The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19951213AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION December 13, 1995 REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL BASEMENT 5:00 I. Roll Call and approval of Nov. 29, 1995 minutes. II. Commission & Stkff Comments III. Public Comments IV. OLD BUSINESS c. 93Â» 7 as- Al '15 S 71 t 4 5:15 4 706 W. Main, Krabacher- vested rights, Resolution No. 2, Series of 1995, PUBLIC HEARING (U) 9 Â» tÂ«.p 5:20 B. 610 W. Hallam- rescind landmark designation 5:45 A. Hpc final comments on the "Draft EIS, Entrance to Aspen" Resolution No. 3, 1995 0/ q 4 F 017 0 -ny V. NEW BUSINESS A. 500 W. Bleeker- conceptual, public hearing (TABLE TO JANUARY 10, 1996) 6:15 A. 918 E. Fooper- l,ndmark, conceptual, PUBLIC HEARING '< 0'j 'v. -Jna \C r. If- 7:15 E. 820 E. Cooper- response to conditions of conceptual approval 0''Cko JsÂ· , 0 0 7:35 VI. Project Monitoring 7:45 VII. Adjourn SITE VISITS: NONE THIS WEEK! HPC POTLUCK CHRISTMAS PARTY IS DECEMBER 16TH AT THE ERDMAN'S, 360 LAKE AVENUE, 6:30 P.M. JOINT HPC/P&Z MEETING ON DECEMBER 19TH. 4:30 P.M. REGARDING 303 E. MAIN (KUHNS). WOULD LIKE MEMBERS WHO WERE ON COMMISSION THROUGHOUT J THAT REVIEW TO ATTEND. THE DECEMBER 27TH HPC MEETING IS CANCELLED. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE JANUARY 10TH. HPC PROJECT MONITORING HPC Member Name Proiect Donnelley Erdman The Meadows Collins Block/Alley 624 E. Hopkins (CD:3-8-95) 220 W. Main- European Flower 930 King Street- Cunningham 330 Gillespie 426 E. Main - Galena Plaza 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 r 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 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff 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 J Melanie Roshko RESOLUTION NO. 9. (Series of 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 706 W. MAIN STREET. WHEREAS, B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan Krabacher, owners, submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for approval of the site specific development plan at 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved with conditions by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission desires to vest development rights in the 706 W. Main Street site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of its approval of the site specific development plan, and pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby vests development rights in 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. Any changes to the Final Development plans as approved by the HPC shall be submitted for review and approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit or change order). Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Section 2 The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of this resolution following its adoption. Section 3 Zoning that is not part of the site specific development plans approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. Section 4 j Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Aspen provided that such reviews 0 and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. Section 5 The establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulations by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site specific development approval, the applicants shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 6 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this 0 resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 7 Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. APPROVED by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at its regular meeting on December 13,1995. 0 By Donnelley Erdman, Chair Aspen Historic Preservation Commission ATTEST: Kathy Strickland Assistant City Clerk LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER and Associates P.C. Jerome Professional Building 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 201 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-3206 B. Joseph Krabacher* Moscow Office Curtis B. Sanders* 9 Krasnoproletanskaya Michael G. Topalov - Suite No. 3 Nickolai V. Prokhorov - Tel: (970) 925-6300 103330 MOSCOW Igor B. Porohkin - Fax: (970) 925-1181 0-6, i V'>\ RUSSLA ' Admitted in US only email/Internet address: ~ - Admitted in Russia only krabacher@ige.apcorg OCT 3 0 1995 ~ COmMUNI I Y DEVELOPMENT / ASPEN ief~~~'~ October 27, 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, Aspen, CO Request for Vesting of Final Development Approval Dear Amy: Please consider this letter as the application and request for vesting of development rights on the above property. It is my understanding that there are no specific submission requirements or standards for vesting. I would request that the vesting be granted for a period of three years from the date of the final development approval on October 25, 1995. If you have any questions or if I need to submit any additional information, please let me know. Very Truly Yours, LAW OFFICES OF B. JOSEPH KRABACHER AND A~OCIA3152--,BA / By: J B. Joseph Krabacher BJK\ch krabacher\lamidon.4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 706 W. Main- vested rights DATE: December 13, 1995 SUMMARY: Once final approval is awarded to a project, an applicant automatically has 18 months of "vested rights." Vested rights guarantees the ability to undertake and complete the development and use of a property under the terms and conditions of a site specific development plan, with protection from regulatory changes which may occur after development approval. An applicant can request, through a public hearing, vested rights which last for 3 years. As no code changes which would impact this project are contemplated at this time, Staff finds no reason to deny the request for vested rights for 3 years. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC approve Resolution # 2, Series of 1995 (attached), granting vested property rights to 706 W. Main for three years, starting from the date of approval of this resolution, December 13, 1995. RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION VESTING THE SITE SPECIFIC FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 706 W. MAIN STREET. WHEREAS, B. Joseph Krabacher and Susan Krabacher, owners, submitted Final Development plans to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission for approval of the site specific development plan at 706 W. Main Street, Lot Q and the west 20 feet of Lot R, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission finds that the Final Development proposal constitutes the site specific development plan for the property, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the development rights for said property, as defined and approved with conditions by the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission in the site specific development plans, be vested pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission desires to vest development rights in the 706 W. Main Street site specific development plans with conditions pursuant to Section 6-207 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for a period of three (3) years from the effective date hereof. j NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: I %./. - Y /320Â·.2 I * I * I ' 04'LI.....9 .. 1.-1 1 -I ' 0.9/I ' - " . ;~ ~ 1;~Nk.1 - 1 .4- 2.. 34..1 1 - - .-I #I - -. ---/H. - .~ 53'1,91'.Zj -6194 094*EN - +64,1 6,1 -agEIP(g.NON/Nv'U MN!Â£:wa~TerglegokEY--7 Â©doll . . .._.*- n 4148 Gmi ---Â· . -Â·--~Â·*6197*Lifi - - 11.dj:HX*( 4 90- NOL171(12212 6 21â‚¬y,X791 -SH - --- -- -26,60227 - - -Â·- -- - , CM.-:2.++L ' 17 1,JA er,knnr ... 1- .....1 f - '-2191 *e'62,1,1 - lgAg-l. 3222Jt-T~7-22NfartirEE-219tiCK;~*132[2- -- I-- , 1 -- -fl--Irt =--/.&-----*T. - 3 '1 .... 14. . . . 1 0 - 1 . - --1- - 62-2-9.*I-X--4'41_-_ % Â·4 f 1 4 - 11.--_=31&016==---E ~ t 1 - . 1 1 - 1- 4 : t' --- ~~~~--~--1. 1 0144Â»tw*4tzE " 1 i.ill | L T --PRMA=- E- _ -11019Â£ :' ' : .-- I. + 2 L .i . ' 0 1. N. , lili- \ ,-9 .'. t 4 - 1 X 1 E - , - 1 - =g: - 201 X 8* I t _- '4~ El.ZJ >' 215 . . J urs..1 jill-L_k-xyir---- . -- . 1 .. 7.-:.1.- acy,07-- /-- 071,40- 146- -1-i---2 --L.ATTE<*422-2. 9,830E---. -- 1 1-1 1 .... 1 0 .1 4 1-U-----1 --1 Â· '7-1--47â‚¬ - i iii n iii Mrr,-tir - - 2Â»1[1 fr . CZE] 0 V i.1 1 -4 1 1-rjEI 1--1 z== 1 :=-=.-Ill ~ -t.mi 1 1 1 1 1111 1 lizziE 1, 1 1 1- mt Z >- . .li.EE =22 0 1 3 1- .-1 949 4 - i 1 i J Iii 1 n rErtl- 1.1.j, t. 11 ' 111'JIL '11 , rF= 1 ~ i 111-6 --213- 9 ==- I 1 1- 1 . 1 ....= 3 f 111Â£ p 11-1-E 0 2 , -1 1 1.- 1 'i . . i'' - 'IÂ· Â£ I t H EÂ·=4- 21 C=27. 1 . 1 ty.11 1 07' 1 1 1. , i â‚¬ //Una; i th . 1 1 . - i It, Â·Â·94 <22~ illa-_ - ''' 1 ,1 i H := 1Â»1749 1 11 7, 1-, > A. 1 1119 h r IBL,1 91 1- 1 - L P u u h :trni trilar 4 =E . t i.Â·U] r ''v EE: 11 'I 1 94 11 1 ! f~WRi:-mil ~*-4' 1 1 . 1 1/4 . . 1. -t a 15-. 0.. .12034.4 r ; . 6 +~ '80 Â· ...: 349 , D D . 79,1 / 2- -iilililil -iÂ· .4 ZI: . ::- Â·:..9Â·ms A ' Â·, Â·. - 2 .. â‚¬13Â·27 1111[ihit ; -1 3 4 - 1 . a........Â¥. h ,..1 7.-274 1=1-1 1 H i Â·.: 43 3 + -'~ 9 - 24.2* HÂ·- iiÂ· 4 - I ,Â·lumnbi __!iLUI.111 -- ~ 15 ~ 0 1~ + .- 4.474 } 1 1 . . .1 1: $*f & t.3 4 .If.*:44 - : 1 Eol 1 1-1 111 lilli I i Â¥ 1- 11 -/ %Â¢ 1 f . ..- C.~ ~BA - .. .1 ~ 'AD.,1 , ..41< ... .Vt, :.. 2,4& 7.: '.Â·'â€¢0, . .. -. . .. , 3 :I.- 'le,4,'9 Â£ Aft a ,-0- Â· - Q.r.la)- 4: ..4. .....1. ...t- ,...,h-2-f...-Â·- 7-5- :124Â·--. 2229 1 .-:-- f. . 0.'-- ~~ Â· .0.- . 1 Â· - 2--OwÂ·Â· =-4<1% Â·91*-,1.-4 , 4 ... ' -Â· 44-:24<~ Â·Al,&*/6'*2-' .~2429~~4Flatl#IM~LiFAS#kid#'./2,<c Â· - A 4 - 1 * -4 +- - *. . , - - 1 4 4 1 5. / h /1 - ==%- , 9 2 1 .,9.4- :f b Br.*6fiF . t* r - t-i- 0 ~0 k.t?:fi#*WAK*l#mt *465Â¢9,:22*24~*A j .0 i .: 400%7 1 - t'W.:2113%0%AN/OP-li<Wf L--1 ' I Â·..1,Â· tfi -Â·-â€¢~Z.105 r -t f u......1 '211%.. 9-7.4-4:.7-,rf.-~: t?..3:'fr--0%fffl*~~ - />h, .~ .1 2 -,. C .3-, -Ill ../.- . - -- - 'i :- 4 - - 4,- .* -75.53.-fÂ· .. -- - :-- -- ~ .--' -f= 4 r-1- -- == ...3....7,- -4 - I- ------- 1 .zizz 0,Â· -1 --r-- -- Â·Â· ==*TZ C -3337 G- - tin aL - - - 111 .- 1.---1 . E-~-1 N -9 -p i E- - - 14 - 11 0-4 4~ . 4 4 .3 .: *) 5 f- 9 - R. r:' -kÂ· 2-2.--/ -- ir- Â·~ ~ -4.9 -1 - - n 1 -- 1 1 -, - 1 ~i f 9--- I.37 l r.Â· 1 -1 f t=-3 . , P b==1 ==*E== 3.1 - 1 - 1 ---b - _ . It + EE*Ezzz: 14/ li----1 Iii '121 Unull-li - 1 â€¢ -~ 1 lit-- --~Ze-UPI - 1=44 1 , x -7- --0 - i / ,%â€¢~41 (~4" - - ~44.LjZjEZ~<~~- .- . 11 0.-13.*43 - 21Â· 43/ '' s i!*14:iÂ·,Ap P. *'*tÂ·4â€¢EÂ·Â¥,2.41&. . . ./. -/ 1 - ,-lk- -- ... b*#.1-~~b+Mi.~~:ir ; t...4 - - .- . ~, Â· Â·.*FA<Kf:Â· r Â·; 2 . -- ' -- _.L . i.. . .1 109.-%â‚¬156 ' *1 . .. . 6 - - ~ =.:: -er-41 - l - r C.*. - .-I . 6 j . 4- -177- - fri I abBE =i= 21 0 - --1 -11 i *Ii--i- r--0 . -73 ~ i ----6 - It- T 1 --E~ y , lilli : / )-I --5415Â·3-ki~ -2 ,4-.<., - -I . Â·Â· Â·..9 t Â¥10 41.12*1 tr~.Sy ':22 - -f'. '.fijge#t~H*Hfi&4:11.;QE~'-...2&622*bviltyfaritij2:.'-::~6#wifia"<,rimifiwe. cl.ifil J Â·- 2 1 22 U -1-6174 N 6 ------ k-k=.Ai_/Â·., 16-12=-1 -146 _. f._ =-4 elÂ·&21.15 =20=1*f.+t ' -t -, I.~4.* 3'-fik<444*fkfi.-4.-J~*t- t.-*tf***it<fiia~-*93'-aÂ»7.. u c. I ~Â·2- i - 7~Ubs&39*met-~41%'...:1-fr.;c.--4<,44-~~...0~ -... f.. .---- ~0.<:~0'2.fi<*3,81â‚¬Ae:#udÂ· 6. 25Â·4Â¥0-~16.j.33*3â‚¬6 - . 39 .. =44 - I ... 3.. .4. ..4 ..4.32*Â·t-/*.. gibitic,/921220/2155(%4'%0~~Â»tboi#RPE.Qhw;:ij/tk:ti Â· Â· iÂ·Â·Â· - P k - 6/ ) 4 I. . . I .... r I I, VIC â€¢ Â· 7.'M.. 1 1 I. 1 i 1 Â£ 5% Verra i \ 1- ... L LAMÂ·F FDDI- \ . L.JOH .*Atut' . -- - -Â· HOLLP-10Â»l 7 ElzE.12460- -7,2.6.24.: ENci.OGUIZE i L \ 1 C. )1 -649 , . I~- 1 . 1 *.f- 1 I . a . . . 1 - I . I. I. I . I. .1 I . e .*. I . 0 . 1 0. 0 ... =24:35 I 1 ... 1 2 I . .. .0 4 - =.1-41- 1 1 I - - - : 1 I. . C===4 + / -- 11/+BEÂ£41 71) / Â·:t i ' . 1 2,32< r----- . = 113 1 -1 1 -1 I . .. . . fEMIN,ti '-i. 1" ~ &9~Â· - 1 1. 1 2 - 1 f *4- 1 - i. . 0 1>.1 1 - 1849 0 j IMIVE _ I. 1 - - -524+KE,41 ' Ilgl*NTE:Â£7 1 %0 . ..1 -FAZEUNM S. - .. .-7-77141 2 . !:i -aaoe/7 -- ... i A . _ . -ba-/ . 'r-L .1- 1Â©0 0// .ziplk_lewri R - 1- .: ./ I 1 rp ' 4 - H kier*-- -~ Â· 1 -~[C.*â€¢Â£Â·41--U --4 . , Â·r. a i . 4 4 Â·711~.. t 43*22'x < i 1/' 1 . 4 -Â·--Â·055*H -05.-- 4.1 i .. , 1 . i ' ' ==%3amEt - 4 -_278-34 0..20 9- E..D#-_ _-1... -N LieL._._ 1 t . 4 ' . . J --+,2//224,7.-_. nftâ€¢Fl'l~--A ------- Â·, 147 5 I. ./5 ---15.LEEL- r:> 11.-NO.,2- - . . . - - -j x' ill m '114+UNIAN j/1- -iti,.,.. - i 6.Â¥~ Â»9-1099 : . Ie; 1 1 4 - .- F .16 , r.4 ./ I I . 6. Â· .1: 4 . tv I .:2. 9 tta FUNra# ... 0. : 1 &:iN - %55*CL . . .. E--ExliAWL24 --7 0Â» . 1 f. 1 I i . â‚¬124Â· i k / gÂ»4; 4Â».0/12 :=* ~.. ; ; I [4:=lze. pu:c,ce /7/1 -tfW-Â·Â«///Â»/ M - 0Â·. - u - 2-*4,Â®xe, 193.f #1VA-24 '" /#4// /; A//i /// // j .... 1..' 7,1, th 0 ~41*f Â® ~'Â·~.<*L,..~.*. --. _ruot,4 59+4gue. 4 4 -. 7, 1 _-2 -:CATEâ‚¬122 W{NIa:*4 24ELL __(>1 ~2-2-Kâ‚¬*61(LHEK *1-1 1 LOf NCI ~ LAN PeCAPE. F'L-AN -- 1'1 = 10' J UNE '201144+ 15/ , 1 1 tÂ·' Â·.1.Â·: ge' .. . Â· 1 k, W *i..21.0'yÂ·-f'., -._-: i.i.(2- 444%4444%~4~ Â·f<.itÂ·~ 11#~~~~3~~3?*0*4*54 -- 11 ; j 1 1ILÂ¢o 7-1 -In 1--1! 1 --\ 1 -44=*EN 1 1 :-4* 1 J"' -- LeÂ©M iÂ» 4 1 /4 i 1-- 9 :of 19(4 4 . .-' *INAL==-542.ernalb.LI=ZZ-- /ZEAL E L /1 ~<kE - - ==INÂ·#irs:77 r -F . /ME J 1 1 A- 1 ~ -r#jai 11 H --: 1 1 144 - TUNIT 1-11--1 - f '} rEl~ ~X~ | -ue_.. -1 i * ._. -1._ 1#t__- i 1 Ul ~3-7 1-19 841_ - 4 7- -TI .-I- I.I.I- -/1 - ....2 L - r-CJ -- 7 252*RFEZEECE ...7--7--railo.-=-Â·*- u - -I'r=fArto-122.21 - L_Lâ€¢v â€ž4Â£~,.., . 1 -..... : =Ubk.UIfEE<-iAÂ«px.1+3 --ili 1 i 1 11.1 9 4 4 0 11 +Ur ----/1 -\\ M! 1- 1 1 1 ir----, I. -- 2 - -KI*EONC+152.-15;UILDINA -1 - LO NEE LEVEL -FULe. PLAN !12)~AA -- -kIL>f' 19 ~414 EL- ..1 zagO:Â» 7- NET- LELOABLE "- -026/MECH 822315126.Ina Ng{ fLAN A.D.Unf-117*-i*U--JOFFICE 980* f .= 19941 Â¢21~1 - -NOVEMEER--124 1914 Â·Â·: Â· Xhs/ la'-4-~ .bLLÂ¢45"+F- -- - -54041$ 2.i +9ck 3-420 Â¢.*~ 4 - 15,0 IP A.P.U. ill<b.641 . ... /1 ' 1 0 - . 1. - 1 - I . p . . rk Â¢1. z ... -- ,/. 00-CL ,mIZZZh-*33---EE- -- ILL]lt//,;Ii-,LL]H 1 11:=21: Â· 1,1--,1 il lihil 1-fiwrr-i~E:LUIE li /AN .â€¢=====gr /Â»----Â·-----Â·Â·---- tr--~=i -F~=::H -:9~9; ~ *====ilIZ.;1-13 L----1-1# . t 1-//--1 11 11--1 , ---4 114:Fltii NE:i i:tcli 1-1 :'-11 1.-,1 1&1-91 1,+-41 It-t; / - 1 f#+i| 1 lif~ 4 41 1 111=11 1! 411 1 '1==ZE======Z-. i-------- ! :1- F..1 1,1 ] 11=Ii : It! i 11-~2 - 1-- 1 / IlÂ«Imi#Â«71-Il 7 b lurl]-t[-T-/-11~. f=Cil~ r = r= 411'11 ....... f i 1 ,~=I===== 1 '1- P--71,J 1 *Hz----- It 11 11 -11=-21. J -1 - ---i----- - -..-Ill---Ii--I--i------W -...- IN 0-1%.TH ZIE.UE VATIO+21 ------4 ----=- --r ---- --- - -- - EABT.ELEVATION -- .4. - + . - --- .... -- - ..... -----I -1- .4 -t. ..-.- - - Kik.-*NAÂ»H f-iRED_ R-P--]132-~1~6 01-EDI-fil Zi JULY< I 8' d 1 9-21= - 0.--- W . -- MY,f,ED SaFJ- Â·ID, 1449 - - t. . Â·Â·Â·: .04.-4-t&14+.Zd<.1 1.1~.223Â·f.Â·6244:i Sâ€¢ Â·:.Â· ./H I : :-1-" .:... .., . .. I e .3... V..9 . -44%24*:34* *â‚¬.66,1,-624.1-* 1=Â£44922.14141 4.4Alli '7 ... 1 . . I ...,4 - .- 4 1 : 14*nal-â‚¬ =01<VILE --.~ r 1â‚¬22 -- f i V . 1 ; - ' K u - --5 aÂ»6 L INE ./ A . MIAN#JOLE. 6 .<~ * 5la 13- _J ' - O - 55 r- A L 1- 5 Y . '00 - 5 F De 0- E E t--3 ELECIRIGAL 1.-INE. j' - - Ur- Ill 4 H*-6 a SANITARN' 56 1,4 6 | Ul 1 lip - r I 784/22*43/gaii~iiiÂ§i@% A I ki{#*i**ME!% _ ~EXID-[-INâ‚¬1 -- - Exi S-rird a I \\11 - 6 t: *:18%**4*&%4R%~ i 1 51'RL.larURE ul OrRU arr UREE 2 I ............:61.:. 1 1- E>09-rl,Va 1- '5 4-:Â·XÂ·XÂ·Xâ€¢X-XKÂ·Xâ‚¬ STRUCrURE 1 ' j. 3*3*}.n . :1 k - 9 Im.--1 i . 42.242%4%~sil)9 ' . I '' i.urixILITI:Irm:ITIT ' --i .... 2 .- I - <1-2:1:â‚¬1*943 L - ... t .'..1 1 J 111 E,</SrINal EfTNUCrUIRE- 1 7.......== *6.:L:__1 X ,. W /2 91 22%=gÂ»..6.-=Â·:U.==>- - r 3 - . -bfo 42- 4.3 32. 1 01.,". 61& (61**f/XPIrLiRE F - r-417 . - 3 *111 j - L r 1 1 7 1 11 C..h< 1 1 . Â¥ . 1 1 -)-1 - El-E-rE]CAL-,1-ELEPHONE' . 4,45 LINE . 4 <Â».131-E -Pv: L I NED M AIN 5 T Fi E El- +. S -. 1 - - f 1 - 't/*--1 "9-3:Â· ',90~' r-- :77 ' ,, ~ TEXHIBIT 7 ~ /V= 0.31 UL..72-Â·-tr'. r f ... . h. f t.kiaâ‚¬13*claERLeill E-121+4 a .14,4,Â»il . _E X] <SIT I N -G-ICO N D I T I O N S-i-,--liNT?- ~,2 -LLI_ 1 " = 30'- 0'kt) MARO-Â·I l e l |994 Â· + D64kER - FALL-IN INC, --Â·-- ~'23I ifi.i'tabi#lfÂ¥%*ti----'--'X.--?tjAI~. 47~-I/~~~~: .'-I' 999#9144#4#24*4066*4*Wgi ... ~~-r-'=F~'~~''fit~~-F~ >.":mhleza*0**=- ick~9,-:;124#$ A>: ..... ....... 47 4. 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 610 W. Hallam Street, rescind Landmark designation DATE: November 29, 1995 SUMMARY: Landmark designation of 610 W. Hallam was approved in 1994, in conjunction with a redevelopment of the site. The structure was built in 1888 and has been listed on the "Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures" since 1980, rated as "contributing" (meaning that the resource has maintained its historical or architectural integrity). During construction of the project, the site was red tagged twice, because the property owner had apparently demolished more of the structure than was approved. After the first red tag, the City considered taking legal action, based on misrepresentations and misleading drawings provided to HPC, but instead negotiated with the property owner. This decision was due to the finding that the HPC approvals, which had been made in a brief manner with no conditions of approval since the HPC was enthusiastic about the project as it was presented to them, lessened the City's position that more demolition than approved had occurred. The property owner was asked to replace a section of the roof that was demolished with the original members and to work with another historic property in town which was in need of stabilization.. + In September, a site inspection by the HPO and Chief Building Official, Stephen Kanipe, showed that the portion of the historic structure which had remained standing had been reframed/reconstructed to the point that the original historic building could be considered demolished. A second red tag was issued, which was later removed pending HPC's final decision on the matter. HPC has visited the site and recommended to Staff that the landmark designation be removed, but that the site remain on the historic inventory. As a result of this experience, HPC will begin documenting all of their approvals in the form of a resolution, which will include boilerplate language regarding the usual and customary procedures expected when repairing and structurally improving a' historic building. Although it is understood that the miner's cottages especially need a good deal of reinforcement to meet current building codes, it has 1 been HPC' s expectation that new materials will be "sistered" into the old structure as needed. In this case, it appears that a whole new building was framed and that the old materials were merely ~ tacked into place, possibly not even in their original location. 7- The structure was somewhat unique in that, while the original form was completely intact, all of the exterior materials had been replaced. Therefore, the historic significance of the structure was really it's overall design and framing (which is not visible from the exterior.) The final product of this redevelopment will look from the outside as it was approved by HPC, however the Commission feels that the building no longer holds sufficient historic significance to be called a landmark. APPLICANT: The city of Aspen/Aspen Historic Preservation Commission. OWNER: Jim and Sandy Iglehart. LOCATION: 610 W. Hallam Street, Lot P and Q less 7.-5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen. PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW: Landmark Designation is a three-step process, requiring recommendations from both HPC and P&Z (public hearings), and first and second reading of a Landmark Designation Ordinance by City Council. City Council holds a public hearing at second reading. Rescindation of Landmark Designation (Section 7-707) follows the <~ same procedure and requires a finding that the designation standards are not met. LOCAL DESIGNATION STANDARDS: Section 24-7-702 of the Aspen Land Use Code defines the six standards for local Landmark Designation, requiring that the resource under consideration meet at least one of the following standards: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or an event of historical significance to the cultural, social or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado of the United States. - Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character. Response: The basic form of the front portion of the 2 0 original house has been retained, however none of the original materials remain in their original context. Overall dimensions of the building may be slightly different now, SO the structure cannot be said to represent the architecture of that period. C. Architectural Importance: The structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type or specimen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Architectural Importance: The structure is a significant work of an architect whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: The architect or builder is unknown. E. Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. /' Response: There are a number of historic structures // adjacent to and surrounding this site. Two structures /< A in this area have recently been removed from the historic I l & inventory because the integrity of the sites was severely Â£]WÂ«diminished through excessive alterations. This structure 32 has now lost its integrity as well through excessive \demolition. F. Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The property no longer maintains the historic importance it previously had, nor does it represent the method of preservation which the community supports through the preservation program. