............ 6 h : 1.-' . .Â· 4 . / : I . 9: :: :râ€ž :2 0 2 .. . r...4 i 'b ./ i r.Â·--- 2 i ! F"-: rÂ·Â·Â· I i -3: 1 - P # t7 1 i i.. 2 V <%.6. i / (.1 1 -- // 4 3 9=43 /.w u ! i Â· t...f , ?1 1 , 401/70..Stmet 1 X.:Â·:.+I-.Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· r-/il (*1 :Â·Â·71Â·Â· W S.; : i .... , ...:.-: i i p.-Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·5 1 1 ...:. ff :n ......... : i. Â£ t-J Â·L .. 0 t.4...i :.-IN.. .i Vi i :Â·Â·Â·...Â·Â·Â·-' I .......%......... .............. â€¢'M 'Â·Â·Â·â€¢â€¢â€¢Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢Â·â€¢Â·Â·Â·Â·-'Â·Â·Â·â€¢â€¢â€¢Â·â€¢â€¢~~ C \ ..... 1 : J.............................. ........: ..................... . :............................1 j 11 4.Â·41 ;12*1 ~ 5.:.7 0 1..1 1 1 1 1 b.Â·:2.: :: 1 1 4......1 i i :i ifi fi iii: 0 4 {f..ft 1. I i i :....... ~2â€¢., .... :......i t....i ~ ji f; 9 11 i VrlÂ·.1 t..., .... i i i f 1 i i{ - 11 1 Kt:11...l . i. i ii Â·"Â·Â·Â·Â·1 i i f.l-'...4.:Â·â€¢â€¢ ; 051 r.: 0 111 i ................................... ................................, *................................ se- 111 966 L 'Z L *eVV SIHa uadsv oj eoum ju3 Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F Alternative A 5122.Ils UFEK pUE q]L pUE )AUSI 1!suru,L BOIE 19 128~ SOARBILIO}IV M ,POJO UOOJEW I I -III ginSM ....'... 111. Alternatives Match Line'A' E i , OR Re , 4 f g .:P 1\ i '.H, ourl Ifole]N n, 92 12 1 f:f f e M * ././.... I 4 iÂ·.4. 4:t:#ArÂ· ZU :f. d f CM .8 -1= ex :tr : 24 f 4/ O 0 Â¢140 . I . , Ca 5 t .4 Fil ,9 Â· li t ff i.: D n; Â· 4 r; 'Vit ti i it- it .1 # e fi / 2. 11 1 t.: ..Â»& lk*. H i h .4 ../.t ... i i. UN. 4.,-Â·el... ii :; : i /11 Ar: ! 4 . 5.Bi . 40 15 i : k . 4 .: t ti j it j .: . 4 i ! 1 1 C./. p h . -m.. -I... . 0 1 3Â· 0'6â‚¬ dpi f.' h ;. : i fy 8 i G . f L iiI : 1 f C 1 1 ..: ..... '4 1Â· ~ 3*%?1 2- t....1.... b L NiMA H i 04 : fi 0- A--rl - --- 3 5'6Â£ 41 :~ : -.. 4 i i *I 4 1 : :. f I. f N j / fi ....... I / 1: t i E 1 :11 lili :9 .... O 2 : 1/1914 111,01 1 17,1. - 1/ i 00 8 if . 04 "141 2 0 : 1. I 4,â€¢â€¢' I'l>.â€¢..... 1 41 - 1% I . 111,1,1 t ... 1 . &.11111 11 11: 1111111 i f // Illilli 11 P.; f 4.......... . 4 "lili : f . '57 1 1 .../ i i 71 i 2Â¤4 1 2/ t 1 / g 8 ..~...... i, m 2 I. 9................ 1 1 2> -El -Â·-#.,4;"ie.$1043Â»~~ ...... I ---,1,4 f..... . I , ti : - it 1 % ...0 .4 3 l..Â· 7 0 * 4 : 1-: 1 84 k 6-N> i i.7 +* PUGH DII!1UIonn 10 1 5.8Â£ dIN i ...7 R i m -' / Match Line'A' t h P d........ ...4 LL 16-Wâ€¢1 L._2&.. .. 111. Alternatives (lied XEM-guo) 10Idnoo a -111 966 L 'Z L ABIN S]30 uedsv oj eouenua i @SPUE[ *RE[ luou,UNTIV inds Jol@Idno o Li.222:J :pu9291 11(10 0914177 ..... Â·X*X diatcht. ...... / 4*e A . K./7 C '; 1 Â»2 --1 f m?3 1 4% -, . ' 7 1 UN: / : , i \0 ..... , , i 0. n / , Â¢ .