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC recommend that Landmark Designation of Lots P and Q less 7.5' of Lot P, Block 22, City and Townsite of Aspen, be rescinded, finding that the designation standards are no longer met. , The City has created a program of incentives to help offset ~ the development encumbrances inherent to historic properties, many of which this property owner took advantage of. In 3 fairness to other applicants and participants in the HPC program and in an effort to preserve the integrity and proactive spirit of the HPC, this landmark designation should be removed. Additional Comments: 4 112- MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Entrance to Aspen, Resolution No. ~ , Series of 1995 DATE: December 13,1995 Attached is Resolution No. , Series of 1995. This resolution is presented as the proposed official comment of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission regarding the " Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)" for the entrance to Aspen. All public comments concerning the DEIS must be received by CDOT by December 18th. HPC discussed the alternatives proposed in the DEIS on June 19,1995, and forwarded a motion to CDOT finding that any disruption of the National Register of locally designated sites, or the West End neighborhood is not warranted, that no new four lane or two lane highway should be brought into the City, and that HPC encourages CDOT to look at other solutions such as utilizing existing highway and adding a separate transit alignment. The HPC further noted the specific impacts caused by "Alternatives A-G" on Aspen's historic resources. The entrance to Aspen was discussed again on September 13, 1995 (minutes attached.) At this meeting Stan Clauson, Community Development Director presented information regarding "Alternate "H," which resulted from the Transportation Symposium sponsored by the City following the issuance of the DEIS. HPC had many specific questions about this alternative which could not be answered at that time, however in a straw poll the Commission indicated that "H" is a viable possibility with some conditions, namely further study of the light rail corridor. Subsequently, a consultant firm, OTAK, was hired by the City to examine alternative H in depth. Their report is attached for your review. Stan Clauson will be present at this meeting again to clarify any issues related to "Alternative H" or the DEE in general. It is Staff's recommendation that HPC - adopt the attached resolution to be forwarded to CDOT. Obviously further study of all aspects of "Alternative H" is still needed, including the visual impacts on Main Street, however at this time "Alternative H" appears to have the least negative impacts to all of the National Register sites ap wbll as the locally designated resources. . RESOLUTION NO.3 Series of 1995 A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF COLORADO, SELECT THE CITY OF ASPEN'S "ALTERNATIVE H" AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE STATE HIGHWAY 82 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is a duly appointed permanent commission of the City of Aspen in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen for the purpose of (a) ensuring the preservation of Aspen's character as a historic mining town because of its importance to the economic viability of the community as an international ski resort and cultural center, (b) promoting the cultural, educational and economic welfare of Aspen through the preservation of historic structures and areas and the preservation of the historic character of the community, (c) encouraging productive and economically attractive uses of historic structures, and (d) supporting the implementation of the Historic Preservation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and draft Section 4(f) evaluation has been issued by the Department of Transportation, State of Colorado, ("CDOT") pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Department of Transportation Act for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, the DEE sets forth ten alternatives, including the no-action alternative, -- which are considered for transportation improvements to the Entrance to Aspen on State Highway 82; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has proposed a new alternative which is not included in the DEIS and which is commonly referred to as Alternative H; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has expended considerable financial resources to evaluate 1 Alternative H in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and Department of 0 Transportation Act; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully reviewed the City's proposed Alternative H and all supporting documentation, reports, and analysis; and WHEREAS , the Historic Preservation Commission has carefully reviewed the alternatives considered in the DES and notes that the Maroon Creek Bridge, Holden Smelting and Milling Complex, and Colorado Midland Railroad have been identified as historic sites and/or resources that may be used or impacted by the alternatives considered; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission finds that, except for the no-build alternative, all of the alternatives under consideration, including the City's proposed Alternative H, will require the use of and/or will adversely impact publicly owned historic sites on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places; and 0 WHEREAS, the Design Quality and Historic Preservation Action Plan of the Aspen Area Community Plan, adopted by joint resolution by the City Council of the City of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on February 2, 1993, states that it is the intent of the Aspen community to "ensure the maintenance of character through design quality and compatibility with historic features"; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission endorses the Project Need, Project Intent, and Project Objectives as adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and set forth in the DES; and WHEREAS, the DES and draft Section 4(f) evaluation seeks public comment and the Historic Preservation Commission desires to offer its special' knowledge and expertise to CDOT. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CrrY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: 3 The Department or Transportation, State of Colorado, be informed that the Historic Preservation 0 Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, has reviewed the DES and draft Section 4(f) evaluation for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen Transportation Improvement Project and has concluded as follows: 1. The no-build alternative should not be determined to be the preferred alternative in the Final EIS as the no-build alternative fails to meet the Project Need, Project Intent, and Project Objectives adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen and included in the DEIS. 2. All of the alternatives evaluated, with the exception of the no-build alternative and including the City's Alternative H, will require the use of and/or will detrimentally impact historic sites and resources and no prudent and feasible alternative exists to using or impacting such sites and resources; however, the City's proposed Alternative H offers the greatest opportunities for cooperative planning between CDOT and the City of Aspen to minimize harm to the historic sites and resources. 3. For all of the foregoing reasons, Alternative H should be evaluated to the fullest extent possible and thereafter selected as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. 4. The Historic Preservation Commission is hereby committed to community based planning and to cooperatively assist CDOT in planning all necessary mitigation measures to minimize all harm resulting from the adoption of Alternative H as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS. 0 INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen on the M+ day of -Â£~625#,Â£,ge , 1995. /*114AdÂ£41 67Â£ttti r.. Chaicpdfson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing j,is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Historic Preservation j Commission of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. 0 Deputy City Clerk 4 Â· - 1, MEMORANDUM TO: George Krawzoff and Other ETADEIS Team Members FROM: Tom Newland RE: 4(0 Analysis, Alternative H DATE: November 30,1995 == As per your request, I have analyzed Alternative H for impacts to Parks/Recreational Lands and to Historic resources. In summary, Alternative H appears to be less impactive than any of the build alternatives. However, if a station for the LRT, either at the Moore or Marolt property, is considered, more taking of parks/recreational lands will required. Table A-2a of the DEIS shows the takings required for each of the alternatives and is attached for your review. Listed below are the takings required for Alternative H formatted I ike the above mentioned table: Parks/Recreational Lands 0 1) Aspen Trail System. I contend that Alternative H will not impact the tai I system. Rather, it will augment the trail system by providing trails on both sides of the highway from the airport to town. Currently, only one side of the highway has a trail from the airport to Maroon Creek Road. However, if you follow the logic of the DEIS regarding Alternative G, which is very similar to Alternative H in alignment, than there would be a 0.31 acre taking (1325 linear feet). 2) Zoline Open Space. Same taking as Alternative 2 in the DEIS, which is 3.0 acres. 3) Aspen Golf Course. Same taking as Alternative 2 in the DEE which is 3.0 acres (Plum Tree Play Field). 4) Moore Open Space. No taking, as it appears the existing right-of-way in this area can provide for Alternative H. (See note below.) 5) Marolt-Thomas Open Space. Under Alternative H, approximately 1.6 acres of property will be taken. (See note below.) 6) Bugsy Barnard Park. No takings required under Alternative H. Note: Alternative H appears to require a LRT station/park-and-ride somewhere in the neighborhood of Maroon Creek Road. If you assume that the Podalak Property is no longer an option, than this facility will have to be placed on either the Moore or the t, 4 - Marolt/Thomas Open Space. The facility requires about 525,000 square feet or 12 acres. 0 TOTAL OPEN SPACE TAKINGS REQUIRED: ALTERNATIVE A: 0 acres ALTERNATIVE B: 10.6 ALTERNATIVE C: 15.9 ALTERNATIVE D: 12.3 ALTERNATIVE E: 12.0 ALTERNATIVE F: 10.5 ALTERNATIVE G: 9.6 ALTERNATIVE H: 7.6 (does not includes LRT station/park-and-ride) If county open space is required for any alternative, a question must be put to the voters as to whether or not the property can be used for other purposes. If approved by the voters, the property may be used provided that a similar property is used to replace the land lost to other uses. The Burlingame Ranch property, located on Highway 82 near Owl Creek Road, has been proposed for this replacement. Historic Resources ~ 1) Maroon Creek Bridge. Under Alternative H there will be no direct impact to this historic structure; therefore there will be no Section 4(f) involvement. 2) Holden Smelting and Milling Complex: Under Alternative H, the new alignment over the Marolt/Thomas parcel will probably have a direct impact on this historic resource. It appears that about 1/2 acre of the historic site (which is included within the Marolt/Thomas parcel) could be impacted by construction of Alternative H. None of the buildings would be removed, but areas of the site where industrial debris of possible archeological interest could be disturbed by the new roadway and transitway. Based on existing mapping of Alternative H, it is impossible to tell exactly how much of the property will be impacted. After more detailed maps of Alternative H are developed, more information concerning potential impacts to this historic resource can be derived. 3) Colorado Midland Railroad. Under Alternative H, a small portion of the total 4 acres of railroad grade (included within the Marolt/Thomas parcel) could be lost to right-of- way acquisition. Alternative H could use up to 0.32 acres of the historic railroad grade. After more detailed maps of Alternative H are developed, more information concerning potential impacts to this historic resource can be derived. The SHPO has determined that there would be no effect to this historic resource under the other build alternatives, so it is assumed that this will be the case for Alternative H as well. . 40_Evaluatioft . Table A-2a Impacts to Section 4(0 Resources - Park/Recreational Lands Project Corridor Section Buttermilk to Marocn Maroon Creek Road to 4(f) Resource Creek Road 7th and Main Street Alternative 23BCDEFG 1) Aspen Trail Bike path Bike path Bike pach Bike path Bike path Bike path Bike path BikeÂ·path System take:331 take: 837 take: 611 take: 565 take: 610 take: 565 take: 610 take: 404 meters meters meters meters meters meters meters meters (2.727 ft). (2.746 ft). (1005 ft). (1.854 ft). (2,001 ft). (1.854 ft). (100 1 ft). (1325 ft). 0.25 ha 0.26 ha 0.19 ha 0.17 ha 0.19 ha- 0.17 ha 0.19 ha (0.31 ha) (0.63 ac) (0.63 ac) (0.46 ac) (0.42 itc) (0.46 ac) (0.42 ac) (0.46 ac) (0.31 ac) Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in 14#3. & #4 #2. *3. & #4 45 below #5 below #5 below #5 below #5 below #5 below below below 2) Zoline Open 1.2 ha 1.4 ha N/A NA N/A NA N/A N/A Space - 18.2 ha (3.0 ac) (3.5 ac) (45.0 ac) 3) Aspen ' -Jl f 1.2 ha 1.4 ha WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Coume - 85.0 ha (3.Oac) (3.5 ac) (210.0 ac) 4) Moore Open 0.6 ha 0.9 ha NA N/A NA NA N/A Na Space - 26.3 ha (1.6 ac) (2.4 ac) (64.9 ac) 5) Marolt-Thomas N/A MA 1.2 ha 2.6 ha 2.9 ha 2.6 ha 2.9 ha 2.0 ha Open Space - (3.0 ac) (6.5 ac) (7.3 ac) (6.5 ac) (7.3 ac) (4.9 ac) 30.1 ha (74.26 ac) rettums 0.8 rcturns 0.9 ha (2.0 ac) to ha (2.2 ac) open space to open space 6) Bugsy Barnard NA NA No NA N/A N/A N/A No impact Park- 0.81 ha impact (2.0 ac) Entrance to Aspen DEE A - 13 . 4) Castle Creek Power Plant. There would be no impact to the Historic Castle Creek Power Plant under Alternative H. This ig because the Castle Creek Bridge would 0 remain in it's existing condition. 5) 920 West Hallam Street There would be no impact to 920 West Hallam Street under Alternative H. This is because the Hallam Street alignment would not be altered under this alternative. 0 0 Conceptual Design and Operations Analysis Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H - Light Rail Transit i. 1%19169 5:~4 " 4...:j.;,Â·249%03 Â· ./ f . -,%9*.. 2.361 1/2-Ud/'. , ..:ti.j .:,A.. .....Fit*Xy SM*S'..1 Â·- Â·Â·j-'/ I Â·Â· 0. ./ .;Â·:sar>Â»4 fE>*f649'19?73':Â·A' 13.19:.4 24..*,- -~ . ,;A#. of:Â·ic:'#UNkiÂ¥62. '9>â‚¬2.k:3"43142&, Prepared for City of Aspen, Colorado Submitted by I . 4,6~~Â·,=:i.Â·d j . In association with LTK Engineering Services DKS Associates, Inc. November 14.1995 0 Table of Contents Alternative H - Light Rail Transit 0 Section Introduction .......................................... 1 Alternative H Description ........... 9 Operations Analysis ........ Traffic Analysis ...... ................................. 4 Preliminary Cost Estimates .............................. 0 Design Considerations Next Steps.................. 0 Appendix ........... j TOC 1196.13 Section One , Introduction ... . Entrance to Aspen DEIS Introduction 0 Background and Purpose During the development o f the Entrance to Aspen Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the City of Aspen and local citizens developed a new DEIS transportation alternative known as Alternative H. This alternative emerged from a . City-sponsored design charrette. Alternative H includes a four-mile light rail system with a reconstructed Highway 82 in a modern two lane configuration, with two one-way couplets to and from Main Street. Unlike the other DEIS alternatives, Alternative H is an attempt to deal with Aspen and down-valley traffic issues by providing a more balanced multimodal transportation system which includes a Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. Because of the unique advantages and issues associated with Alternative H, the City sought technical engineering and design assistance to further evaluate the alternative. After a competitive request for proposals process, Otak, Inc. in association with LTK Engineering Services and DKS Associates, Inc. (the Otak project team) were selected to conduct the conceptual design and operations analysis of Alternative H. This report summarizes concept-level engineering and design issues findings regarding Alternative H. Both highway and rail elements were examined for conceptual design, technical feasibility, and cost. 0 Work Completed The work undertaken during this initial phase of the Otak project team work scope was completed over a four-week timeframe. Completed work tasks include: Conducting a project corridor site visit to document existing conditions and issues; Meeting with representatives from the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado Department o f Transportation (CDOT), Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RPTA), and other Â«stakeholders"; Reviewing the DEIS along with other available plans, reports and maps (a list of documents is provided in the appendix); Documenting key assumptions for this analysis; Completing a Â«fatal flaw" engineering analysis of light rail and highway components; 0 ~rebaring preliminary design concepts and cost estimates for system alignment, cross sections and selected station locations; j Issuing a draft report and refining the conceptual design and operations analysis, based on feedback received from Aspen city representatives; and Summarizing the results of the analysis in this document. 0 Alternative H Â·Light Rail Transit 1 otak EXPORT.FUL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Introduction Continued Report Organization This draft report is organized into seven sections and a technical appendix. Following : this brief introduction the section headings include: Allernative H Description - documents key assumptions and preliminary design issues; Operating and Maintenance Analysis - indicates 0&M requirements, rail vehicle types and costs, and compares the LRT to RETA operations. Traffic Analysis - provides a brief overview of traffic issues and considerations. Cost Estimates - indicates preliminary capital, rail vehicle and operating costs, potential farebox revenues, and discusses potential cost-saving measures, alignment modifications and extensions. Design Considerations - summarizes a number of technical issues that must be considered when evaluating Alternative H in further detail. Next Steps - describes the schedule for review, refinement and synthesis of this analysis in light of the impending December 18 comment deadline for the DEIS. j Alternatlue H -Light Rail Transit 2 otak 7 REPOR:r.FNL 1196.13 Section Two Alternative H Description Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description DEIS Relationship Alignment H was initially conceived only a few days after the Entrance to Aspen DEIS was released on August 4, 1995. The new alternative includes a unique approach to enhancing traffic flow and safety, improving air quality, and preserving the natural environment and the Â·aesthetic appeal o f the corridor. Alternative H is premised on the immediate development of a light rail transit (LRT) line as an integral part of a regional transit system to help convert automobile trips to transit at convenient intermodal station areas. The provision of convenient, reliable and affordable fixed guideway LRT service in conjunction with effective transportation management strategies, - such as control over parking pricing in downtown Aspen, employer-based transit subsidies and telecommuting, - are means of relieving peak hour and daily congestion in the City. Alternative H is consistent with the project need and project intent stated in the DEIS as indicated below: Project Need "The capacity of the existing transportation system is insufficient during peak periods. Safety, clean air, the visitor's experience, and residents' quality of life are compromised." Proj ect Intent "To provide a balanced, integrated transportation system for residents, visitors, and conomuters that reduces congestion and pollution by reducing and/or managing the number o f vehicles on the road system. The system should reflect the character and scale of the Aspen community. Through a process responsive to community-based planning, the EIS shall identify, analyze, select, and implement the best transportation alternative for the short-and long- term goals of community compatibility, safety, environmental preservation, clean air, quality of life, and transportation capacity. The alternative chosen should be consistent with the Aspen/Snowmass/Pitkin County goal of limiting vehicles in 2015 to levels at or below those of 1994." - Although Alternative H was not included in the DEIS document, it would essentially pass the screening process utilized by the DEIS. The modified direct alignment to Main Strept, the two lane plus two transit guideway cross section, cut and cover or at-grade profile, and light rail or electric tr611ey vehicle modes all emerged from the DEIS screening process as viable transportation solutions. This included a "reality check screening," "fatal flaw screening" and Â« comparative screening", as indicated on page III- 27 (Figure III-9) of the DEIS. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 3 otak 9 - REPORTFUL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued Alternative H not only passes the DEIS screening criteria, but is the one transportation alternative capable of addressing the ten project objectives that serve as the foundation for the DEIS process. Here's how the ten objectives could be met: 1. Community-Based Planning - Alternative H emerged from a public open house design charrette conducted in response to information generated during the DEIS process and on related transportation studies; 2. Transportation Capacity - While one may argue what future transportation capacity requirements would be in Aspen and Pitkin County, under any transportation scenario (including the do-nothing scenario), it is clear that there is a capacity problem today and that it will only get worse in the future. The provision of light rail in a dedicated right-of-way practically ensures mobility in Aspen and the region during both peak and non-peak travel periods. The combination of the LRT with highway improvements, such as new couplets into and out of the city, left turn/right turn lanes, enhanced pedestrian/bicycle linkages, and transportation management programs would give the community the tools it needs to control growth and preserve community character. 3. Safety - The reconfiguration of the Entrance to Aspen into two one-way couplets 9 will address the high accident rate on the S-curves. Provision of a median-running LRT line between the Airport and Aspen will eliminate the potential for head-on collisions. LRT station area pedestrian linkages will reduce car/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts, and enhance the pedestrian environment in the Central Core. 4. Environmentally-Sound Alternative - Alternative H is the one alternative that can address the increase in future mobility without an increase in peak and average daily auto and bus vehicle trips. This benefit, in combination with the relative decrease in winter roadway maintenance, would thereby meet regional air quality objectives. 5. Community Acceptability - Preserving the existing small-town mountain charm of - Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley cannot be accomplished by increasing highway capacity, without the provision of non-highway travel options. Alternative H would accommodate future growth in travel to and from Aspen without detrimental impacts to community character and quality of life. l 6. Financial Limitations - The cost of constructing and operating Alternative H is comparable to the highway-oriented DEIS alternatives. While total capital costs for constructing Alterative H are higher than other alternatives, the community should Alternative H Â·Light Rail Tranait 4 otak REPORS.FRI. 1196.13 . /\ 11 - \ 2. \\ 7815 j , 4,4 -4 - , l .-I. il ' /1 ~i Â· . 1 i \ . Â¥Urrv. r *1 , .1. 1 6 '' 1\, 1. 2 1 1 ?12tt#D ...1 - ..3 . .9 - , 1 11. 1 2 .I , t - . l,1 Â· 1 ... ..1 1 4 , It..4 . . 1 fi \ \ t h . f ... dill ., .... ' 4 r .... 1\ , 1 1....1 . '1.1.Â· itt . 1.1 2 31 ~0*' )2, . 4 A. V,l.~ '; * ' +0* Â·4'.~%''f;,32*.'-0~~ ~f 4 , % 1 - . .... 1 4 4 " . I i .Â·11~11.Uctrul. Â·, -- ~*r fituw,flbonA"i Â¥, 0 1.. *ii~#'~:Â· Â·(i <+ !,1 , i. 1 1 2 - - - c,><I, F,z~v~} i <f , ~VA <FlikRV V: villil,411'812'RMAN# 111~ab,fl, ,Â·11'* , 91 Ki:. ", 4 , 1. : e \Iii 1 i ; It. 1. 1 1.\ N 11.1 1 1 ,-Â· 4 4 Ci ' ... :Â·'Jlrtl'114#41181!11!1";#1~~16?Â°12#~RINAN, 4di 19. f.Â·Afc,Â· i )9#CKWL/7-1~ilitalgeÂ°16?81;i ~ADj',4-J'~44* ~ .~~~FLI~. ..~1.1) DEIM<ppoa#Crfjoy#%&(r.~ *4,~~;l j<k Ji j: FrAL*1~4;9 9~,1Â¢Â®i,N*6+ft,-,1\(~:..1\ t': 11 r l . 1 \ +int ' .,; , .:y ji 1,*Aip.t:H , Â·+ A 'aÂ·Â·.1, I, 4, I, ; , i Â· i.>NI:?1.294 ..a il H i . L i - 3< m 11 *rN## 4 -&44 -Â· 6* Â· .u,.e' Â· '' 1,11 6. 2% . , 7.. lÂ·â€¢ . 1 a , .0 .,f 1 , 1 It ... 11 ' / 1 te '\ g:4:11. 1 '\ 1 1.././.. 11-1 1 1 ''f t. 1 '~ 1 :fr<4*' i i fl ~ ~ _.Lli. Â£ 11 ~ ENTRANCE TO ASPEN ALTERNATIVE H LebATION oIA~ 42.1 + 99 \ h\V\,I' I 1 Emeng,m ill 2-1.. â€¢ INOICATES ULTIMATE AUaNIAENfÂ· CONFIGURATION \ ,Â· d', ' 'iO B 4.1 Y' \A, \ \ s\A. i , 'Dil'l ''' 1 1 I Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued weigh the short and long-term benefits carefully before selecting an alternative. A number of innovative funding strategies should be explored to reduce local public costs of Alternative H. 7. Clean Air Act Requirements - As described in point four, Alternative H helps to reduce Particulate Matter 10 emissions, thereby meeting 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and demonstrating conformity. 8. Emergency Access - The reconstructed highway under Alternative H would have adequate shoulders and turning lanes to accommodate emergency vehicles. The new Castle Creek bridge structure and S-curve couplet would enhance ingress/egress to and from Aspen. 9. Phasing - Future enhancements and expansions of the fixed-guideway system, and related RFTA transit service is envisioned by Alternative H. Roadway improvements, such as grade-separated intersections are also part of the ultimate configuration to address very long-term traffic demand requirements. Key Assumptions The Alternative H base case scenario was developed for this preliminary design analysis using a number of key assumptions. The following key assumptions were formulated while working in conjunction with City representatives and were used by the Otak project team to confirm a base case alignment, conduct "fatal flaw" engineering and design analyses, and to estimate capital and operating costs. 1. Transit and roadway improvements would be developed at the same time to mitigate construction-period impacts and to immediately provide an opportunity to shift modal share away from automobiles. 2. The rail alignment would initially extend from the Rubey Park Transit Center - beyond the airport to a new maintenance and operations depot facility on the north side of Highway 82 west of the existing RPTA bus facility. The alignment would follow Highway 82 between the airport and Cemetery Lane, then will proceed on a newly constructed roadway with a new bridge structure over Castle Creek to align with Main Street. While an alternative alignment was initially considered to split the LRT track lines between Cemetery Lane and 7th Street, it was determined to have a greater negative impact on existing neighborhoods and traffic flows in comparison to the base case alignment. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 5 otak REPORT.FNL 1196.14 Figure 1. Conceptual Track Schematics A. Initial Configuration - Significant Sections of Single Track rp 6% 49 4 4 2 2 1 11 .@, 97 b 11 11 11 'biP: / c# 4 / â‚¬ 490 0, #40*0 3. Ultimate Configuration - Full Double Tracking 9, 42, -- LE e *41 \1 1/ 42 42 0> 1/ 1 i "1 1-F ' 74.9, 2 Â» ce 3- CP ~qty o. 9 9, 909 J ib Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued 3. The ultimate Alternative H configuration would consist of a double track with rail embedded in reconstructed street right-of-way (ROW) on Main and side streets, and in a separate rail bed (tie and ballast) dbwn valley. The roadway cross section would generally consist of two travel lanes and two rail lines (one of both in each direction) between the Central Core and the Buttermilk station area, with one additional travel lane (four lanes plus raiD down-valley to the Owl Creek Road intersection. At that point the rail alignment would cross the highway on a south edge parallel route. 4. To help lower capital costs, the LRT alignment would initially be constructed at grade level, and would be phased in over time, starting with an initial single/double track configuration from the airport to the Rubey Park Transit Center. Whenever possible, the base case alignment was designed within available ROW with the provision for accommodating all travel modes (auto, truck, rail transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian). 5. Fast, frequent, reliable and safe fixed guideway transit service is desired. This is most achievable using light rail transit on exclusive dedicated guideways. Ten minute headways are assumed during peak rush hour travel periods. 6. Until a more detailed ROW analysis is conducted, we have assumed the following ROW widths: Highway 82 down-valley - 125 feet in county, 100 feet in city, Main Street - 100 feet, Monarch and Galena Streets -60 feet, and Durant Avenue - 80 feet). 7. Over the long term, as future phases ofAlternative H are constructed, traffic signals should be reduced whenever possible to reduce vehicle congestion and improve traffidrail flows. The ultimate elimination of traffic signals along Highway 82 (up to Main Street) is included in future phase assumptions, as well as a series o f pedestrian tunnels to improve auto/transit vehicle flow, mitigate intermodal conflicts and improve highway level of service. 8. The targeted performance goal for peak-hour traffic volumes on Highway 82 for the design year (2015) is level of service E or better; thereby achieving the project intent objective stated in the DEIS. 9. Intermodal centers gith station area park-and-ride lots and efficient transit/pedestrian facilities would be developed to facilitate convenient transfer from private vehicles to transit. The main intermodal transit centers would be at Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 6 otak RE:FORTFUL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued the airport and Buttermilk locations. Each station must be designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access and must meet ADA requirements. 10. Five station stops would be provided between Castle Creek and the airport. Potential locations include: along the in-bound couplet within the Marolt property; near the Aspen municipal golf course/Moore property; at the Buttermilk Intermodal Center; at the Airport Intermodal Center; and at the airport terminal. 11. Two station stops would initially be provided within the Central Core, and two others along Main Street. Initial locations would be in the vicinity of the Rubey Transit Center, on Monarch (exact location not determined), on Main between Garmisch and 1st, and on Main between 4th and 5th Streets. 12. Pedestrian safety must be emphasized in the Central Core, as well as the need to reduce conflicts among all modes of travel (auto, rail, bus, bike, etc.). This requires consideration of improved access management techniques, such as providing right turn lanes, restricted left turn lanes, and improved signal timing. 13. The LRT line should be designed to accommodate future extensions down-valley (i.e. to Brush Creek) and potential rail linkages in the event of down-valley 4 commuter rail service. Consideration should also be given to accomodating historic trolley cars within a Central Core 'loop" during off-peak travel periods. Base Case Scenario The ultimate configuration of the base case alignment for Alternative H is illustrated in the following location map. While the DEE project area boundary extends from the Buttermilk Ski Area intersection to the intersection of Main Street and 7th Street, the LRT alignment in Alternative H initially extends west to the AspeWPitkin County Airport (Sardy Field) and east to the Rubey Park Transit Station in the Central Core of Aspen, a distance of approximately 4.2 miles. I As indicated in Figure. 1. Conceptual Tback Schematics and in the following alignment maps, the ultimate phase 2 configuration for Alternative H is designed with 10 station area stops and includes several grade-separated street crossings to facilitate automobile and rail vehicle movements. We have assumed an initial single/double track configuration to lower up front capital cost, and an ultimate full double track configuration if demand warrants it. The base case alignment, phasing assumptions and Alternatiue H.Light Rail Transit 7 otak l.\ REPOR:r-FUL 1196.13 4 4 h . ---\- 1 -. 00.8=3*44 9 44 0 ...1.1- 0 0 lo O-2 11 041%,15 4**0354-3.1 E- 1 / i )1 \ 6%. - daw<r7-40 j\.GS atic UÂ·'520* TAANSIT BTA:,0â€ž /2. ,: cu\ /=WSÂ« 6%%0-3 146=~ ff?4\--10<r Sk.j~.AU.ET PAnK \ 9Â»flr< r 0\ o \ 0 00 /42 3.. e y--- 1 34 0 -1 4 '. \C. ts ENTRANCE TO ASPEN 1000' ALIERNATIVE H ALIGNMENT MAP 'A' ~7 - . INDICATES ULTIMATE ALIGNMENT CONFIOURATION SCALE 1.- Â§00' . SEE ALIERNAT,VE H MAP Â¥ t 1 t v ...0.-4.- \\ 1 4 t#--- **<4.,-<-mn.tnAHS,1 8!ATION # \ L \ Lilli ~ eft] 02] __1.--.-2.-Â£se:.:sse:=;Â§=5~~ , MAROON CREEK - - -- - --~~~~ZZb::~~ANSIT STATION /44&90 "Air#----- C) --- 12 C=t *CZ:Z=:2k*Emt:44##- - 411 40* >et====22 -tl/&.----- Lign .......... -1 -93 -- ~i CU Cz~ f i Â» -â€¢â€¢o.C~,â€¢le~..I- t i i 11 /;Ck aÂ· .00. 1000' ENTRANCE TO ASPEN ALTERNATIVE H ALIGNMENT MAP 'B' ~ t~-'J 1 SCALE 1.- 500â€¢ â€¢ INDICATES ULTIMATE ALIGNMENT CONFIGURATION 4.1 C 4.:\ IN> .5 \14 Tf~i \44 1--3/074 24 A C~AdBAVJ \.:Z:I:~4~0:*~ - ABPORT IERMINAL SIOP' 9 ~ 1 1/\ 1 .- O li Ampon' .lEn MODAL .,A"ON \ 4 tr 030'JK 000. 1001. ENTRANCE TO ASPEN 1 ALTERNATIVE H ALIGNMENT MAP 'C' SCALE 1â€¢- 000' ' INDICATES ULTIMATE ALIONMENT CONFIGURATION ' i>GfiRÂ©C Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued preliminary cross sections and station area concepts is described below, from the west (airport) to the east (Aspen). Airport Area The LRT alignment currently envisioned would extend from a new maintenance facility north of Highway 82 and west of the existing RPTA bus maintenance facility across Highway 82 at grade near the west end of the airport terminal. A stop would be provided at the airport to serve passengers and airport employees. The parameters assumed in the airport terminal stop include: Center loaded, at-grade platform; 75% shelter 200'long Minimum 14' wide - with enclosed, heated shelter, 18' Access at either end of platform From the airport terminal stop, the LRT would proceed parallel to Highway 82 at grade level to the Airport Intermodal Station and Park-and-Ride facility. This would serve as the major commuter park-and-ride for Central Core employees and visitors. Carpool and bus transit lanes would be routed into a parking structure for transfer to light rail. A pedestrian underpass would be provided to link the parking area with the Airport Business Center. The parameters assumed in the conceptual design of the Airport Intermodal station platform include: Center loaded, at-grade platform; 75% shelter 200'long Minimum 14' wide - with enclosed, heated shelter, 18' Access at either end of platform Airport to Buttermilk From the Airport Intermodal Station, the initial phase alignment would entail an at- grade crossing near the intersection of Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road. The ultimate phase 2 LRT configuration would "dive" into a cut and cover tunnel crossing beneath the - east bound travel lanes of Highway 82 and emerge in its median. At this point the LRT would stay within the median until the Cemetery Lane intersection. We have assumed a double track and four lane highway (two lanes and one track in either direction) from this point to the next station at Buttermilk. j At the Buttermilk Station, there would be another opportunity for private vehicles and feeder buses to change modes to use LRT into Aspen. Direct pedestrian connections would be constructed below the highway between the center platform station and the Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 8 otak REPORr-PUL it96.13 0 0 0 .C 14' L tÂ· . 4 *A Ar) /4 ''1 .1 - /nalk n . iD rÂ©' 11*46 . 1. rr - /1 k._,e~ il=!1/211=1.,a~.b , Â· ilf#tz Cle==til mi==1 4(~ _11 9+--11. =2,66~vm. .1 4 1 BIKE I I...t -. WAY L PLANT~ ~ TRAVEL ~ TRAVEL ~0 ~ | ~ TRAVEL ~ TRAVEL L J PLANT 1 WAY 2 1 BIKE LRT TRACKS ' 7.50 ' 6' 7 12' 1 12' 3' 28' "31' 12' ' 120 1 6, 7.5' w R.O.W. 125' n.-r-1 4 LANE HIGHWAY WITH L. R. T. 0 2' 6' 10' 20' 4Â«172 1 14' t ~r' 41 *4~~t# 4 1 'li 0)~ < A Â¥- L . 11 1 io r 2281 11 t#_!M g câ€¢/~ %6-1 i BIKE I i . 1 BIKE I PLANT l WAY l L TRAVEL L L IL LRT TRACKS TRAVEL l L WAY L PLANT " 8' 1 8, 1 6,*1 12' 1 3" 28' 1 3'' 12' 1 6' 1 8, 1 81 R.O.W. , 102' ' f rl....1-1 1 2 LANE HIGHWAY WITH L. R. T. 0 2' 5' 10' 20' Entrance to Aspen D EIS Alternative H Description Continued Buttermilk parking area and bus center. This center could be linked to the Buttermilk lift system and might be a point of exchange to gondola transport if that is developed to serve other ski areas. The conceptual design parameters for the Buttermilk Station platform include: Center loaded, at grade platform; 75% shelter 200'long Minimum 19' wide; preferably 24' for anticipated volumes Access at either end or center of platform; elevator, stair or escalator serving pedestrian tunnel below Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Station Two highway travel lanes (one in either direction) would be constructed east of the Buttermilk Station, with LET in the median. Adequate shoulders for emergency stopping and snow removal would be provided, as well as landscaping. A bikeway could be provided on one or both sides of the reconstructed roadway, or constructed as a parallel recreational trail (as assumed in the DEIS). While the median of Highway 82 would be designed to accommodate the ultimate double track LRT configuration, the initial base case alignment would merge to a single track section between Buttermilk and the Maroon Creek stations. A new bridge structure over Maroon Creek would be constructed and the exiting historic trestle bridge restored for recreational use as part of a recreational trail system. The exact location for the new Maroon Creek bridge has not been determined at this time. The Maroon Creek station would provide a direct pedestrian tunnel connection from the station platform to station area parking and transit shuttle service, adjacent residential development, and the Aspen municipal golf course. The conceptual design parameters for the station platform include: Center loaded, at-grade platform; 75% shelter - 200'long Minimum 19' wide; preferably 24' for anticipated volumes Access at either end or center of platform, elevator, stair or escalator serving pedestrian tunnel below . Maroon Creek Station to Main/7th Streets The DEIS assumes a new Maroon Creek Road alignment which may create an opportunity for an LRT station and park-and-ride facility on the Moore open space built Alternative H -Light Roll Transit 9 otak REPORr.FUL 1196.13 15 cnet* 00,4 TIAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION LRT ALIGNMENT Â¥010 . 20â‚¬ .0\N' AY 81 LRT STATION CLUB PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL TO CENTER LOADING PLATFORE LRT ALIGNMENT LRT AND MAROON CREEK TRA*S\1 S.r P., Â¥- \PARKING P 02% 0 BUTTERMILK Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued behind berms to reduce its visual impact. The ultimate configuration for Alternative H assumes that the Maroon Creek Road intersection is reconstructed as a grade-separated , crossing with Highway 82, and that the intersection of Castle Creek Road and Maroon Creek Road is reconstructed as a roundabout. From the Maroon Creek station to the Cemetery Road intersection, the LRT would proceed within the reconstructed two lane highway median. At the Cemetery Lane intersection, the LET would follow the new Highway 82 alignment as part of a one-way couplet leading to Main Street. The couplet into Aspen is assumed to have one travel lane with two parallel rail tracks on the north edge of the new alignment. The LRT track configuration is ipitially assumed to consist of a double track system from Maroon Creek station to the Marolt station, then single track to Main at 6th Street The existing S-curves between Main/7th Streets and Cemetery Lane would become an outbound couplet for traffic leaving Aspen. The S-curves and the existing Castle Creek bridge would be redesigned into a two-lane configuration with separate turning lanes. This configuration would narrow into one outbound lane west of Cemetery Lane at the confluence of the couplets and light rail tracks. Traffic heading from Cemetery Lane to the Central Core could ultimately be accommodated via a cut-and-cover tunnel beneath the existing highway alignment merging with eastbound traffic in the newly constructed couplet. In this event, traffic signals at the Cemetery Lane intersection would not likely be required. The impact on the Marolt open space would be minimized by maintaining an alignment in proximity to Castle Creek on the eastern portion of the property. The Marolt station is assumed to be primarily for "kiss-and-ride" drop-offs, bus transfers, parking and bicycle/pedestrian access. The conceptual design parameters for the station platform include: Center loaded, at-grade platform: 75% shelter 200'long Minimum 14' wide - with enclosed, heated shelter, 18' , Â· Access at either end of platform a 1 The new Castle Creek bridge structure would be constructed in the base case scenario to accommodate a single light rail track (on the north edge), a 12-foot vehicle travel lane, an 8-to-10 foot shoulder, and a 5-foot sidewalk (on the south edge). Impacts to adjacent Atternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 10 otak REPOR~:10 1196.13 14 Ittlll=R a a .202 Zz~|~b TER 8281 \ - -- -9& 1 bull 1 ' 94&,TAN 6 1:.4 31044 9/d//-9.-,/tr I n. M--711 -1=T ELEVATOR STAIR AND/OR ESCALATOR 1 BIKE ~ BIKE PED&STRIAN TUNNEL [ WAY TRAVEL ILRT TRACKS~ PLATFORM ,LATTRACKS 1 ~ TRAVEL L WAY l < 1 4 .1 4 241 - 9 CENTER PLATFORM PROTOTYPE n_r-1 1 aG. BUTTERMILK STATION 0 2' 5' 10' 20' (CENTER OR END LOADING) 1 1 0 0 0 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description Continued residents would be minimized (as indicated in the Main Street west of 7th Street cross section) using sound mitigation barriers, landscaped buffer strips, and reduced vehicle speeds. The need for any private property relocation in this section would be minimized or avoided by Alternative H. Note: the DEIS under Alternatives F (modified direct with separate transit envelope) and Alternative G (improved existing lanes and transitway on modified direct alignment) assumed three "relocations" in this section - one residence, one business and one structure. Main Street from 7th to Monarch Extending beyond the limits of the DEIS corridor. the 100-foot right-of-way on Main Street would be maintained. The LRT would travel on parallel embedded- rail tracks in the median of Main Street with station stops between 4th and 5th, and between 1st and Garmisch. Modest station platforms would be provided at these locations, thereby displacing approximately 60 parking spaces on Main Street (15 spaces on each side of Main Street at each station). Conceptual design parameters for Main Street transit stop platforms include: Center loaded, at-grade platform; 75% shelter 200'long Minimum 14' wide - with enclosed, heated shelter, 18' Access at either end of platform The typical Main Street profile between station stops would consist of two embedded LRT tracks, two 14-foot travel lanes (one in each direction), parallel parking spaces, right turn lanes, landscaped buffer strips and 6-foot sidewalks, as indicated in the Main Street with LRT cross-section drawing. Additional existing parking may be displaced to provide the right turn lanes. Improved access management would be required to safely accommodate vehicle turning movements to and from Main Street. As mentioned above, right turns could easily be . provided to and from Main Street. However, left turning movements onto Main Street would have to occur at signalized intersections. Additional discussion on this topic is provided in the Traffic Analysis section. Central Core ' J The double-track section would switch to a single track at the intersectiok of Main and Monarch Street. The initial LRT configuration would proceed with a left-hand side- running alignment along Monarch to right-hand side-running on Durant with a terminal Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 11 otak =Tr 1196.13 -- . 14' i. ' - a SOUND MITIGATION v -nryri a.= lo 'Â° Ne, 1. I EM' - . tri, al. 1 ,411=14 4 4 4,36# SIDE i ACCESS I ,WALI<l ~ TRAVEL ~ LRT TRACKS , STRIP ' L PRIVATE ~ 5' 1 5' " 14' 1 28' 10' 1 R.O.W. Â¢ t 52' rl....r-1 . MAIN STREET WEST OF 7TH ST. 0 2< ' 5' 10' 30' IL 14' t . 4 V-L ..r/ 9 -.AIR -1- b r.!_~ 1-8 U .A . t. . I - 1 4.4.4. , BIKE 1 i BIKE .. WAY ~, ~PARK!N(11. TRAVELI [ .... LRT TRACKS L TRAVEL 681(ING! ,.1. WAY . 8' 6' 8' 14' 28' 7 7 ., 14' 6' 8' R.O.W. . 100' ru-1 1 MAIN STREET WITH L. R. T. 0 2' 5' 10' 20' 1{ 1 /4,1, ,-1 4 -.70; t L pIDEJJ~--- .SIDE WALK L LFIT TRACK ~, TRAVEL ~ TRAVEL D?ARKING WALK , 12' 11' 1 11' " 8' :1 0 , R.O.W. , I , 60' MONARCH/GALENA STREET rLM-1 WITH SINGLE TRACK L. R. T. 0 2'. 5' 10' 20' 0 0 .0 A - @+F - aff ' j i-g~" 1 *11 v/ . , 1~47 4'1 1% 13 1 =IJ 4-1- -1-IT- rt--4 . 1.1 RUBEY PARK TRANSIT CENTER . DUB ZONE MAVEL lnAVEL linT TnACKS . Lnr s,Al,ON ~- 7 14' I 12' 60' DURANT AVENUE fl-7-1 1 0 2' 6' to' 20 TRANSIT CENTER Uk Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative H Description 0 Continued stop across from the Rubey Park Transit Center. This LIVI' configuration would convert Monarch to a one-way (southbound) street, and would enhance the pedestrian environment and linkages across Durant Avenue. The long-term ultimate configuration of Alternative H entails a single-track light rail loop to be embedded along Monarch, Durant, Galena. and Main (between Galena and Monarch). LRT station stops would be provided on Monarch (exact location not determined), Durant (across from the Rubey Park Transit Center), and on Galena (between Main and Hopkins Avenue). Central Core station platform conceptual design parameters include: Side loading at curb; 75% shelter 200'long Station area special treatment; signage; paving pattern; shelter design With the exception of the Monarch Street alignment, the ultimate LRT configurations would essentially consist of a right-hand side-running system within the Central Core loop. The street configuration along Galena could remain as two-way or be switched to one-way, pending additional traffic analysis. The base case for Monarch Street assumes 0 two 11-foot travel lanes (in one direction), parallel parking on one side of the street, 9- foot sidewalks and the side running LRT, as indicated in the Monarch/Galena Street with single track LRT cross section drawing. It should be noted that all of the estimated LRT turning movements in the Alternative H base case scenario appear to be well within minimum turning radii required to accommodate LRT vehicles (125 feet+). Hence, the potential for negative impacts associated with noise, vibration and "wheel squear would be mitigated. The 80-foot right-of-way along Durant Avenue, and the proximity of the Rubey Park Transit center, the Silver Circle Ice Rink, and Aspen Mountain ski lift;s provides an excellent setting for a Central Core terminus station. The base case provides a station - platform, LRT tracks, two travel lanes (one in each direction) and a bus loading zone within existing right-of-way, as indicated by the Durant Transit Center cross section drawing. The LRT would improve the efficiency of the existing Rubey Park Transit Station and enhance the image of the surrounding area by reducing the need for the large diSsel transit buses, especially during peak travel times. There would be apparent air, noise and aesthetic benefits of the LRT at this location. 0 Atternatiue H .Light Rail Transit 12 otak REPOEr.FNL 1196.13 Section Three : Operations Analysis Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis This section conceptually evaluates the operating and maintenance aspects of the Entrance to Aspen light rail transit (LR'ID alternative. Transit operations must be matched to the passenger loadings anticipated to occur at different times of the day, on diffenent days, and at different seasons during the year. Sufficient passenger-carrying equipment (rolling stock) must be purchased, and facilities must be sized to accommodate at least the peak volumes anticipated upon the start of revenue transit service. Light Rail Operations The line is estimated to be about 3.7 miles in length from the airport station at Sardy Field to the Rubey Park Transit Center in Aspen. Approximately 0.4 miles would be added between the planned, Operating LRT and Maintenance (O&M) Depot facility and the airport terminal stop. If the entire loop is constructed in the .Central Core, another 0.5 miles would be added for the link around from Rubey Park via Galena to its junction with the main alignment at Main/Monarch. The end-to-end running time and resulting round trip cycle time, combined with the policy headway (interval between trains) will govern the number of trains required to be in service. Preliminary train performance simulations estimate that one-way run time would be on the order of 12 to 15 minutes. Run Option 1 - How Fast Might We Get There? A one-way run of 12 minutes would produce an average speed of 18.5 mph, and a round trip cycle of 30 minutes. A total of six minutes layover and recovery time would be split between the two end terminals. Only three trains would have to be in service to maintain 10-minute headways. This is the best that can be envisaged under "ideal" circumstances, namely: Higher speeds: 35 mph at airport, 55 mph along Route 82,25 mph on Main Street, 20 mph around the downtown loop, 10 mph on slow curves in loop and at Cemetery. No speed-restricting curves at LRT entry to Route 82 between Airport Park-and-Ride - and Buttermilk. Station stopping (dwelD times of 20 seconds, typical of transit, might be a bit tight for a system catering to many tourists who are not regular riders. , Since each train would ijaeet only two other trains along the way, a mostly single-track line could be provided. Passing sidings would be needed on Main Street between (and should include) the Garmisch and 4th-5th stations, and at Buttermilk. Ideally, the passing siding at Buttermilk should be at least 0.5 miles long and centered on the station Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 13 otak REPORT.