Â· Â·N <> : ~ 'fÂ·Â·Â·...~ Â¢1 Q '21 /.. 2 ' :-mÂ·Â·Â·.i 7th Street 51 0 , /1\ 2 % M >ss 39 8 "Â· 5 / E f 1: ?.i # 0 + W ~ b a li:- 1 ... 1 ' F i $ f M 5: A g U/V - 4 7th Street -//// 4 0 -n 1.00 hi : 0 % to m 4 ; â€¢X W â€¢ , I /.1 aL - 9% 44*) dill : - . 5:Â·. I a k '4% NE ./ . 1 m... 'ie.,yo... _22234\ i i 2 PA' Fz-x44**1*'xru', It... t. W#.i r t . + -t I t'. ........... M. 4 : . 1 ..'/' , .. i .... I ./ , ; 1 ......... k 8 . . i : . . b ./....................y ....... ...................4 ../ / '343 ~--~~ ;~ < ~ ~'f Lj , 4 . , i.> , . I el: 1 % t. ...... .................4 .... d;/1. (/ %4 \ ...................4... f...2.'.... .............. ....... 0-3 & U 4 1 ...... ./.' 1 1 ................... , ..t / :Vt? f 11 S ... ' /34 1 * ....... . , . Ill. I I. ./ , 1 S I ?f 1 . ...... .4 . I ....>...... i......,.f " r-I~&-Esier- '..... ...............~,1...... 1 , 1 0 6. r, ...... :1 . lili : I. . .......................... :Â·:1...i # a : ........ . I .,>....'...:.. .J ; 1, . I . , . I t.... ./.? 4/ U L r...: i j \3 i: ........... %.':: \i\ ' >-/ i , , 4: :t - Â· , \:\ t; :. : M i : ........ I 04 '' : s - F, i ./ iii . -4 :5 :Â·b!: if' /3 0 b ...4...... , : 4 : il .......; i ./-/:.; 1 4. "kÂ·:.:p~'.#.7.:~:* .... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Z 1:* . .:: / ,%% 0 9 4 S . 0 9 ' ' 9 I g Z g 9 . . . I r . f 7 â€ž .. ./.' . ......4........ ' i i : .: r... : 4 . .... . .... .:....t i ../ .....r...... ....2 0 .....'...: . 0 . . :-9: ;4 if h:;: $ ..... - I . I +:: 1 . . L......... : . . ./ 1 .: .-* , 6-,. i N 1 .............. .. ...4. I :0: .........: .. .......... : / 4. 5/1 ii f rT . . - I .......... . .....4. .... '7 : : 0.-1 ..: : ..., p : ...... /...0 MP 40.5 #1 3.: i i 2.-â€žâ€ž,3 1 ~Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·~:nÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·..........n i~,. ~~~~~~* .......... â€¢-4 :: ...............................~to'.......4.........4.---/ '..................... . Lul 1 0 . ':i :r Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·t i .. /4 i j L_..1 rÂ·Â·-Â· .. i E 'E i r ! 1 i : i : r.-In .. iii 44.4. 24 1 1 'FO tr. i if 1 C...1 il i .Â·..... : : I--.... : .4.. l E E ! ; .......'*... '.*. 7-j j g j E-i l....i i li ..::.. it i l..:..ii ::: li :i . .. . I : ii Â·Â·Â· 3: i :43 ....... .......... ..... i * i 1 6Â·Â·Â·4 1 i~"! FI.1 i j i i E.:.) i o :...3Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· : .....4...........................' ................................/ ~...............................' 5. f .......:: . f.--7 -';9.-. .......... iggns UIEW 7 **m-Â·:Â·:tnvm=Â·smwnÂ·Â·r.'.0 Aspen Golf Course Li.2 k ..*â€¢â€¢~ --- â€¢Â·'â€¢~~â€¢- ~541 U b) .....