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS 0 Operations Analysis Continued so that a slightly delayed train in one direction would not delay a train going the other way. Terminal times would be split as follows: two minutes at Rubey Park before continuing around the loop, and four minutes at the airport. A fourth train operator might be needed, so that operators could relayl at Rubey Park if only half of the loop were built initially (as is assumed in the base case scenario). Run Option 2 - Would Somewhat Slower Be More Realistic? A one-way run of 15 minutes would produce an average speed of nearly 15 mph, and a round trip cycle of 40 minutes. Layover and recovery time totaling 10 minutes would be split between the two end terminals. Four trains would be in service to maintain 10- minute headways. This "relaxed" scenario probably is more realistic and could accommodate: Lower speed limits: 20 mph at airport, 35 mph along Route 82, 20 mph down Main Street, 15 mph on the downtown loop, and 10 mph for slow curves in loop, at Cemetery Lane curve, and between the Airport Intermodal Station (airport park-and- 0 ride) and Buttermilk Station. Station stopping (dwelD times of 30 seconds, which may be more appropriate for a system catering to many tourists who are not regular riders. Each train would meet just three other trains along the way, so a mostly single-track line still could be provided. Passing sidings would be needed on Main Street between (and should include) the Garmisch and 4th-5th stations, as well as north ofboth the Maroon Creek (Golf Course) and the airport stations. Station area sidings should be at least 0.5 miles long and centered (approximately) on the stations so that a slightly delayed train in one direction would not delay a train going the other way. Locations for "meets" are based on the following assumed split of terminal times: four minutes at Rubey Park before continuing around loop (or returning back to Main along Durant and Monarch), and six minutes at Airport. Other variations would be possible, but would move the Â«meet" points between opposing trains and, as a result, might shift the locations of passing tracks. J Arriving operator leaves "front" of arriving train, while relief operator boards "rear" to set up cab for departure in opposite direction. Arriving operator then takes a break and gets into position to act as relay for next-arriving train. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 14 ctak 17 REPORr.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued Summary Comparison of Run-Time Estimates ' The following table provides a segment-by-segment comparison of the " fast" and "slow" running time estimates. Although there is only one minute difference through each segment, and six minutes total difference in estimated round trip run times, the effect is to stretch the operating cycle for 10-minute headways from 30 to 40 minutes, requiring the addition of a fourth train to maintain the schedule. Table 1 Comparison of Run-Time Estimates From-To R-O-W Miles Fast Avg Slow- Avg Time Tixnd (minutes) (minutes) Airport-Buttermilk Private 0.9 3.0 18 mph 4.0 14 mph Buttermilk-Cemetery Rt 82 Median 1.6 3.5 27 mph 4.5 21 mph Cemetery-Monarch Main Median 0.9 4.0 14 mph 5.0 11 mph Monarch-Rubey Park Street Lane 0.3 -12 12 mph 1.5 12 mph Total Line* 3.7 12.0' 19 mph 15.0' 15 mph Round Trip Run/Cycle 24/30 30/40 'Additional 0.5-mile length around loop on Galena and Main completes 4.2-mile line. A Flexible, Yet Economic Track Plan Double track should be provided on rail transit systems where service is very frequent and/or there are many trains on the line simultaneously. Neither of these conditions is likely to exist in Aspen at the time of system start-up. With only three or four trains needed to offer service at 10-minute intervals, there are opportunities to conserve capital funds by single-tracking some parts of the line. All of the above work suggests that only one train at a time would need to be in the short section between Main/Monarch and Rubey Park. If the Monarch and Durant single track sections of line could be used by trains running in both directions, then the legs of the downtown loop on Galena and Main (Galena-to-Monarch) could be omitted to save costs. ' Alternative H Â·Light Rail Transit 15 otak REPORr.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued The Main Street section from Monarch to 7th should be double tracked from the start: to accommodate meets between LRVs running in opposite directions, because it will be designed for a two-track LRT median cross section, and to limit the construction nuisance to one incidence. The section from Main Street west of 7th, and the Marolt station area could be single- tracked initially. This entire section of line is about 0.9 miles long (0.6 miles double track and up to 0.3 miles single track). The Route 82 segment from Cemetery Lane to Buttermilk also will be designed for a double tracked LRT median cross section. Double-tracking the section fram the LRT entry into the Route 82 median just north of CemeteryÂ· Lane to just north of the Maroon Creek station would provide the facility necessary for a meet when a four-train schedule is operated. The section just northwest of the Maroon Creek Station (including the Maroon Creek bridge) to just southeast of Buttermilk may be single-tracked, if this will produce a useful *capital savings. From Buttermilk to Airport Intermoâ‚¬lai Station, the alignment should be sized for double track. Two tracks should be installed from just south of Buttermilk to just north of the airport station. With three trains running, the meet would be at Buttermilk; but with four trains in service, the meet would be closer to the airport station. West of the latter point, only a single track will be needed to the airport terminus stop. All of this produces the track schematics shown in Figure 1. The initial base case plan includes significant lengths of single track line, while the other plan shows what might be considered as an "ultimate" layout - fully double-tracked and with ample crossovers for scheduled and emergency short-turn operations. Schedules with meets for 3- and 4- train scenarios are shown as time-distance diagrams in Figures 2 and 3. Taken together, the figures demonstrate the capability of the system to operate trains at 10-minute intervals, with either 12- or 15-minute one-way running times, even with about 55% single track. Such flexibility will allow the system to adjust to diurnally and seasonally changing demand patterns. Fleet Size and System Capacity' 1 + 1 Sufficient vehicles must be purchased to cover all revenue runs as well as to provide an adequate margin for shop and reserve cars. In general, a 20% "spare" ratio is required, Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 16 otak D. REPORr-â„¢L 119113 Figure 2. Time-Distance Diagram Displaying Schedule and Meets 10-Minute Headways Using 3 Trains (Fast Cycle) V--- Rubey Park[- / 1 / /\/ Monarch ' / , 1 Garmish Â· / / 4th/5th Â· / Marolt / /\/ L./ Maroon Creek ~ ~ ~ / / 9 Buttermilk ~ / / \ Airport .L - ~ ' / / \ Intermodal ~ Airport - 1 1.- 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 : , 25 30 Minutes (One-Way Running Time - 12 Minutes) i.1 33Â· Figure 3. Time-Distance Diagram Displaying Schedule and Meets 10-Minute Headways Using 4 Trains (Slow Cycle) lili 1 Rubey Park r , , i lili j ell 1 lili 11'111 - - I -1.i i l Monarch i 1 1 >r ; 1 Garmish 1 1 1 1; 4th/5th , Marolt - . ./1 i i '// \\ .:4.9.- 'li i jil I. 1 / 1 Maroon Creekl / / 1 / / / . /1 / / 1 Fil1l, 1 / \ Buttermilk [ 1 Airport , / 0 Iii ,\21 :1 Intermodal / / Airport lili i .1.1 i I lil lii I Iii , 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Minutes (One-Way Running Time - 15 Minutes) 1 1 0 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued except that a minimum of two spare rail vehicles should be included for small fleets. The minimum criterion o f two spare rail vehicles is likely to apply in Aspen. Following is a selection of fleet sizes and associated peak hour, peak direction (PHPD) carrying capacities at the peak load point (PLP), assuming 10-minute headways (six trains per hour per direction) and 150 passengers per car. Table 2 Light Rail Vehicle Requirements LRV Fleet - Fast Cycle Slow Cycle Number of Cars PHPD (3 Trains (4 Trains Per Train Passengers Running) Running) 1 900 5 6 2 1,800 8 10 0 The higher PHPD figure is likely to be adequate for long-term (2015) demand levels that i may be expected in Aspen. Should it ever become necessary to carry even higher PHPD loads, capacity could be doubled to 3,600 in either of two ways: Completing the second main track throughout the line and doubling the number of two-car trains (i. e., shifting to 5-minute headways), or Doubling the length of trains to four cars. Representative Vehicle Alternatives A variety of light rail vehicles (LRVs) from around the world might be considered for the Aspen system. A representative sampling includes several variations of articulated and - non- irticulated partial and 100% low floor cars. These are described below and shown in Figures 4 through 6. Several of their principal characteristics are compared in the matrix that follows the descriptions. . 1 Concept 1 - Articulated jhigh-floor car (Denver) Advantage: Lower cost; in production; could pool parts and maintenance help w/R'IT) Disadvantage: ADA access at front door only; slower loading/unloading due to steps 0 Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 17 otak ..3)1 REPORT-FNE. 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued 0 Concept 2 - Larger articulated partial low-floor car Advantage: In production; might pool parts w/Portland; all-door ADA access Disadvantage: Not yet a proven design , Concept 3 - Smaller articulated 100% low-floor car Advantage: All-door ADA access; 100% low floor; narrower width Disadvantage: Fewer seats: lower maximum speed Concept 4 - Modular articulated 100% low-floor car Advantage: All-door ADA access; 100% low floor; narrower width Disadvantage: Fewer seats; lower maximum speed Concept 5 - Non-articulated partial low floor married pairs Advantage: High comfort car w/parcel racks and ski racks; all-door ADA access Disadvantage: Needs 100 ft min. curve; cannot run as single car Table 3 Comparison of Rolling Stock Options/Concepts Characteristics Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 General: Â· Model/Name SD 100 SD600 T2000 Various Be4/8 ' Supplier Siemens Siemens -Bombardier Varioust Schindler 0 Physical: Â· Length 80' 92' 75' 65' - 103' 2 x 60'3" O Width 8'10" 8'9" 7'6" 76" - 8'9" 8'9" Â· Articulations 1 1 (Split) 1 (Split) 2-4 None Â· Accessible Doors/Side 1 2 or 4 2 1-4 4 Â· Parcel & Ski Racks No No No No Yes Performance/Capacity: Â· Balance Speed 55 mph 55 mph 44 mph 44 mph 55 mph Â· Seats 60-64 72 32 40 - 90 104 Â· Total Psgrs/LRV* 144 170 125 125 - 200+ 230 Â· PHPD Passengers: - 10' Headways 864 1,020 750 750 - 1,200 1,380 - 5' Headwayst 1,728 2,040 1,500 1,500 - 2,400 2,760 - Utilization: - Operating in USA 2 Cities# No@ No No No 0 Latest Delivery Date 1995-96 1996-97 * 1995 Ongoing 1995 * - Seats + standees at 4 per sq. meter. #- Denver & San Diego. @- First delivery to Portland about 3/96. j 'Â· t - ABB (Variotrant, Eurotram), Breda (VLQ. Siemens (Combinotram), & others. $- Or double-length traigs remaining at 10-minute headways. 0 Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 18 otak REPOMPNL 1196.13 . A . ..../ A.- ..- ..,0 -. , 0, ..tr.,4 ill.111Â®1- , D.e 0 - . &*t. -- 5.1 , 19 '9 .Jf- :1.; (. : F,441*. = I t- 1 - . . N: *~. -~11 t- yrt . d i !..3 ' : 1 . -- ./. 15 0- .. 1 . I r ./: 1; : -*~6 -1--4 -F- .2-L-- 2 ... - Â·-Â£ff~8*~- -~ _ fl ..Jil ... .....1 #16/SEEZ;#-Â·Â·*.#d1L- 41 1- . 0 Â·27= L==2.-Ciwip t.gi ./# r- *I- - )1 . ' 33Â·13Â·%3Â·b~%~334?4~294 5ffitt'.I'~Mutit': F :5..: -- : 9; f ~1. 4.1..='it.~gt: Â·3? t. 92 94>LUFffÂ©RÂ·.-: ff'f>IyRA:: {f~~fâ‚¬il~Fyo~.it.&2Â·7 -.E:; -5*Â·Â·R.'a,IÂ·;Â·-;*Ivric.Â·f.Â·2,431--?:643.(3*ftd~11Â¥r.:{ 1Â»r <,;,M . _:':Up~fififieÂ·:.#J:{.*.iy-(.Iti'*.ii<.ji?Â·33Â·4-Â·-2ib3. 924â‚¬p~-rj<tyâ‚¬.Eff**m#AFEEM.MA/<triff/% 16..PYEA,.;*=Â·:.:ti:-...31.2 rullt#*1 -Â· Â·-Â·Â· -2 ./-~r,r,t-râ€¢=1,/I i rÂ· -1, lf:jo:.35 %Â·.Â· A,fy.,A}.Â¢.?'U . *49%41: t...: **" .' 7 i.t ./. ::Â·5/75Â·1*Â·a - n--I--/-/.- XpÂ·...4.0 I . rulÂ· I ' :.:i: --.Â·.t.\i .1.': 4~Ii.Â·tif.0. I.:-it. i.13Â·:042 44~fb. Â·~ ~*47<%53;;~~~ ~"~~~~~04:ilizi:J~ti'~:t:~;~.ti~ )3<fFÂ·ff;i;j. . . I. 9.. 2.... -Â· I.Â·Â· 6./% i ... Â·Eurotramr Ift=* (Strasbourg)- - - " 61 Fig. 6- Low Floor Married Pair Â·Â·Â·/. ; Â· ~-4,Â«: 4; $=IZZ-t-.2$Â·.â€¢<.....-/ *r_-Â· x. I..- ilf- -9- 1:.3.. '21...4~ki.~flv.-M~~ 57-Â·Alla~i~/1 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued Ridership Patronage If the Aspen line needs a PHPD capacity of around 1,500 to-2,000 riders, potentially feasible options would include Concepts 1, 3 or 4 with two LRV trains, or Concept 2 or 5 with a combination of shorter and longer trains. A three car version of Concept 5 is in service in Bern. If used in Aspen, it would provide PHPD capacity of nearly 1,900 riders. The preliminary traffic analysis presented in the next section concluded that without the LRT and TM programs the peak-hour average winter commuter traffic projected for 2015 would exceed highway capacity by approximately 880 to 1,130 vehicles per hour, at level of service (LOS) D and E, respectively. If we assume that all of this net new traffic demand must be diverted to transit, or avoided using TM measures to meet air quality conformity regulations, the maximum LRT peak hour demand by year 2015 would be no more than 1,440 passengers. Peak directional trip demand would be less since this represents two-way travel. The assumption that the LRT would operate with the potential to move up to 1,500 peak hour passengers with 900 peak direction passengers is intended to be conservative in light of the projected peak hour and average daily traffic demand. Table 4 indicates projected ridership for the LRT with low, middle (base case) and high forecasts for the initial operating year and year 2015. For the purpose of this analysis we have assumed the initial year of operation to be the year 2000. A factor was applied to peak daily winter weekday ridership to estimate average annual daily ridership. The factors used were 0.45 in year 2000 and 0.59 in year 2015, as compared to 0.38 today. The 2015 factor of 0.59 was derived from 7'he Glenwood to Aspen Rail Corridor Feasibility Study Project, May 1995, by the Colorado Department of Transportation. This study is also the basis of our low-end year 2015 projection. The high-end ridership projection was derived from a separate study by TDA Inc. and Centennial Engineering: City of Aspen Transit Alignment Study, November 1993. The annual total LRT ridership is expected to range from 1.3 to 1.8 million riders during its initial year of operation. By 2015, ridership is projected to increase to between 2.5 and almost 7.0 million passengers per year. The base case assumption of annual total ridership is 1.6 million initially, increasing to 4.7 million in year 201~5. ' Daily winter weekday ridership is projected to range from 8,000 to 11,000 riders initially to between 11,400 and 32,300 in year 2015. Annual average daily ridership is expected to range from 3,600 to 4,950 initially to between 6,730 and 19,030 in year 2015. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 19 otak Dle REPOEr.FAL 1196.13 Table 4 LRT Ridership Forecasts Alternative H Light Rail Transit System Initial Year of Operation and Year 2015 Forecast Initial Year of Operation* Year 2015 Projection Low Base Case High Low 1/ Base Case High 2/ Average Daily Ridership Winter Weekday 8,000 9,500 11,000 11,400 21,850 32,300 Annual Average 3,600 4,280 4,950 6,730 1*890 19,060 Annual Total Ridership 1,314,000 1,562,200 1,806,800 2,456,500 4,704,900 6,956,900 * Assumes year 2000. 1/ Derived from Glenwood-Aspen Rail Corridor Feasibility Project, Final Report; Mount Sopris Transportation Project, Colorado Department of Transportation, May 1995. 2/ Derived from City of Aspen Transit Alignment Study; TDA, Inc. and Centennial Engineering, November 1993. Source: Compilation and calculations by Otak, Inc. 7142\riders Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued A six-car fleet of single articulated LRT trains (with four trains running during peak periods) will have the ability to move 1,800 passengers per hour (pph). Doubling the length of the trains would increase che capacity to 3,600 pph. The provision of four-car trains could move approximately 7,200 pph. In the event that future year 2015 LRT patronage levels approach 3,600 to 7,200 pph or between 1,800 and 3,600 passengers per direction during peak hours, consideration should be given to completing the double track configuration and widening station area platforms. Snow Clearing To cope with Aspen's snowy winters, LRVs should be equipped with snowplow pilots (see Figure 6). The primary means of keeping tracks clear in winter is to continue running trains, all night if necessary. This should suffice for most storms because a train will pass every 10 or 20 minutes in each direction. In the operating and maintenance cost development described later, way maintenance costs have been factored up by 10% to provide an allowance for snow removal activities. Street and highway cross sections should include areas that can be used for snow storage. Within LRT medians, the center area between the tracks as well as the landscaped edge strips call serve this function. Some coordination between LRT and road snow-plowing and snow-removal activities is likely to be necessary. Noise and Sound Light rail transit lines should be designed to mitigate negative impacts associated with noise and "wheel squeal". Noise is generally dictated by vehicle selection, operating speeds and track configuration, grades and environmental conditions. In Aspen, noise issues will be more associated with track configuration than grades, vehicles or operating speeds, since all of the articulated LRT vehicle options presented generally generate the same level of speed and noise, which happens to be less than a typical diesel bus. Generally, the slower the vehicle, the lower the noise. Also, rain, snow and moisture on the tracks significantly reduces pois'e even in tight turning areas. j Noise associated with track configuration can be mitigated using gradual turning radii, since wheel noise is a function of turning radius. Significant wheel squeal is evident at very tight turning radii (i.e. 85 feet). In these instances special rail technology, such as Alternative H.Light Rail Transit 20 otak REEâ‚¬~AL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued 0 rubber mounted rails, rail inserts, wheel inserts, wheel grease, wheel well cowlings, etc. can reduce wheel noise. The tightest turning movements in the base. case scenario for Alternative H are in the turns from Main Street to Monarch and from Monarch to Durant Avenue. The conceptual engineering analysis determinedÂ·that turning radii in these areas would be about 125 feet, which is well above the minimum turning allowance. At these radii, vehicle noise and wheel squeal would be virtually abated, even in dry conditions, without , the need for costly special rail technology. Calculation of Annual Operating Statistics - Based on the schedules previously described, this section provides estimates of annual operating statistics, including trains and car hours and miles. The following assumptions are used: Service Hours and Headways: 20 hours/day, 10-minute headways for 15 hours and 20-minute headways for the five early/late hours. Seasonal Variations: None, service is operated 365 days per year. Trains and Cars in Service: Calculations cover four cases: 3 trains w/single cars; 0 3 trains w/2 cars each, 4 trains with single cars, 4 trains w/2 cars each during the 15 primary hours/day; single cars on all trains during five early/late hours each day in all cases. Table 5 IE[' Operational Assumptions Item 3 1-Car Trains 3 2-Car Trains 41-Car Trains 4 2-Car Trains Train Hours/Year 20,075 20,075 25,550 25,550 Car Hours/Year 20,075 36,500 25,550 41,975 Train Miles/Year 283,605 283,605 283,605 283,605 Car Miles/Year 283,605 526,695 283,605 526,695 These figures will be used subsequently in the estimation of operating and maintenance (0&M) costs. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 21 -Ii'- otak RE:PORrENL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued Electrical Supply Requirements For conceptual planning purposes, and considering the level of operations discussed above, it should be sufficient to equip the line with four mainline substations, each rated at 1,000 kw and spaced at intervals of approximately one mile. A fifth substation would serve the shop and yard complex. The power installed on each of the various concept LRVs ranges from about 500 to 700 kilowatts (kw), at the one-hour overload rating. Thus, if there were four trains on the line, each comprised of a 2-car LRV, and if each were to take its maximum draw simultaneously and instantaneously, the maximum load would be 4,000 to 5,600 kw. In fact, this will never occur. It is unlikely that even two trains will take power to accelerate simultaneously from zero speed; thus, it may be safely assumed that the maximum draw will remain within the capability of the substations. Based on conceptual modeling of train performance on the Aspen line, power consumed is likely to range from 8-to-10 kilowatt hours (kwh) per car mile, including propulsion and auxiliary loads such as heating and cooling. Considering the above estimates of 283,605 and 526,695 car-miles per year, annual power consumed would be on the order of 2.9 to 5.3 million kwh. A check with the local utility should be made, but the likely finding is that LRT power use will comprise a small amount of the region's total consumption - probably on the order of 1% or less. Typical Wage Scales In developing the O&M organization for a new LEI' system, it is necessary to recognize and provide the required specialized skills, while it is also desirable to keep job descriptions and relationships as flexible as possible. A new LRT department or agency in Aspen would likely require 38 to 45 employees; and staff would have to develop an organizational culture of helping one another. This will be particularly true in maintenance. Figure 7 illustrates a prototypical LRT O&M organization.. Even though there are specialists in LRV and Way (Facilities) Maintenance, as well as requirements for various electrical and mechanical skills in both categories, the number of people that a 3.7-mile line can support will virtually mandate that vehicle and facility maintainers occasionally work together on some larger jobs. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 22 otak REPORUNL 1196.13 n Figure 7. Example of Generalized LRT Operating & Maintenance Organization -1 LRT Operations LRV Maintenance LE Way Supervisor Foreman Maintenance Foreman Dispatchers Asst. Foreman/ . ~ Technicians and Technician Laborers 1 -Ili~-/1 Train Operators Mechanics Fare Inspectors ~ Cleaners 0 0 8,â‚¬1/ Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued For the system previously described. employment levels are conceptually estimated as follows, based on the factors indicated: No. of Emulovees LRV operators (1,500 train hours/year each) 14-17 Fare Inspectors (2 shifts/day) 4 Operating Supervision2 (2 shifts/day) 4 Electromechanics (2 LRVs each) 3-5 Way Maintainers - Track, Power, Signals, Communi- cations, Fare Vending3 (l per mile of line) 4 Helpers & Cleaners (1 for 5 LRVs &/or stations) 3-4 Maintenance Supervision (1 LRWElectric + 1 Facils.) :2 General & Administrative (10% of all above) 4-5 Total LRT Staff 38-45 A review of the staffs and pay structures of other entities operating new LRT systems suggests the folIowing approximate index relationships among the various job categories. LRV operators generally should be paid at the same rate as bus drivers; and the index is set such that average LRV operator pay = 100. LRV operators 100 Fare Inspectors 90 Operating Supervision 115 Electromechanics 110 Way Maintainers 105 Helpers & Cleaners 80 Maintenance Supervision 130 General & Administrative Varied Not considered in the above is the extent to which existing RPTA administrative staff and management resources could be transferred into the LRT system if, in fact, RETA takes responsibility for the system. There would seem to be little point in duplicating - functions such as personnel and accounting. However, either the City or RPTA could retain overall responsibility for LEI' while contracting a third party(ies) to handle some or all day-to-day operations andjor maintenance activities. This topic merits more detailed evaluation. 1 1 2 Roving LRT dispatcher/supervisor in automobile, or share with bus operations. i Explore opportunities to contract work to private concerns, CDOT (bridges), RFTA (radios), etc. Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 23 otak . REPORT.PNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued Estimated LRT Operating & Maintenance Costs As a project becomes better defined and planning becomes more detailed, cost build-up estimates of 0&M expenses should be prepared at successively higher levels of precision. For the present conceptual level review, a simplified order-of-magnitude 0&M cost model has been applied. It requires calculation of only five factors, and incorporates the relevant experiences of other LRT operating agencies. Constants are unit costs in 1995 dollars which are multiplied by input factors from the sketch operations planning work already described. The model estimates annual 0&M costs as the sum of: Operations: $21.75 x Revenue Car Hours Propulsion Energy: $0.10 x Revenue Vehicle Kilowatt Hoursa Vehicle Maintenance: $0.80 x Revenue Car Milesb - Way Maintenance: $82,000 x Mainline Track Milesa General & Administrative: $175,000 x Miles of Line - 10 kwh per Revenue Car Mile. - Includes an extra 5% allowance for higher snow removal costs in Aspen. - A line 3.7 miles long that is fully double-tracked has 7.4 Track Miles. Applying the operating statistics calculated in an earlier section to the model produces the following estimates of annual 0&M costs given a variety of conditions. Scenarios with 2-car trains produce lower 0&M costs per car mile than those using single cars, this highlights the leverage inherent in a system which can double capacity while 0&M costs grow by less than 50%. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 24 otak REPORr.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued Table 6 Preliminary O&M Cost Estimates Element 3 Single Cars 4 Single Cars 3 2-Car Trains 42-Car Trains Some Single Track: Operations $436,600 $555,700 S793,900 $913.000 Energy $283,600 $283,600 $526,700 $526,700 Vehicle Maint $226,900 $226,900 $421,300 $421,300 Way Maint $442,800 $442.800 $442,800 $442,800 Genl & Admin $647,500 $647,500 $647.500 $647.500 Total O&M 82,037,400 $2.156,500 $2.832,200 $2,951,300 Ave 08Â©M/Car Mile Â£7.18 $7.60 $5.38 S5.60 All Double Track: Operations $436,600 $555,700 $793,900 $913,000 Energy $283,600 $283,600 $526,700 $526,700 Vehicle Maint $226,900 $226,900 $421,300 $421,300 Way Maint $606,800 $606,800 $606,800 $606,800 Genl & Admin $647.500 $647.500 $647.500 $647.500 Total O&M $2,201,400 $2,320,500 $2,996,200 $3,115,300 Ave 0&M/Car Mile $7.76 $8.18 $5.69 $5.91 Operating costs increase as more cars are placed in service, and are driven by the added LRV operators needed for four vs. three trains, plus additional fare inspectors and supervision at the heavier ridership levels that would induce operation of two-car trains. Energy and Vehicle Maintenance costs increase with car-miles operated, but not when an extra car(s) is placed in service just to meet the same schedule. Energy is consumption- related, while vehicle maintenance is wear-related. Way Maintenance increases as the extent of the facilities to be maintained becomes larger (Le., full double-tracking in this case). G&A costs are assumed to be related to line length in this model; but in reality, they too might be expected to increase somewhat - between scenarios under certain conditions (e. g., greater claims costs at higher ridership levels). This nuance exemplifies the refinements that can be represented when a more detailed cost model is applied in a subsequent stage ofproject development. j ' When contemplating a new start system such as the present proposal in Aspen, it is important to use the cost background of comparable properties, tailored to local cost levels insofar as possible. In general, comparable properties are the other new surface LRT projects opened within the last 10 years that do not bear the maintenance costs of Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 25 otak 7 0 - REPORTJNL UM.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued subways or aerial structures, complex control systems, and/or outdated labor utilization rules that are rigid and restrictive. As a check, the per-car-mile costs developed in the preceding estimates were compared with the experience of modern LRT operators in Portland, Sacramento, San Jose, San Diego, and Cleveland (Shaker Heights). Converting available 1992 reported costs produced per-car-mile 0&M costs in 1995 dollars ranging from $4.72 to $10.48, with an average value of $7.41. Costs estimated for Aspen are within this range, indicating that the cost model results are reasonable. RFTA Operating Characteristics and Comparisons The transit service provided by the Roaring Fork Transit Agency (RliTA) currently plays a major role in moving employees, residents and visitors throughout Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. As indicated below, RPTA ridership is expected to almost double over the 1992 to 1996 time period, with approximately 3.9 million transit riders projected in 1996. The main RFI'A routes include down-valley service, Aspen to Snowmass, Aspen Airport park-and-ride, Highlands ski area, Maroon Creek/Castle Creek, Cemetery Lane, and Buttermilk ski area. Much of the increase in RFrA' s ridership has occurred on down-valley routes and skier shuttle routes, with service added to the Aspen Highlands Ski Area in 1994. Table 7 RETA Ridership by Service Component Average Annual Projected Increase Service 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 91-96 City 641,040 706,584 802,616 921,947 1,137,730 1,230,303 18% Valley 718,367 759,662 888,986 1,188,806 1,439,356 1,618,784 25% Seasonal/ 784,479 701,165 753,668 920,233 971,900 1,057,139 7% - Misc. - TOTAL 2,143,886 2,167,411 2,445,270 3,030,986 3,548,986 3,906,226 16% Table 8 compares'RFTA transit routes to projected LRT operational characteristics. The 1995 estimatlad RPTA conditions were used since it would result in a comparison of RFI'Aand LRT revenues and costs in 1995 dollars. When making comparisons it shouid be noted that the 1995 winter ski season was considered to be below average and Alternative H -Light Rall Transit 26 otak REPORUNI. 1196.13 Table 8 Operational Characteristics RFTA Routes and Alternative H LRT Annual Average Total Open Cost Per RFTA 1995 Estimates Ridership Daily Ridership Cost Passenger City Shuttle Routes 1/ 995,100 2,726 $1,077,000 $1.08 Direct City Routes 2/ 1,248,100 3,419 $1,474,000 $1.18 Valley Routes 3/ 1,439,400 3,944 $3,036,000 $2.11 SkiCo Routes 4/ 683,900 1,874 $945,700 $1.38 Total RFTA Routes 3,549,000 9,723 $5,652,000 $1.59 Alternative H - LRT Base Case Preliminary Projections Year 2000 1,562,000 4,279 $2,157,000 $1.38 Year 2015 4,705,000 12,890 $2,951,000 $0.63 Net Revenue Revenue Per or Subsidy Passenger RFTA 1995 Estimates Revenues Passenger Per Passenger Rev. Per Cost City Shuttle Routes $0 0 ($1.08) 0 Direct City Routes $0 0 ($1.18) 0 Valley Routes $1,612,800 $1.12 ($0.99) 53% SkiCo Routes $861,800 $1.26 ($0.12) 91% Total RFTA Routes $2,715,800 $0.77 ($0.83) 48% Alternative H - LRT Base Case Preliminary Projections Year 2000 $1,171,500 $0.75 ($0.63) 54% Year 2015 $3,528,750 $0.75 $0.12 120% 1/ Indudes Cemetery Lane, Hunter Creek, East End Dial-a-Ride, and Castle/Maroon routes. 2/ Includes City shuttles plus direct routes to: Galena St., Airport Parking, Music Assoc. of Aspen, and International Design Conference of Aspen. 3/ Includes Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Aspen/El Jbel/Snowmass, Woody Creek, and Aspen/Snowmass routes. 4/ Includes Aspen Ski Company shuttles to Snowmass, Tiehack, and Aspen Highlands. Sources: Roaring Fork Transit Agency and Otak, Inc. 7142\operate 3\ Entrance to Aspen DEIS Operations Analysis Continued ridership patronage and revenues could have been higher with a better winter ski season. Findings from the analysis include: , Â· ' On combined REI'A routes the average daily ridership was 9,700 and the passenger revenues ($0.77 average per passenger) covered 48 percent of the annual total operating costs before bond debt service. The average cost per passenger before bond debt service was $1.59 and exceeded the average revenue per passenger ($0.77) by $0.83. The amount of RETA subsidies per passenger varies significantly by route. The net subsidy per passenger ranges from $0.12 on the ski company routes to $ 1.18 on the Direct City routes. It should be noted that there is no fare on the direct city routes and the ski company routes are funded through an annual contract with the Aspen Ski Company. Alternative H base case projections under a $.75 average cost per passenger are expected to result in a 54 percent farebox recovery with a $0.63 net subsidy per passenger during its initial year of operation. At a $1.00 cost per passenger the farebox recovery increases to 72 percent and the subsidy declines to $0.38 per passenger. Long-run (year 2015) Alternative H base case projections under a $.75 average cost per passenger are expected to result in a 120 percent farebox recovery with a $0.12 net profit per passenger. At a $1.00 cost per passenger the farebox recovery increases to 159 percent and the profit increases to $0.37 per passenger. j Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 27 otak REPORT.FUL 1196.13 Section Four Traffic Analysis ..... Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis The Entrance to Aspen Alternative H provides several trafficÂ·elements that affect operation of the transportation system. There are three segments which were evaluated: west of Aspen on State Highway 82 toward the airport; between Cemetery Lane and Main Street; and along Main Street through the turnaround at Rubey Park. Airport to Cemetery Lane Alternative H would provide for four vehicle travel lanes (two each way) from the west, past the airport and to the Buttermilk ski area park-and-ride facility. Beyond the Buttermilk ski area, State Highway 82 would have two travel lanes (one each way). One lane would be dropped going eastbound and one lane would be added going westbound at the Buttermilk LRT station area. Advanced traveler information systems {part of an intelligent transportation system - ITS) could be used to inform drivers of parking availability in the two major park-and-ride stations on the west end of the study area and to provide drivers information regarding LRT service into Aspen from the west. The base case Alternative H scenario includes five intersections between the 'S" curves and the airport: Cemetery Lane Maroon Creek Road Butt:ermilk Ski Area Owl Creek Road Â· Airport entrance The initial base case scenario for Alternative H requires traffic signals for the above intersections. Because the eastbound and westbound traffic flows into Aspen are broken into two one-way couplets, there are few conflicting movements at the Cemetery Lane intersection. The Maroon Creek Road, Buttermilk ski area, Owl Creek Road and airport access to/from Highway 82 would be enhanced through provision of coordinated signal timing, left turn/right turn lanes and merge lanes. The DEIS projected future (2015) traffic volumes to be approximately 2,520 vehicles per hour (at level of service E conditions) on State Highway 82 between Buttermilk and Cemetery Lane under Alternative G. For the purpose of this conceptual analysis, we have conservatively assumed the roadway characteristics for Highway 82 to be similar to ' the DEIS data for Alternative G. We feel this to be a conservative stance since the DEIS j may tend to overstate baseline (no build) traffic demand given its high growth assumption, and understate trip diversion that would occur if congestion increases. Alternative H-Light Rail Tronsit 28 otak REPORT.PUL 1195.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued Table 9 provides a summary of the western segment of the corridor west of Cemetery Lane to Buttermilk. The 2015 traffic projections shown are from the DEIS without aggressive Transportation Management (IM). This indicates that without LRT or TM measures, potential auto/truck trip demand would exceed the level of service (LOS) E capacity by between 380 and 880 vehicles per hour in 2015. Additional analysis indicates that demand would exceed LOS D performance by 630 to 1,130 vehicles per hour in 2015. Table 9 Summary of Two-Way Peak Hour Traffic Volumesl Segments of Alternative H Corridor Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Bridge Maroon Creek Road Maroon Creek Bridge to Maroon Creek Road to Cemetery Lane Existing 1993 1,950 2,030 2,280 Projected 2015 2,900 3,020 3,400 LOS D Capacity 2,270 2,270 2,270 LOS E Capacity 2,520 2,520 2,520 f Excess 2015 Demand at LOS D 630 750 1,130 at LOS E 380 500 880 ~ Based on Entrance to Aspen DEIS Alternative G - assumes two traffic lanes and fixed guideway transit. Source: DKS Associates and Otak. Inc.; compiled from Entrance to Aspen DEIS, August 1995. Alternative H would generate the potential to better manage traffic levels in comparison to these projections through use of intercept park-and-ride stations with efficient LRT transit feeder bus linkages and TM programs (such as control over parking supply and pricing in downtown). The DEIS indicated that an aggressive TM program (which includes congestion pricing among other management techniques) could reduce vehicle traffic by over 1,000 vehicles per hour. With Alternative H, it appears that level of service D or E conditions could be achieved on the segments between Buttermilk and Maroon Creek Road if the LRT and traffic management strategies produce about half the demand reduction forecasted by an aggressive TM program (as defined by the DEIS). New LRT stations at Maroon Creek Road and near Cemetery Lane will be important in , j intercepting local trips to downtown and reducing future congestion on Highway 82. Maroon Creek Road is projected to carry about 650 to 750 vehicles per hour (vph) in the 2015 peak hour (without LRT or TM programs). Cemetery Lane would carry approximately 500 to 550 vph in the 2015 peak hour. These additions of localized traffic Alternative H-Light Rail Transit 29 otak â‚¬D REPORTENL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued create demand that would likely exceed level of service E conditions if LRT and TM systems are not implemented. i Alternative H initially includes provision of five signalized crossings of State Highway 82. The ultimate configuration of Alternative H includes rural grade-separated intersections (as opposed to signalized at-grade crossings) as a traffic solution for capacity deficiencies at intersections of highways. Due to benefit-cost considerations, full interchanges are not typically used if a route has limited local access or the intersecting roadways carry less than 40,000 vehicles per day on the main road and over 20,000 vehicles per day on the crossing road. The following table summarizes the highest 2015 traffic volumes projected in the DEIS for key routes in the study area. While future traffic levels on State Highway 82 (without LRT and TM) could potentially reach 40,000 vehicles per day, the cross streets are below levels which would make interchange benefits exceed costs. While traffic signals do increase delay for State Highway 82 traffic, they are substantially less expensive than grade-separated intersections ($100,000 compared to $1,500,000). With effective Alternative H mode and management strategies, traffic on State Highway 82 would also be reduced. Hence, the traffic signals that are part of the Alternative H initial base case, if coordinated with sequential timing can become part of the TM program, but controlling the flow ofvehicles into/out of downtown Aspen. Table 10 State Highway 82 Projected Traffic Volumes Route/Scenario 2015 Daily Tramc Volume State Highway 82/Alternative B-F, Summer 40,000 State Highway 82/Alternative B-F, Winter 85.000 State Highway 82/Alternative G. Summer 26,000 Cemetery Lane 5,700 - 6,600 Maroon Creek Road 7,500 - 8,600 S-Curves: Cemetery Lane to 7th/Main The sharp curves in the segment between Cemetery Lane and the intersection of 7th Street with Main Street have impacted traffic capacity and safety for many years. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 30 otak REPORT.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued Alternative H provides significant improvement in safety and capacity by creating a one- way couplet. The one-way couplet would reduce the number of potential conflicts substantially and add capacity. Traffic volume would be reduced by splitting traffic onto two routes rather than concentrated traffic volume on one street. By allowing two lanes one-way westbound through the "S-curves", the reduction in conflicts and potential to improve striping and lane geometry would increase capacity. One way streets also improve pedestrian safety by providing an opportunity to reduce crossing width, reduce crossing traffic and have traffic coming from only one direction. The impacts of the couplet include relative decreases in total traffic on the S-curves that would otherwise occur in the other DEIS alternatives. The one-way direction of travel would reduce access for adjacent property/business owners and potentially allows slightly greater vehicle speeds. By combining the two-lane westbound one-way element, exit queuing and delay from Aspen could be mitigated. The single eastbound lane segment entering Aspen would have the potential to carry up to 1,200 vehicles-per-hour per lane at LOS E. However, capacity of this segment is controlled by intersections to the east. Intersections are the controlling bottlenecks of traffic flow: the ability of a roadway system to carry traffic efficiently is nearly always diminished in their vicinity. During peak hours urban-style intersections east of 7th Street would limit capacity to approximately 700 to 900 vehicles-per-hour per lane, depending on weather conditions. Based upon 2015 DEIS traffic projections for Alternative G with aggressive TM, peak hour traffic demand for this segment would exceed capacity. For the reasons mentioned previously, this in intended to be a conservative comparison, since forecasted traffic demand would likely be below DEIS projections. In any event, various management strategies could be applied to address this deficiency. The addition of turning lanes (short section only between key points where significant traffic turns onto the highway then turns off the highway), signal timing and/or greater use of LRT with TM programs could result in level service E or better operation in year 2015. Main Street This segment is significantly different from the State Highway 82 segments in that it extends beyond the DEIS boundary and includes more urban traffic conditions. i Intersections every 400 feet, on-street parking, traffic signals, pedestrians and fronting land uses provide clear distinction from a traffic operational context. This segment currently has a broad cross section which results in excessive speeding traffic during off- Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 31 otak 34 REPORr.FNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued peak hours. The resulting roadway is a pedestrian "unfriendly" environment, which is evidenced by past pedestrian/vehicle accidents. With Alternative H, Main Street would be converted into a multimodal street with LRT in the median and one travel lane on either side of the LRT right-of-way. The cross sections show an exclusive median LRT right-of-way on Main Street, turning into side running on Monarch, Durant and ultimately Galena. The roadway cross section would be substantially improved for pedestrians with reduced potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Current traffic volume on Main Street east of Galena Street is about 12,000 vehicles per day. A three lane roadway cross section is generally capable of serving up to about 15,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day. West of Galena Street, where the LRT service would be in the median, traffic volumes are projected to be substantially higher. -Today, about 50 percent of the traffic volume on State Highway 82 near Cemetery Lane disperses off Main Street before Galena Street. Most of the cross streets have traffic volumes of about 2,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day. Hence, the nine blocks prior to (west 00 Monarch Street, are projected to have traffic demand (without LRT or TM programs) that would exceed LOS E capacity on Main Street. Vehicle capacity of the single lane would be about 700 to 900 vehicles-per-hour perlane. To address traffic capacity issues on Main Street five options exist: 1) reduce vehicle demand to meet capacity, through demand reduction using LRT and TM strategies, 2) provide turning lanes or additional through travel lanes by removing oIl-street parking, 3) operate the LRT in a mixed-flow environment, similar to a streetcar, 4) enhance the use o f parallel local streets for local trips; and 5) accept a lower traffic operation standard during peak periods on Main Street. Each of these options hade the benefit of alleviating or eliminating capacity deficiency on Main Street. Secondary impacts, such as removal of on-street parking and impacts on property owners and businesses, should be evaluated during the FEIS. This impact could be offset by providing new off-street parking areas, and by the induced pedestrian - activity generated around LRT station areas. The impacts on abutting properties may also be mitigated by going to a single-track LRT alignment and adjusting the landscape/sidewalk areas, creating space for parking pockets. Diverting some local traffic off Main Street.onto local streets would impact adjacent local street areas. Mixed LRT/vehicle traffic flow (i. e. streetcar running with Main Street traffic) is not recommended since it would significantly impact LRT operating performance and reduce the travel-time benefits of the fixed guideway option. Additionally, mixed flow creates Alternative H-Light Rail Transit 32 otak 35/ REPORTENL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued potential for slippery surface conditions for autos on rails (particularly with Aspen's weather conditions), conflicts in passenger platform areas and the need for special crossing protection for LRT at both 7th and Monarch Streets. Accepting a lower operating standard (Le. LOS F) is not recommended either since it would result in greater delays to vehicle traffic (increasing potential use of LRT), and would also potentially impact air quality due to congested vehicle emissions. The preferred option is the use of LRT with appropriate TM programs and improved access management in downtown. This approach would reduce total vehicle trips on Main Street by converting potential auto trips to LRT transit trips and avoiding peak hour trips through TM programs. Appropriate TM programs should be further evaluated and modeled during the FEIS process, and may include but not be limited to: Transit expansion (especially feeder shuttles) Park-and-ride lots at downvalley stations Free or subsidized transit fares Bicycle and pedestrian improvements Carpool programs (i.e. preferential parking areas) Employer-based options (i. e. subsidized transit passes, telecommuting, flex-time, vanpool programs) Enhanced or centralized transit information network Traffic Circulation and Access Management The crossing of LRT tracks with local streets requires additional traffic controls to maintain safety and to enhance rail, vehicle and pedestrian movement in downtown. Most LRT systems throughout North America use traffic signals to control at-grade intersections. Traffic signals can improve safety by controlling the potential for conflicting movements, and should be coordinated to promote uniform traffic speeds and good progression. The traffic signals also improve pedestrian ability to cross Main Street. If traffic signals are not desired west of Aspen Street, two access management scenarios could be considered. One scenario would be to allow right turns only onto Main Street, to prohibit left turns off Main Street and use railroad gates on cross streets to ensure safety for drivers and passengers. Left turn lanes could be designed with traffic signal control to allow left turns at selected block locations along Main Street. The use of parallel local circulation routes should also be enhanced to allow the use of local streets for local trips, and to help preserve the state route, both for regional and local travel. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 33 otak FaCPORT.FNL 1196.13 0 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued Main Street to Rubey Park Traffic volumes on Monarch and Galena Streets could be accommodated with light rail operating along the curb. On-street parking removal would need to be offset by provision, ' of off-street parking (potentially at Durant/Spring). Converting Monarch Street to one- way -raffic flow woidd improve the safety of the LRT operation and reduce vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Traffic signals may be needed for traffic control at Monarch/Durant and Galena/Main Street. in the event the ultimate central core transit loop is developed. Modal Analysis A preliminary modal share analysis was conducted to determine the reasonability of shifting highway commuters and visitors onto transit and other non-highway modal options (i.e, bicycle, telecommuting, etc.). While this type of analysis should be refined during the FEIS process using sophisticated modal demand modeling techniques, the preliminary findings summarized Table 11 include: 0 The existing estimated average annual traffic volume on Highway 82 is about 24,100 vehicles per day, of which approximately 16 percent are autos/trucks and the remaining are buses. Under current RETA assumptions, the existing modal share of trips along Highway 82 is 80 percent auto/truck and 20 percent transit/other. The modal share has shifted significantly towards transit over the past few years. In 1993, based on CDOT data included in the DEIS, the modal share was 84 percent auto/truck and 16 percent transit/other. Given the current near-peak capacity of Highway 82, status quo growth rates cannot prevail. CDOTs projected base line traffic forecast of 33,400 at the Cemetery Lane intersection, appears to be greater then what the existing travel lanes would handle. However, if we assume some degree of highway capacity improvements (i. e. four travel lanes into/out from Aspen), as is provided in the all-highway DEIS alternatives, the forecast o f 33,400 highway trips in year 2015 is reasonable, if not conservative. ~ The 2015 modal share projection under the DEIS,"all-highway improvement alternatives, with moderate TM would result in an increase in both average vehicle occupancy and transit usage, that would not nearly offset the increase in auto/truck traffic into/out ofAspen. As indicated in Table 11, between 1993 and 2015, a 50 0 Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 34 otak ?\0 REPORT.ENL 1196.13 Table 11 Preliminary Modal Share and Growth Analysis Comparison with Alternative H 1993 Actual, 1995 Estimate and 2015 Projections Operational Characteristics ' Total Total Annual Avg, Estimated Average Vehicle Transit/ Passenger/ Daily Traffic Auto/Truck Vehicle Passenger Other Trip Volume* Volume Occupancy Trips Trips Demand 1993 Actual 22,300 22,073 1.56 34,434 6,800 41,234 1995 Estimate 24,100 23,826 1.58 37,645 9,600 47,245 2015 Hwy. Alts. 33,400 33,033 1.6 52,852 13,961 66,813 2015 w/ Alt H 22,300 22,073 1.69 37,304 22,824 60,128 Modal Share Analysis Modal Distribution Vehicle Transit/Other Trips Trips 1993 Actual 84% 16% 1995 Estimate 8096 20% 2015 Hwy. Alts. 79% 21% 2015 w/ Alt. H 62% 38% Analysis of Relative Traffic and Activity/Visitation Traffic Change from '93 Activity Change from '93 Percent People Percent Vehicles Change Trips Change 1993 Actual - 1995 Estimate 1,752 8% 6,010 15% 2015 Hwy. Alts. 10,959 50% 25,579 62% 2015 w/Alt H 0 0% 18,893 46% * At Highway 82 and Cemetary Lane. Source: Otak based on findings provided in Entrance to Aspen DEIS, and RFTA Transit Development Plan. j 7142\rmodes Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued percent increase in traffic is projected under the all-highway alternatives, as the modal share shifts to 79 percent auto and 21 percent transit/other. Under Alternative H, the goal of maintaining 1993 traffic volumes could be met by a combination of LRT and enhanced feeder bus, shuttle transit and TM programs. Total average daily transit trips with Alternative H are projected to increase from 9,600 today to 22,800 in year 2015, as the modal share shifts to 62 percent auto/truck and 38 percent transit/other. The impacts on the Central Core ofAspen are expressed in terms of vehicle traffic and total activity as a measure of visitation. Alternative H would avoid a 50 percent increase in auto/truck traffic while enhancing overall activity/visitatian by approximately 46 percent. There would likely be greater downtown activitylvisitation under the all-highway alternatives than that realized under Alternative H, but it would come at the cost of significant traffic growth, parking needs, and a decay in town character. The all- highway alternatives are projected to increase traffic tbrough town by 50 percent and total activity/visitation by 64 percent, above 1993 levels. Assuming 75 percent of the traffic would be destined for the city, exiting parking in Aspen would need to increase by approximately 3,000 spaces to accommodate that demand. The projected shift in modal share towards transit under Alternative H is not unlike that realized by other cities that have added LRT while proactively managing growth. Recent evidence of successful case situations includes: â€¢ In the 1970s the Portland Central Business District (CBD) had a peak hour transit mode split of 25 percent. With the introduction of the transit mall and MAX (Metropolitan Area Express) light rail service the peak hour transit mode split is now 52 percent. â€¢ In Portland, prior to the opening of light rail in 1986, Tri-Met had a daily system ridership of approximately 140,000. Since the opening of light rail, daily ridership has grown to approximately 165,000. Of these 25,000 daily riders of Portland's MAX, Tri- Met estimates that 5,500 riders did not previously use the bus system. â€¢ On the Westside MAX, which is currently under construction, ridership estimates have been prepared according to Federal Transit Administration (FrA) requirements. These PTA-approved estimates indicate that approximately 10,000 of the projected 27,000 year 2015 riders will be new to the transit system. Atternatiue H-Light Rail Transit 35 otak 31 REPORr-FUL 1195.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Traffic Analysis Continued â€¢ San Diego's first light rail line opened in 1981 in the southbay corridor. In the first year of light rail operation transit ridership in this corridor increased by 15%. This happened during a year in which systemwide ridership declined by 18%. After three years of light rail operation, the southbay corridor total transit ridership had increased by 20%. In 1986, San Diego's second light rail line opened in the Euclid (northeast) corridor. Corridor transit ridership increased 36% in the first two years. This line was extended in 1989. Total corridor transit ridership increased again by 35% in the first year of operation of the extension. â€¢ In St. Louis, total daily bus transit ridership prior to the introduction of light rail was approximately 124,000 in 1993. After light rail was introduced in 1994, daily ridership is currently 44,000 (27,000 greater than projected) while bus ridership is approximately 124,000; resulting in a 35% systemwide ridership increase. The success of LRT in Portland, San Diego, St. Louis and other cities, has resulted in the U.S. Department of Transportation revisiting its transit modeling parameters and requirements. It has been found in Portland and St. Louis that past alternatives : analysis modeling techniques have underestimated potential ridership by not adjusting for rail's superior operating features including reliability of service, trip speed, frequency, wait time and comfort. In acknowledgment of the problems with existing modeling techniques and the evident traveler bias towards rail, the Federal Transit Administration (FI'A) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have embarked on the Travel Model Improvement Program. This program aims at improving modeling techniques of travel forecasting for transit modes, and adjusting model inputs to account for rail bias. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 36 otak REPORT.FNL 1195.13 Section Five Preliminary Cost Estimates . Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates 0 Capital Cost Methodology Considering the conceptual level of this analysis, unit costs were developed to determine order of magnitude capital cost for the Airport to Aspen light rail system. Unit costs were derived in part from the Airport to Aspen DEIS (for the highway and multimodal station components) and from Otak project experience. Selected unit costs were applied to Alternative H in six sections, and are detailed in the Appendix. The detailed Alternative H section costs, were combined into a preliminary capital cost estimate, in 1995 dollars, for the entire LRT system, and the DEIS section for both the initial single/double track and ultimate double track configurations. Hence, a comparison among Alternative H and the other DEIS alternatives (A-G) can be made. When making such a comparison, please note that there are significant differences between Alternative H and the DEIS alternatives. The base case scenario for Alternative H excludes the cost of private property acquisition, and the ultimate configuration assumes a number of grade separated intersection crossings that were not included in the DEIS. Alternative H assumes construction of a bikeway/sidewalk within the right-of- way, and not solely on parallel recreational trails for this mode (as was assumed in the DEIS). The DEIS alternatives do not include the costs of expanded RPTA transit service that would be required to meet air quality and community objectives. Alternative H 0 would result in both a cost savings to RETA and/or the potential to reallocate resources to enhance the feeder bus network. Once total Airport to Aspen LRT system costs were developed, Otak compared them to recent North American light rail projects. In later FEIS and preliminary engineering phases, more detailed evaluations can be performed to refine capital cost estimates, as necessary. Base Case Scenario The incremental additional light rail construction cost for the Airport to Aspen LRT system is estimated at $56.3 million (1995 dollars). This includes approximately $27.2 million in hard construction costs, $ 14.1 million in soft costs, and $ 15 million in vehicle costs. It excludes private land acquisition and multimodal park and ride facilities. The addition o f the general construction, highway construction, and structural costs would result in a total capital cost for the Alternative H base case of approximately $64.7 million. As indicated on Table 12, the addition of $31 million for multimodal facilities and LRT vehicles is expected to result in a total capital cost of $110.7 million. ~ Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 37 otak REPORTFUL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates Continued The main "hard" cost categories, including general construction, highway construction, structures, and the light rail system construction, total approximately $23.7 million for the DEIS section and $42.6 million for the total system. Soft and other construction , costs, including traffic control during construction, construction mobilization, design engineering and architecture, construction management and contingencies for unlisted items are estimated at approximately $14.7 million for the DEIS section and $22.1 million for the total system. Detailed hard and soft construction cost estimates for specific route segments are provided in the Appendix. Table 12 Summary of Capital Construction and Vehicle Costs Base Case Scenario (1995 Dollars) Capital Cost DEIS Section Alternative H General Construction $523,000 $810,000 Highway Construction $2,357,000 :53,372,000 Structures $11,235,000 $11,235,000 Light Rail Construction $9,577,000 $27,170,000 Soft Costs/Otheri $14,664,000 $22,100,000 ROW Acquisitionz N/A N/A Subtotal Capital Costs $38,356,000 $64,687,000 Light Rail Vehiclesa $15,000,000 $15,000,000 (6 LRVs at $2.5 million each) Multimodal Facilities4 $31,000,000 $31,000,000 Total Capital Costs $84.356.000 $110,687.000 ~Includes traffic control, mobilization for construction, design engineering and architecture, construction management and contingency for unlisted items. zNot estimated at this time. 3Rail vehicle costs may be capital or operating expense (if leased). 4Derived from the Entrance to Aspen DEIS. Source: Otak, Inc. and LTK Engineering Services While private property acquisition for right-of-way (ROW) has not been included in these estimates at this time, total square feet of needed additional ROW is included in the Atternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 38 otak 37 REPORUNL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates ~ Continued Appendix tables. The need for private property acquisition has been minimized by designing Alternative H within available existing public ROW where possible. The additional private property impacts are primarily in vicinity of station areas to accommodate station platforms and grade-separated intersection movements, and in vicinity of the new Castle Creek bridge to 7th Street alignment. The DEIS identified four general potential areas for providing multimodal facilities with parking for 2,500 to 3,000 vehicles. These potential locations included the Airport area, the Buttermilk ski area, the Moore Property, and the Marolt-Thomas property. The total multimodal facilities cost that was assumed in the DEIS is $31 million, exclusive of land acquisition and annual operations and maintenance costs. While the exact location. number and cost of multimodal facilities has not been determined, Alternative H assumes the cost to be similar to the DEIS estimate, since it similarly emphasizes the importance of an aggressive Transportation Management program and the need for such facilities. Light Rail Vehicle Cost The traffic analysis that was conducted as part of the Alternative H analysis, concluded 0 4 (in the Operations Analysis section) that without LRT or TM programs the peak-hour average winter commuter traffic volume by year 2015 would exceed the capacity o f a two lane highway by 880 vehicles per hour; and the total potential traffic reduction that could result from an aggressive transportation management program would be approximately 1,190 vehicles per peak hour (in both directions). If we assume directional flows at an approximate 60:40 ratio, and average vehicle occupancy at 1.2 persons per vehicle, an LRT system that is designed to initially move at least 857 passengers one way during peak hour commuter periods would suffice. If we assume the need to move 900 peak hour peak direction (PHPD) passengers during the initial operation of the Airport to Aspen LRT system, the system would require a fleet of six articulated light rail vehicles, with four running at any given time on a "slow cycle" (please refer to the Operations Analysis). This six-vehicle system would suffice in moving up to 2,000 PHPD trips, and could accommodate up to 4,000 PHPD trips if "married pair" vehicles were utilized. The cost of purchasing new light rail vehicles ranges from approximately $2.5 million for a single articulated light rail vehicle to $4.0 for a "married pair" vehicle. If we assume an initial fleet of six articulated single rail vehicles, (assuming two spare vehicles), the total cost o f purchasing new rail vehicles would be approximately $15 million. 0 Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 39 otak REPOMPNL 1196.13 Â· Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates Continued Additional analysis should be conducted during the FEIS to determine the exact number, type and mix of rail vehicles for the start-up system. Consideration may be given to lease options and the procurement of pre-used vehicles, and equipment (i.e. maintenance machinery, ADA elevators, etc.) to reduce capital costs. Comparison to DEIS Alternatives The table below represents the current CDOT estimates for the low and high cost DEIS alternatives in comparison with Alternative H. The low cost DEIS alternative reflects Alternative 2C: reconstruction of Highway 82 through Marolt-Thomas property with modified at-grade profile and two general travel lanes and two HOWTransit lanes. The high cost DEIS alternative is 2F: same as 2C but with a "transit envelope" and cut and cover profile. Table 13 Comparison ofAlternative H with DEIS High and Low Cost Alternatives (Costs in Millions, 1995 Dollars) DEIS Alternatives Capital Costl Cost Per Mile Low - "2C" 2 $21.2 $11.0 High - "3F"3 $34.1 $17.8 Alternative H without vehicles $64.7 $15.8 with vehicles $79.7 $19.4 Multimodal Facilities = $31 million *Only includes alternatives that were found to pass the DEIS screening criteria. Uncludes hard and soft construction costs and contingencies. Cost of DEIS alternatives adjusted to 1995 dollars using Denver Consumer Price index factor of 4.0%. 2 Represents DEIS alternative 2C: reconstruction of existing Highway 82 through Marolt-Thomas property with modified direct at-grade profile, two general highway lanes and two dedicated HOV and/or transit lanes. 8 Represents DEIS alternative 3F: reconstruction of Highway 82 with a separate transit envelope and modified direct cut-and-cover profile on the Marolt-Thomas property with separate transit envelope and two general highway lanes, and two dedicated HOV and/or transit lanes. While another DEIS alternative was found to have a lower cost that 2C, it did not pass the DEIS screening criteria and was not considered to be a viable option. The capital Alternative H-Light Rail Transit 40 otak 40 Â¥EPORT-FML 1195.14 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates Continued cost estimates shown below have been adjusted to 1995 dollars, and exclude property acquisition. The capital cost for the DEIS alternatives (without multimodal facilities and property acquisition) ranges from $21.2 to $34.1 million, with Alternative H ranging in cost from $64.7 to $79.7 million. The lowest capital cost for Alternative H is estimated to be $42.2 million, and assumes a terminus at the Maroon Creek station. The comparison with and without LRT vehicles was made since vehicles may be considered an annual operating cost instead of an upfront capital cost, and several cost savings options exist for vehicle procurement. Since the DEIS alternatives only extend 1.92 miles from Buttermilk to Main/7th Streets, and Alternative H extends from the Airport to Rubey Park, a direct comparison of the capital costs can best be made on a route mile basis. As indicated above, the route mile cost of Alternative H is comparable with the all-highway DEIS alternatives. The route mile cost of constructing alternative H (with and without rolling stock) is $15.8 to $19.4 million per mile, compared to $11.0 to $17.8 million per mile for the DEIS alternatives. Direct comparisons with the DEIS alternative should be made with caution, since several "hidden costs" exist in the DEIS alternatives. The hidden costs in the DEIS alternatives include no cost for providing expanded structure parking in town for the net traffic generated. no cost of providing pedestrian/bicycle facilities along Highway 82, and no cost for new RFTA buses that would be required to "feed" the park-and-ride lots. Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs and Farebox Recovery The requirements and cost of operating and maintaining the LRT system are presented in the Operations Analysis section. The annual O&M cost for a start-up six vehicle fleet system, (with single cars running) is estimated at approximately $2.16 million in the base case scenario, as detailed previously. Detailed 0&M costs are provided in the operations Analysis Section. - In addition to estimating the capital and O&M costs associated with Alternative H, potential farebox revenues were projected. A range in total LRT ridership was forecast under the base case alignment for both years 2000 and 2015. A range of average passenger fare assumptions were tested: $0.50, $0.75 and $1.00. As presented in the Operating Analysis section. the current revenue-per-passenger on RPTA routes ranges from zero for direct city shuttles to $1.26 for down-valley routes. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 41 otak REPORT.,NL 1196.13 Table 14 Farebox Recovery Characteristics Alternative H Ught Rail Transit System (Costs and Revenues in Year 1995 Dollars) Initial Year of Operation (2000) Year 2015 Projection Low Base Case High Low Base Case High Annual Operating Cost (000's) $2,157 $2,157 $2,157 $2,951 $2,951 $2,951 Annual Total Ridership (000's) 1,314 1,562 1,807 2,457 4,705 6,957 Annual Farebox Revenues (000's) @ $0.50 per trip $657 $781 $903 $1,228 $2,352 $3,478 @ $0.75 per trip $986 $1,172 $1,355 $1,842 $3,529 $5,218 @ $1.00 per trip $1,314 $1,562 $1,807 $2,457 $4,705 $6,957 Potential Farebox Recovery (%) @ $0.50 per trip 30% 36% 42% 42% 80% 118% @ $0.75 per trip 46% 54% 63% 62% 120% 177% @ $1.00 per trip 61% 72% 84% 83% 159% 236% Source: Otak, Inc. j 7142\farebox Ll'\ Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates 0 Continued As indicated in Table 14, under the base case assumption initial year revenues are projected to range from $781,000 to $1.6 million, and year 2015 revenues range from $2.4 to $4.7 million. Under these revenue assumptions, the average farebox recovery ranges from 36 to 72 percent during the initial operating year, and 88 to 159 percent during year 2015. This compares to RFI'A existing revenue-per operating-cost ratios of zero to 91 percent, with a 48 percent average rate for all routes. This analysis concludes that the LRT system in Alternative H could eventually be operated at a profit, or could be used to subsidize the costs of other RPTA routes. The number of years required for the LRT system to "breakeven" with annual O&M costs ranges from 5 to 11 years, under the $1.00 and $0.75 average fare rates. Alternative H Reconfiguration and Expansion Options A number of potential alignment expansion and reconfiguration options were identified during the conceptual design analysis. The capital cost advantages of these options are described in Table 15 and on the following pages. Table 15 Comparison of Capital Costs Initial Base Case Scenario and Reconfiguration/Expansion Options (In Millions, 1995 Dollars) Potential Resulting Change In Total Capital Reconfiguration/Expansion Options Capital Cost Cost l Base Case: Single/Double Track N/A $79.7 Option 1. Base Case with Maroon Creek Station Terminus ($22.5) $57.2 Option 2. Base Case with Grade-Separated Crossings $7.5 $87.2 Option 3. Option 2 with Double Track Configuration and Core Loop $19.2 $98.9 Option 4. Base Case with Aspen Highlands Extension $7.7 $87.4 Option 5. Base Case with Brush Creek Extension $22.9 $102.6 IReflects highway and rail improvements between Buttermilk and Rubey Park, excludes land acquisition , and multimodal facilities. 1 Source: Otak, Inc. Alternative H-Light Rail Transit 42 otak ROORT.FNL 1195.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates Continued Option 1 - Base Case with Maroon Creek Station Terminus While the analysis o f Alternative H assumed an airport to Aspen LRT route, it is possible to consider shorter routes that would still serve potential intermodal park-and-ride and , bus transfer facilities (i.e. Buttermilk or Maroon Creek Stations). A shorter down-valley line would likely lead to increased demand for parking at the terminal station, beyond that which would be required over a longer route with three or four park-and-ride locations. However, if adequate parking and LRT maintenance facilities could be provided at the Maroon Creek, total capital costs could be reduced on the order o f $22.5 million below the base case scenario. Option 2 - Base Case with Grade-Separated Crossings Some or all of the at-grade intersections that were assumed in the base case scenario could be replaced with grade-separated intersections. Until additional traffic analysis is conducted, the need to provide grade separations and eliminate traffic signals is unclear. The capital cost increase of providing grade-separated crossings at Cemetery Lane, Maroon Creek Road, Buttermilk Ski area, Owl Creek Road, and the airport entrance is estimated on the order of $7.5 million. Option 3 - Double Track Configuration with Grade-Separated Crossings and Central Core Loop If a single/double rail line is constructed initially and designed for ultimate double track expansion potential, the major bridge structures over Castle Creek and Maroon Creek should be designed with wider cross section profiles than that assumed in the base case. This would not make sense if the single/double LRT line was designed as the permanent system in Aspen. The double track configuration and grade-separated crossings are expected to result in a $19.2 million capital cost increase over the base case. Option 4 - Aspen Highlands Extension The potential exists to extend the LRT line from the Maroon Creek Station to the Aspen Highlands ski area, a distance of approximately 1.52 miles. This extension would primarily operate as a separate alignment with proper pedestrian linkages at the Maroon Creek station to facilitate vehicle and modal transfers. The conceptual engineering analysis concluded that an adhesion LRT system could operate on this extension along Maroon Creek Road right-of-way with maximum grades on the order of five percent. The conceptual cost estimate assumed 7,200 feet of single track and 800 feet of doubte track with tie and ballast construction. The Aspen Highlands Extension is estimated to cost approximately $7.7 million to construct, and the incremental operating costs are estimated to be on the order of $250,000 per year. There would also be the need to Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 43 otak 47 REPORTAIL 1196.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Preliminary Cost Estimates Continued purchase or lease at least one additional rail vehicle. Detailed capital cost estimates are provided in the Appendix. Option 5 - Brush Creek Extension Extending the LRT line from the Airport Terminal station to the Brush Creek entrance to Snowmass could be accomplished using a mix of at-grade and aerial (structures supporting reinforced shoulder) track configuration. The conceptual cost estimate for the 2.4 mile extension from the LRT Depot area to Brush Creek assumed there to be 11,880 feet of single track and 800 feet of double track, with 25 percent of the alignment on reinforced shoulder structures. The additional capital cost of constructing the Brush Creek LRT extension is estimated at $22.9 million. Detailed capital cost estimates are provided in the Appendix. The incremental operating costs of the Brush Creek extension are expected to be on the order of $350,000 per year, but no new LRT vehicles would likely be needed above the six assumed in the base case. RETA could realize some reduction in existing bus O&M costs when the current Snowmass to Aspen shuttle is replaced by the LRT and new Snowmass to Brush Creek and/or Airport Park-and-Ride LRT station shuttles. Comparison to Other LRT Systems The initial capital cost for the Airport to Aspen LRT System, as described in the base case scenario, and the estimated cost per mile of constructing Alternative H is expected to be on the order of $ 16 million per mile (1995 dollars), exclusive of multimodal park- and-ride facilities. This cost estimate is in line with other North American cities that. have recently constructed light rail systems or extensions. Similar to the Alternative H LRT base case system, Baltimore's recent 22.5 mile light rail line, which includes at-grade intersection crossings, partial embedded street, and tie and ballast construction, was completed in 1992 at a capital cost of approximately $16 million per mile. At the high end of the Alternative H LRT reconfiguration options, the total capital cost is estimated at $23 million per mile. This compares to four LEI' systems in total capital cost per mile, including Portland ($22 million per mile); Calgary ($25 million per mile); San,Jose ($25 million per mile); and St. Louis ($30 million per mile). Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 44 otak REPORr.FAL 11965.13 . Section Six Design Considerations 1 .. . -41 * - .Â· Entrance to Aspen DEIS Design Considerations During the development of the base case scenario, several optional alignment;s and variations of the base case were considered. Variations to Alternative H would have to be further evaluated during development of the FEIS. Optional alignment considerations may include, but not necessarily be limited to: r Central Core Loop Alternatives - alternatives such as use of Aspen Street or Garmisch Street were considered but initially ruled out because of steeper grades and residential impacts. Likewise, use o f Mill, Hunter, Spring and other east-end streets were considered for the ultimate phase 2 configuration, but ruled out due to potential business relocation impacts and the concomitant traffic impacts of"expanding the loop," especially lengthening the Main Street section. S-Curve Alternatives - splitting the LRT tracks at 7th was initially considered as an LRT alignment alternative. This alignment is unlike the base case in that it would involve a single track split from Main to Cemetery Lane. After preliminary analysis, Otak recommended this option be dropped because it would result in potentially greater noise and property impacts to abutting residents than the base case, and would likely impede out-bound peak hour vaffic movement. At-Grade Crossings - the initial configuration of the base case scenario involves five grade crossings in the down-valley section, resulting in additional traffic/LRT signalization to improve traffic flows and to reduce multimodal conflicts. Given the relatively high capital cost associated with grade separated crossings, and the current lack of definitive benefits from these improvements, we have included down-valley at- grade crossings in the preliminary cost estimate for the base case scenario. Single Versus Double Track Options - our operating and maintenance analysis determined that a single/double track alignment configuration could accommodate initial, and possibly total future forecasted transit trip volumes. As such, we have concluded the cost comparison of this option in the preliminary cost estimate for the base case scenario. However, more detailed analysis should be conducted during the FEIS to determine the true potential cost savings, and opportunity costs, if any, that may be incurred if a double track system is required in the future. Roadway and Station Area Design-the preliminary level of design conducted by this analysis will be subjected to several iterations of refinement during the FEIS process. This process would determine: the appropriate location for station areas, appropriate location and *dth of travel lanes, rail bed, shoulders, bikeways and sidewalks; water quality design standards; estimate right-of-way requirements; evaluate traffic impacts and measures; and determine the extent of air, noise, property/relocation impacts. Alternatiue H -Light Rail Transit 45 otak REPORr.FNL 1195.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Design Considerations Continued Access Management and Parking Strategies - the traffic and parking impacts of the base case scenario should be further evaluated during the FEIS. The City, County and CDOT should consider the neighborhood and business needs, perceptions and , impacts regarding parking and access during development of the FEIS. In addition, the traffic and parking impacts created by other EIS alternatives should be further evaluated within the Main Street Corridor and within the Central Core. Rail Vehicle Type - The base case scenario includes several LRT vehicle options at this time. The potential to purchase or lease used rail cars or facilities, or the potential to "piggyback" on orders with other transit agencies, were not evaluated as cost savings measures at this time. Rail Bed Construction - the embedded rail design that has been assumed by the base case is more expensive to build and may lead to potential rail/vehicle conflicts, especially along Main Street. Preliminary engineering analysis of alternative construction methods to embedded rail (i. e, tie and ballast) may be conducted concurrently with development of the FEIS. RPTA Integration - a new LRT system in Aspen/Pitkin County would require an expanded RPTA. and altered Snowmass feeder bus network as part of an new regional transit service program. The RPTA and Snowmass bus transit network would play an essential role in enhancing LRT patronage. The potential cost savings or O&M transfer from RFTA to the LRT system has not been determined at this time, but should be examined concurrently with the FEIS. Inclement Weather Impacts and Requirements - the winter climate in Aspen is unique given its high altitude and geographic environment. Existing LRT systems in North America (i.e., Calgary, Buffalo, Boston, Cleveland) may confront low temperatures, icing and snow, but lack the altitude of Aspen, making direct comparisons impossible. International fixed-guideway systems in Switzerland, France, Germany and other locations should also be examined to determine special capital and operational requirements associated with high altitude systems. It appears that recent transit technology can address issues such as icing on the catenary and snow on rail tracks. However, local snow removal requirements should be more throughly evaluated, especially if the existing snow removal/storage area is redeveloped into a LRT depot facility. j Transportation Management Strategies - under Alternative H, it is apparent that the success of the regional transportation network hinges on the ability to reduce reliance on the automobile during peak travel periods. A separate transportation Alternatlue H -Light Rail Transit 46 otak =fT lim.13 Entrance to Aspen DEIS Design Considerations Continued management analysis is currently being conducted to examine realistic expectations for modal shifts under various packages of transportation management programs. Funding Alternatives - given the increasing scarcity of federal and state funds for regional and local public transportation projects, several funding scenarios should be considered during development of the FEIS. Appropriate federal, state and local funding mechanisms should be identified, funding magnitudes quantified, and legal, political and popular perspectives evaluated as "bundles" of funding resources are combined to finance the LRT system construction and its operations. Potential funding sources to be evaluated should include but not be limited to: - Federal Transit Administration Transit grants and ISTEA or CMAQ grants with State/Local match requirements; - State matching funds; - Local matching funds through a variety of sources, such as roadway user fees, general sales tax, parking fees, gasoline sales tax, vehicle registration fee surcharge, general funds; and - Privatization and cost-sharing mechanisms such as corporate contributions/sponsorships, station constructioWoperation cost-sharing, special assessments, and impact fees. A summary description of these and other funding mechanisms and their application to other North American transit systems is provided in the appendix. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 47 otak REPORT.FUL 1196.14 Section Seven Next Steps . t b . 4< Entrance to Aspen DEIS Next Steps This Preliminary Conceptual Design and Operations Analysis report includes the results of the Otak project team's conceptual highway and rail engineering and design evaluation. Otak project team representatives will be available to present all findings to the elected officials on November 14th and the public-at-large on November 15th. We will also be available for follow-up discussions to assist the city in assimilating its comments on the DEIS by the comment period deadline of December 18, 1995. Alternative H -Light Rail Transit 48 otak 7rl.98.13 .. . .. I . Section Eight Appendix . j Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Summary Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Totals Section Number Section Cost Lin. Feet, $/Ft $/Mile 1.Depot-Airport $6,786,888 2,000 $3,393 $17.92 2Airport-Airport P&R $4,341,828 3,750 $1,158 $6.11 3. Airport P&R-Buttermilk $4,792,316 1,300 $3,686 $19.46 4. Buttermilk-Maroon Creek Rd $22.731,235 6,400 $3,552 $18.75 5. Maroon Creek Rd.-Main/Ah i $10.832,165 3,100 33,494 $18.45 6. Main/7th-Central Core . I $15.202,503 5,000 $3,041 $16.05 Total System ~ $64,686,934 21,550 $3,002 $15.85 DEIS Section I $38,355,716 I 10,800 I $3,551 I $18.75 *This total represents 9,450 Route Feet of Double Track and 12,100 Route Feet of Single Track Source: Otak, Inc. j 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 99 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Main/7th to Rubey Park (3100 Route Ft of double track, 1900 Rt Ft single track) IAPPROX.~ UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION tluANMT UNIT COST COST Generat Site Preparation (Clearing and Grubbing) 01Acre 39001 Excavation OICY 91 Demolition of Edsting Street 14,189 ISY $201 S283,780 Embanlenent Material (Complete in Place) 0 ICY 57! Highway Aggregate Base Course (cl.6) 01Ton $81 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading ED 7.614 ITon S391 Guard Rail (type 3) 0 |LF S18I Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 0 ILF mi Retaining Walls 0 ISF $401 Drainage 10,074 ILF $301 Refurb. Ridge 0 ISF $35| Seeding (landscaping) 01Acre $20001 Signing & Stnping 5,037 ILF 571 Curt, and Gutter Type 211-8 and 1-8 10,074 ILF 37 I Relocate 17 Water Une 5,037 ILF S501 Relocate Uality Poles/Street Lamps 37|Each Sl.500 I 1 1 Structures Light Raii Tie & Ballast Track including formation 0 TF S200 SO Embedded Track including Track Slab 8.100 TF SCO S3,807.000 Ballast Mat 0 TF $250 9 Track Orains 8,100 LF 330 3243,000 Overhead Wire (double Track) 3,100 Rt Ft S55 S170.500 Overhead Wire (single Track) 1,900 Rt Ft S50 S95.000 Substations 2 Each $325,000 3650,000 Signals and Communication 1,900 Rt Ft 3195 $370.500 Station Platforms. ind. Shelters. Elevator. Fare Collecoon Building, etc. 4 Each 3412,000 $1,648.000 Landscaping 1,533 SY S5 S7.665 Single Crossover (25rn) 0 Each $80.000 Single Turnout (25m) 2 Each S40,000 S80. Tramc Signals 10 Each S97,500 $975 Subtotal Se,342.738 Tramc Control (for Construction) 896 S747.419 Mobilization 5% | I S467,137 Subtotal I I $10.557.294 1 1 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% 1 1 52,111,459 Cornstiwdon Subtotal 1 1 $12.668.753 Design Engineering 10% | | Sl,266.875 Construction Management 10% I I I $1,266.875 Design and Construction Total I I ! $15,202.503 j ROW Aquisition I 0 *Acre I ISO Property Take l ~Acrel I So ROW Total 1 1 1 ISO SECTION TOTAL I | S15,202503 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 S1Â§Â§5tg51St8 0 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Maroon Creek Road to Mainflth (1900 Route Ft double track, 1200 Rt Ft Single) APPROX. UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTrrf UNIT COST COST General Site Preparaton (Clearing and Grubbing) 4.01Acre 39001 53.600 , Excavation 2100!CY O 1 $14.700 Demoltion of Existing Street OISY 3201 SO Embankment Material (Complete in Place) 12.700 ICY $7 I $88,900 Highway Aggregate 8ase Course (d.6) 10.250 |Ton 38 382.000 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 4,780 ITon $39 $186,420 Guard Rail (type 3) 2,160 ILF S18 S38.880 Guard Rail (type 4. concrete) 0 ILF $33 So Retaining Walls 0 ISF $40 30 Drainage 3.560 ILF $30 $106.800 Seeding (landscaping) 1.1 |Acre $2000 32,200 Signing & Stiping 4,100 ILF $7 2,700 Curb and Gutter Type 2 11-8 and 1-8 10,400 ILF $7 $72,800 1 so Structures Refurbish Existing Castle Creek Bridge 1 ILS $592.2001 S592,200 New Castle Creek Bridge 1 ILS $2681,380 I $2681.380 1 1 1 1 Ught Rail 0 Tie & Ballast Track including formation 4,450 TF $200 $890,000 Embedded Track indu(ling Track Slab 550 TF 5470 S258,500 Ballast Mat 250 TF $250 $62,500 Crossing Panels 120 LF Sllo 313,200 Track Orains 3,920 LF 20 3117.600 Retaining Walls 0 SF S40 So Overhead Wire (double track) 1,900 Rt Fl 355 S104,500 Overhead Wire (single track) 1.NO Rt Ft $50 360,000 Signals and Communtcation 3,100 Rt Ft $195 $604,500 Station Plauorms, ind. Shelters. Eevator. Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 Each $412.000 S412.000 Landscaping 1.700 SY 55 $8.500 Single Crossover (25m) 0 Each S80000 Single Turnout (25m) 2 Each SAO.000 S80 Sound Wall 4.800 SF S15 S72.000 Traffic Signal Cat 8th St and Cemetery Lane) 2 Each 397.500 3195 Subtotai 56.776, Trafric Control Â®r Construction) 6% 1 206,613 Mobilization 5% 1 938,844 Subtotal i 57.522,337 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% 1 $1,504,467 Construion Subtotal 1 59,026,804 Design Eng,neer,ng 10% I I ~ .02,680 Construcbon Management 10% I I I I 3902,680 1 Design and Construction Totall I I I 310.832.165 ROW Aquisition j 22 Acre SO Property Take I LAcre SO 0 ROW Total 1 1 SO SECTION TOTAL ~ | $10,832165 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 HL 51Â§ Â§85151@ 0 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Buttermilk to Maroon Creek Road (1900 Route Ft double track, 4500 Rt Ft single) APPROX UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTTY UNIT COST COST General Site Pregaracon (Cleanng and Grubbing) 15 IAcre $9001 S13.050 Excavation 17,000 ICY $7 ~ 3119.000 Demolmon of Existing Street 0 ISY 001 SO Embankment Material (Complete in Place) 26.200 ICY $71 $183,400 High'way Aggregate 8ase Course (cl.6) 28.000 Ton 38 3224,000 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 12250 Ton $39 $477,750 Guard Rail (type 3) 250 LF S18 34,500 Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 5.600 LF 533 SIU,800 Retaining Walls 0 SF $40 SO Drainage 8.900 IF $30 S267,000 Seeding (landscaping) 1 Acre 32000 $2000 Signing & Striping 8,300 LF U $58,100 Curt, and Gutter Type 2 11-8 and 1-13 11,520 LF 37 $80, Structures New Maroon Creek Bridge 1 |LS 1 $7,249,5001 57,249,500 Other Bridges 1 ILS 1 3501,800 I S501,800 lili Light Rail Tie & Ballast Track including formation 8,300 TF $ O ..60.00 <:2/ Embedded Trackinduding Track Slab 0 TF $470 SO Ballast Mat 0 TF $250 SO Track Drains 7,580 LF 530 5227,400 Overhead Wire (double track) 1,900 Rt A S55 S104,500 Ovemead Wire (single track) 4,500 Rt Ft $50 $225.000 Substations 1 Each $325.000 $325.000 Signals and Communication 6,400 Rt Ft $195 Sl.248,000 Station Platforms, ind. Shelters, Eevator, Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 Each $540,000 S540.000 landscaoing 4300 SY S5 $21.500 Single Crossover (25m) 0 Each $80,000 SO Single Turnout (25rn) 1 Each S40,000 $40.000 Crossing Panels 160 LF $110 S17.600 Tramc Signals 2 Each 57,500 S195. Subtotal S13,969,540 Tramc Control (for (Jonstrudon) 8% I Sl.117,563 Mobilization 5% 1 $698,477 Subtotal S15.785,580 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% 1 53.157,116 Cor,struction Subtotal I $18.942.696 Design Eng-ring 10% I I I 31,894,270 Construdon Management 10% I I I $1,894,270 Design any Con*rudon Totall I I S22.731.235 ROW Aquisition 1.7 Acre ~ Property Take IAcre ROW Total I SECTION TOTAL | 1 mâ„¢.235 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 *851 Â§51851@ 51@51 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario DES Boundary to Buttermilk (1300 Route Ft of double track)) APPROX UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANnTY UNIT COST COST General Site Preparation (Cleanng and Grubbing) 4.01Acre ' Excavation ZOOD ICY St 1 $14 Demolition of eds:ing Street 0 ISY I S201 Embankment Matenal (Complete in Place) 11.800 ICY I 37 1 582,600 Highway Aggregate Base Course (ct.6) 10,780 ITon SBI $86,240 Hot Bitummous Pavement (Grading E) 5,330 ITon $391 $207,870 Guard Rail (type 3) 0|LF SlBI SO Guard Rail (typed. concrete) 2640 ILF $331 387.120 Retaining Walls OISF 3401 SO Orainage 4,200 ILF S301 S126,000 Seeding (landscaping) 1 IAcre 20001 $2000 Signing & Striping 4,400 ILF 571 20,800 Curb and Gutter Type 211-8 and 1-8 0 ity 571 SO 1 1 30 1 ! m Structures General bridges I 1 ILS $209,8001 S209,800 1 1 1 1 1 1 Light Rail Tie & 8allast Track including formation 2.600 TF S200 S520, Embedded Track including Track Slab 0 TF S470 Ballast Mat 0 TF $250 Crossing Panels 160 LF Sllo S17, Track Drains 2.600 LF $30 Ovemead Wire (double oack) 1.300 Rt Ft S55 Overhead Wire (SHngle track) 0 Rt R $50 Subs=tions 1 Each $325.000 Signals and Communtcatort 1,300 Rt Ft S195 Station Platforms, ind. Shelters, Elevator, Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 Each S590,000 Landscaping 900 SY S5 Single Crossover (25m) 0 Each S80,000 Single Turnout (25rn) 1 Each S40,000 Tramc Signal 2 Each $97,500 3195. Subtatal 2945,130 Traffic Control (for Construction) 896 S235,610 Mobilization 596 S147,257 Subtotal 53.327,997 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% SS.,599 Canstrucion Subtotal 31993,596 Design Engine~g 10% I I | 999,360 Construcion M~nagement 10% I I I 3399,360 Design and Construction Total | I I $4 792316 ROW Aquismon 1.8 IAcre SO Property Take 1Acre SO ROW Total I SO SECTION TOTAL | | 34,792,316 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 Ll-1 ie Â§28'irilill Â§51515;g 0 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Airport to DEIS Boundary (1250 Route Ft double track, 2500 Rt Ft single) APPROX i UNIT TOTAL [TEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITYI UNIT COST COST General Site Preparation (Clearing and Grubbing) 2.01Acre I $900 Sl Excavation 01CY Demolmon of aisting Street OISY Embankment Matenal (Complete in Place) 01CY I Highway Aggregate 8ase Course (cl.6) 0#Ton Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 01Ton Guard Rail (type 3) 0 It-F Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 0 It-F Retaining Walls 0 ISF Orainage OILF Seeding (landscaping) 32000 01Acre Signing & Striping 500 |LF O 53, Curb and Gutter Type 2 It-8 and 1-13 OILF 37 Structures lili I i I 1 ' 1 1 Light Rail Tie & Ballast Track induding formation 5.000 1TF S200 31.000,000 Embedded Track including Track Slab 011'F $470 SO Crossing Panels 240 ILF sllo g.400 Traci(Orains 5,000 ILF $30 S150.000 Overhead Wire (double track) 1,250 IRt Ft S55 S68,750 Overhead Wire (single track) 2.5001Rt Ft 350 S125,000 Substations 0 !Each 3325,000 SO Signals and Communication 3.7501Rt Ft S195 S731,250 Station Platforms. ind. Shelters, Eevator. Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 IEach S412,000 $412,000 Landscaping 2,500 ISY $5 512.500 Single Crossover (25m) 0 IEach S80,000 Single Turnout (25m) 1 I Each S40.000 S40,000 Traffic Signals 21Each S97,500 3195, Subtatal $2766,200 Tramc Control (for Construction) 4% I $110,648 Mobilization 5% i I S138,310 Subtotal S3.015,158 1 1 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% 1 1 S603,032 Consouction Subtotat 1 ~ $3.618,190 Design Engineering 10% I I | , S361,819 Consouction Management 10% | I I , S361,819 Design and Construction Total I I I I I 34,341,828 ROW Aquismon 1.2 IAcre I Property Take 01Acre I ROW Total i SECTION TOTAL | 1 .341.828 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 D;BA 01030*0 Â§85151 8822Â§122Â§2251 922 8 Â§22@51@ === 0 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Base Case Scenario Depot to Airport (2000 Route Ft single track) APPROX UNIT TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTrrY UNIT COST COST General Site Preparation (Cleanng and Grubbing) 1 Acre Sl.260 ' Excavation O CY Demolmon of Existing Street 0 SY Embankment Material (Complete tri Place) 0 CY Highway Aggregate Base Course (d.6) 0 ITon Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 0 1Ton Guard Rail (type 3) OILF Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 0 ILF Retaining Walls OISF Drainage 0 ILF Seeding (landscaping) 01Acre Signing & Stioing 0 |LF Curb and Gutter Type 211-8 and 1-8 0 It-F Structures Ught Rail 0 Tie & Ballast Track induding formaton (including 2100If depot tracks) 3.700 TF $200 $740,000 Embedded Track including Track Slab 400 TF SCO $188,000 Crossing Panels 100 LF $110 $11,000 Track Drains 4,100 LF $30 $123,000 Overhead Wire (double track) 0 Rt.Ft S55 $0 Overhead Wire (single track) 4,100 Rt Ft $50 $205,000 Substations 1 Each 3325.000 $325.000 Signals and Communication 500 Rt Ft $195 597.500 Staoon Platforms. incl. Shelters. Elevator, Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 Each $479,000 S479.000 Landscaoing ' 1,340 SY $5 36.700 Single Crossover (25m) 0 Each 20.000 SO Single Turnout (25m) 0 Each $40.000 SO Depolmorkshoo Building, including equipment 1 Each Sl,840,000 $1,840,000 #6 Turnout 6 Each S35,000 S210.000 Traffic Signals 1 Each $97.500 $97, Subbtal S4,323,960 Traffic Control (for Constnuction) 4% I S172958 Mobilization 5% I $216,198 Subtotal | 9.713,116 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% j $942623 Constructon Sublotal 1 35.655,740 Design Engineering 10% 1 '' $565,574 Construction Management 10% I $565.574 J Destgn and Constructon Total 1 36,786,888 ROW Aquisition 01Acre Property Take 01Acre SECTION TOTAL I | $6,786.888 7142\costs7.wk4 11/09/95 3D 1.0. 0102830".DI @88 @@P1618R85151@ 6188 @@512 881@ Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Aspen Highlands Extension Along Maroon Creek Road (7200 Route Ft of single track, 800 Rt Ft double) ITEM DESCRIPTION ~ APPROX UNIT TOTAL QUANTmr UNIT COST COST General Site Preparalon (Clearing and Grubbing) 3.01Acre 1 39001 2700 Excavation 3,000 ICY 57 ~ 321,000 Demolition of Existing Street OISY I SO Embankment Material (Complete in Place) 3.000 ICY 1 37 I S21,000 Highway Aggregate Base Course (cl.61 100 ITon 1 581 Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 50 *Ton I $39 I St Guard Rail (type 3) 0 ILF I S18 I Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 0 ILF I $331 Retaining Walls 0 ISP 1 3401 Drainage 0 (Acre 1 32.0001 OILF 1 5301 Seeding (landscaping) Signing & Sbiping OILF i $71 Curb and Gutter Type 211-8 and 1-B 0 ILF I $7! 1 1 lll 1 1 Structures 11'i Light Rail Tie & Ballast Track including formation 8.800 TF S200 Sl,760,000 Embedded Track including Track Slab 0 TF S470 Crossing Panels 110 IF $110 S12.100 Traffic Signal 0 Each S97,500 Landscaping 8,800 LF 530 5264,000 5.500 SY S5 $27,500 Track Orains Overhead Wire (double track) 800 Rt Ft $55 544,000 Overhead Wire (single track) LEO Rt Ft $50 S360 Substations 2 Each S325,000 $650 Signals and Communication 8.000 Rt Ft $195 Sl, 560 Station Platforms, inct Shelters. Fare Collection. Building, etc. 1 Each $462 Single Crossover (25m) 0 Each 580.000 Single Turnout (25rn) 4 Each 540.000 S160 Subtotal $4,885,512 1 1 Traffic Control (for Consaucbon) 4% I I $195,420 Mobilizdon 5% 1 | S244,276 Subtotal 1 1 $5,325,208 1 1 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% I | $1,065.042. Construdon Subtotal 1 1 5,390,250 Design Engineering 10% I I I I $639,025 , Construction Management 10% I I I S639,025 1 Design and Constructon Total 1 1 1 0,668,300 ROW Aquisition 01.Acre I i Property Take , 1 1 ROW Total ~ 1 SECTtON TOTAL | 1 37.668,300 7142\costs4.wk4 11/09/95 *Â§51@851618Â§151@61 St 51 51 @Ral=Â§ 25?51 0 Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate Alternative H - Brush Creek Road Extension Depot to Brush Creek Road (11880 Rt Ft of single track, 800 Rt Ft of double) APPROX UNIT 1 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST I COST General Site Preparation (Clearing and Grubbing) 6.01Acre S9001 S5,400 ' 5(cavation 4,700 ICY $7 1 $32900 Demolition of Existtng Street OISY 5201 SO Embankment Matenal (Complete in Place) 4.700 ICY $71 332,900 Highway Aggregate Base Course (d.6) 100 Ton S8I Hot Bituminous Pavement (Grading E) 50 Ton $39 1 51 Guard Rail (type 3) 0 LF $18t Guard Rail (type 4, concrete) 0 LF $331 Retaining Walls 0 SF S40 l Drainage O IF $301 Seeding (landscaping) 0 Acre $20001 Signing & Striping 0 LF S7 Curb and Gutter Type 2 It-8 and 1-8 12,640 LF 588, Structures New Bridge Structures 42000 ISF S150 I $6,300,000 111 111 Ught Rail 0 Tie & Ballast Track including formation 13.480 TF $200 52.696,000 Embedded Track including Track Slab 0 TF S470 SO Ballast Mat 0 TF $250 SO Crossing Panels 40 LF $110 $4,400 Track Orains 2.600 LF $30 S78,000 Overhead Wire (double track) 800 Rt Ft S55 344,000 Overhead Wire (single track) 11,880 Rt Ft S50 S594,000 Substations 3 Each $325.000 $975.000 Signals and Communication 12,680 Rt Ft S195 $2472,600 Staton Platforms, ind. Shelters, Elevator. Fare Collection Building, etc. 1 Each S462.000 S462.000 Landscaping 0 Each $80,000 9,510 SY $5 $47.550 Single Crossover (25m) Single Turnout (25m) 4 Each S40,000 3160,000 Traffic Signal 1 Each $97,500 S97. Subtotal S14.093,480 Traffic Control (for Construction) 8% Sl.127,478 Mobilization 5% S704.674 - Suk*atal S15,925,632 Allowance for Unlisted Items 20% S3.185,126 Consouton Subtotal 319.110,759 Oes,gn Engineering 10% | I I I Sl,911,076 Consouction Management 10% I I I I $1.911,076 Oestgn and Construction Total I I I | $22932.911 ROW Aquisition 0 Acre 1 30 Property Take Acre I SO 0 ROINTaW I m SEC-nON TOTAL | ~ 322,932.911 7142\costs9.wk4 11/09/95 5\ ;19t@@g8@8,@@ 61 Â§8251@ Recent National Examples ofApplication of Financing/Funding Strategies for Public Transit ~ Strategy Location Apnlication Issuance of Debt and Leasing Certificates of Participation Los Angeles SCRTD sold $29 million in 10= year equipment trust certificates (at 8% interest) for purchase of 1000 buses. Sale/Leaseback Arrangements Houston MTA used sale/leaseback with a bank to reduce initial outlay for buses. Vender Financing New York City Bombardier, Ltd. arranged for financing for MTA procurement of 825 rail cars. Revenue Anticipation Notes Philadelphia SEPTA has issued revenue anticipation notes on a annual basis between 1981 and 1990. Issuance of Bonds Boston MBTA frequently issues general obligation bonds backed by the 0 full faith and credit of the ; Commonwealth. Cross Border Leasing New Jersey New Jersey Transit (NeTT) sold 233 commuter rail vehicles to Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) and its Netherlands subsiderary, then leased them back for 12 years - realizing a net benefit of $18.4 million in reduced financing costs. Privatization Private Equity Financing Tampa, FL Construction of Harbour Island People Mover was totally financed - and was operated/maintained by a private developer. Private Operation ~ Ft. Worth Tandy People Mover is privately operated by major property owner. 7142\report\fundopt.tbl Recent National Examples ofApplication of Financing/Funding Strategies for Public Transit (Continued) Contracting Johnson Co, KS County contracts with a private operator for Service for all transit service (6 express, 4 local routes). Taxes and User Charges Sales Tax Atlanta 50% of MARTA's annual revenue comes from a 1% local option sales tax. Motor Fuel, Toll or Parking Tax Miami 20% of Dade Countfs annual revenue comes from a local option fuel tax. Motor Vehicle Fees Seattle 20% of METRO's annual revenue comes from a 1% state motor vehicle excise tax. Payroll or Income Tax Portland, OR 50% of Tri-Met's annual revenue comes from corporate payroll tax. Utility Tax New York City Transit is subsidized in part through surplus water and electric charges. Property Tax Minneapolis/St. 40% of MTC's annual revenue Paul comes from a 1.5-2 mil property tax. Lottery Arizona The state legislature earmarked $ 190 million (over a 10-year period) of lottery receipts for the local Transportation Assistance Fund. Use of Pronertv and Pronertv Rights Leasing/Selling Development Rights Washington DC WMATA receives about $3.6 million annually through leasing development rights, with the expectation that this j revenue will increase to $ 12 million. 7142\report\fundopt.tbl 51 Recent National Examples ofApplication of Financing/Funding Strategies for Public Transit (Continued) Leasing/Selling Facilities Fargo, ND City of Fargo leases part of Land or Facilities city-owned transit terminal to Greyhound for $32,000/yr. (15 years). ' Benefit Sharing Strategies Local Improvement District Portland, OR In 1984, a Yamhill/Morrison "UD" was formed and 32 businesses raised $1.5 million to match $4.0 million in federal funds for LRT-related sidewalk and street improvements. The $33.7 million convention center MAX station included $5.1 million in private participation. Special Benefit Assessment Miami Assessments are expected to and generate S20 million over 15 Los Angeles years to repay bonds issued for the people mover. This plus donated easement;s accounted for the 20% local share. Los Angeles is raising several hundred million in Special Benefit Assessment Bonds. Tax Increment Financing San Francisco Financing for building Embarcadero Station came, in part, from sale of a TIF bond. Direct Capital Contributions Vancouver, B.C. The Vancouver Skytrain transit system received three proposals involving two developers that committed $6 million each and two developers that committed $4.5 million total for stations that would serve each of their developments. Impact Fees San Francisco City imposed $5/sq. ft. fee for new downtown office space; fee is paid as a condition of obtaining certificate of occupancy. 7142\report\Jundopt.tbl Recent National Examples ofApplication of Financing/Funding Strategies for Public Transit (Continued) Connector Fees Washington DC WMATA has sucessfully obtained million in connector fees from specific station area developments (i.e., Friendship Heights Station). Fare Subsidies Seattle and University-subsidized transit Orlando fare payments are made directly to transit operator. Volunteer and "Adopt-a-Station" St. Imlis, New Volunteers help maintain programs York, Denver, transit stations or drive Dallas, et al. streetcar vehicles to lower annual 0&M requirements. Sources: Otak and Jeffrey Parker & Associates case studies; and US Department of Transportation, Financial Planning Guide for Transit, April 1990. 7142\report\fundopt.tbl 9 r 41-1 1--8. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 918 E. Cooper Avenue- Conceptual, Partial Demolition, On-site Relocation, Landmark, Ordinance #30 review, PUBLIC HEARING DATE: December 13, 1995 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to demolish an addition to the existing house, to demolish two outbuildings, to relocate the existing house and bam, to make an addition to the remaining minefs cottage, and to construct a new unit on the parcel. Historic Landmark designation is also requested, along with a review for compliance with Ordinance #30 (residential design standards). APPLICANT: John Davis. Mark Ward is the architect. LOCATION: 918 E. Cooper Avenue, Parcel 2 of the Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, aka Lots O and P, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. BACKGROUND: L~ts M, N, and O have been listed on the Historic Inventory since 1980. Apparently, since the parcel actually contained Lots M-P, P should have been included in the legal description as well. In 1994, City Council approved an application for a tot split which placed a new lot line through the existing historic house. Staff expressed to the caseload planner that this was an inappropriate action since it would essentially force HPC to allow the house to be relocated, however City Council did not have the ability to deny the lot split on that basis. (A code amendment has since been processed giving HPC review over such applications.) Although it was not noted at that time, by creating two legally separate parcels, any relocation of the historic structures might then be considered an "off-site relocation," which is a very difficult and costly review process at HPC and one that has not met with approval for many years. It is Staff's opinion in meeting with the Assistant City Attorney that HPC should review the project as though the parcel were still all one property (similar to the - historic landmark lot split). Therefore the application is for on-site relocation. Because the final result will be that the historic structures remain together on lots O and P, these are the lots that are eligible for landmark designation. (The other; legal parcel, which will be vacant could not meet landmark standards.) It is ~ however Staff's opinion that HPC may wish to require a "mass and scale" review of the development on Lot 1 (lots M and N) on the basis that the property is still on the Inventory and HPC is allowing the structures to be removed from it. If the 1 development proposal currently before HPC is approved, Staff recommends that Lots M and N then be removed from the Historic Inventory. (Please note that Lots M and N will also be reviewed per Ordinance #30). HISTORIC LANDMARK Section 7-702. Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic Landmark. It is not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus on those which are unique or have some special value to the community: A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of Colorado, or the United States. Response: This standard is not met. B. Architectura/ /mportance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen. Response: This building is a typical example of a gable end miner's cottage. From the Sanbome Fire Insurance maps of 1904, the house appears to be in it's original configuration with the exception of a one story addition which has apparently been demolished. The existing one story rear addition may have been built as recently as the 1980's. Architecturally, the house is very simple with little detailing. C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen. Response: This standard is not met. D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or ' site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character. j Response: There are relatively few remaining 19th century structures in the east end of town and only two historic landmarks. It is important to retain and 2 preserve structures such as this one as examples of the earlier character of the neighborhood. E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size, location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or architectural importance. Response: The structure is representative of the modest scale, style, and , character of homes constructed in the late 19th century, Aspen's primary period of historic significance. In addition, this house is located on Highway 82 and is important to the perception of the character of the community when entering town. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Section 7-601(D). Development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, and all development involving historic landmarks. No approval for any development in the "H," Historic Overlay District, or involving historic landmarks shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the 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 a historic landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would extend into front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, extend into the minimum distance between buildings on the lot or exceed the allowed floor area by up to 500 sq.ft. or the allowed site coverage by up to 5%, HPC may grant such variances after making a finding that such variation is more compatible in character with the historic landmark and the neighborhood, than would be development in accord with dimensional requirements. In no event shall variations pursuant to this section exceed those variations allowed under the Cottage Infill Program for detached accessory dwelling units, pursuant to section 5-510(B)(2). Response: Two worksessions have been held, during which HPC gave general impressions and suggestions to the applicant. As an incentive for landmark designation, the applicant is proposing two detached duplex units, with 1731 sq.ft. in the new structure and 1809 sq.ft. (including a requested 300 sq.ft. bonus) in the modified historic structure (total of 3,540). In the past few years, HPC has attempted to find new ways to avoid the "monster" addition to historic houses. It is the small minefs cottages which are especially impacted. On this site for example, the miner's cabin (about 520 sq.ft.) if developed as a single 3 family residence could have a potential addition of 2,720 sq.ft. (the outbuildings would count in FAR). If the property were to be developed as multi-family housing, the potential new square footage is 5,480 sq.ft. (1:1). Looking at the proposal from that understanding, the applicant has made a development decision which is sympathetic to the historic resource. From a more "pure" preservation point of view, this project, like many others which have attempted to respond more appropriately to the development conditions in Aspen, has removed the historic structures from their original context and created relationships between the buildings (such as using the barn as a garage stall), which do not have much meaning to the original character or use of the site. As stated above however, Staff does find that the applicant's design is in many ways acceptable. In terms of the historic structure, Staff recommends that the deck element be relocated if possible to be directly behind the historic house, or that in some other way a more gentle break be developed between the old building and the addition. A similar break is still needed between the-addition and garage, but this could be minimal. By placing the deck in front of the master bedroom, that ridgeline will also be pushed further from the street. Further discussion must be had regarding existing historic materials in both the house and barn and a proposed preservation plan. The proposal shows a canopy over the front door. Similar to the project recently reviewed by HPC for 820 E. Cooper, this is a very simple structure which never had a porch. Staff is not in favor of adding this element as it is not accurate to the historic structure. In terms of the duplex unit, HPC clearly discussed during the worksessions that the most bothersome element from a streetscape perspective is the flat roofed deck area at the front of the structure. Staff recommends that the deck be relocated over the den/bedroom and that the front element be restudied. The applicant must have a one story element in this location due to Ordinance #30, inflection standard. In addition, Staff recommends the applicant explore the possibility of lowering the second story plate height (currently 10') to be more in character with the adjacent historic structure. The following variances are requested: 2' frontyard setback variance for the historic structure 3" east sideyard setback variance for the historic structure ux'" east sideyard setback variance for the area wells on historic structure 1'10" east sideyard variance for historic barn (garage) 300 sq.ft. FAR bonus 5'3" combined sideyard variance on the front 70' feet of the parcel and 4'6" combined sideyard variance on the rear 30' of the parcel 4 3" variance on the minimum distance required between buildings on the front 70' ofthe lot and 4'6" variance on the rear 30' of the parcel 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: A number of surrounding projects have been substantially out of scale and character with the historic resources which still exist in this area. The proposed development is more respectful of the historic resource and to maintaining a pedestrian scale for the neighborhood. 3. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels. Response: There is minimal demolition proposed to the historic structures. 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 architectural character of the structure and its prominence along the streetscape will not be diminished. The applicant must provide further information about existing materials and plans for their preservation. PARTIAL DEMOLITION Section 7-602(C). Standards for review of partial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: (For the purposes of this section, "partial demolition" shall mean the razing of a portion of any structure on an inventoried parcel or the total razing of any structure on an inventoried parcel which does not contribute to the historic significance of that parcel. 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure, or the structure does not contribute to the historic significance of the parcel. Response: The aspects of the project which can be considered partial demolition are the demolition of the non-historic addition to the house and demolition of the eastemmost outbuildng, whichis non-contributing. The smallest shed appears to be historic and therefore its demolition or removal cannot be addressed by these standards. 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: 5 A. Impacts on the historic significance of the structure or structures located on the parcel by limiting demolition of original or significant features and additions. Response: Staff finds that the elements proposed for partial demolition do not substantially contribute to the historic significance of the structure. B. Impacts on the architectural character or integrity of the structure or structures located on the parcel by designing new additions so that they are compatible in mass and scale with the historic structure. Response: The proposed addition to the historic house generally respects the mass and scale of the historic structures. ON-SITE RELOCATION Section 7-602(E). Standards for review of on-site relocation. No approval for on-site relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that the standards of section 7-602(D)(2),(3), and (4) have been met. 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structures will not be diminished due to the relocation: Response: Relocation of the historic bam is acceptable because it is more preferable to keep the house and outbuilding in some relationship to each other than to have them left on separate parcels. The applicant has proposed an off-site relocation of the small shed. Because the shed does appear to have historic significance, this can only be approved as an off-site relocation, which is a very difficult review process. The applicant should consider any possibilities for retaining the shed (170 sq.ft.) on-site, or HPC must make a finding that the shed does not contribute the historic significance of the parcel and allow its demolition/ relocation. 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the #tructure proposed for relocation. Response: This report must be sqbmitted before application for a building permit. 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond or other financial security with the engineering department, as approved by the HPC, to 6 insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation. Response: The bond and relocation plan must be submitted prior to application for a building permit. COMPUANCE WITH ORDINANCE #30 Initial review shows the project to be in compliance with Ordinance #30 except for the standard relating to a principal window. Further information is needed regarding the surrounding development in ternls of build to lines. Principal window. A street facing principal window requires that a significant window or group of windows of a living room, dining room or family room face the street. Response: Staff recommends waiver of this standard as we would not wish to alter the existing front facade of the historic house. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: â€¢ Approve the Development application as submitted. â€¢ Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. â€¢ Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) â€¢ Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION: 1 moveto table conceptual approval with the following recommendations: J 1. Mandatory mass and scale review for lots M and N, after which these lots will be removed from the historic inventory. 7 2. Create a break between the historic house and addition, possibly by placing the deck in this location. Maintain some break between the addition and barn. 0 Q.ocp 3. dp rovide more information on preservation of existing historic materials for final review. 42 UN~ cgpopy element may be placed over the door of the historic structure. ' FOn.=t-ALJÂ·,0- 436-.F# bb lne--11 26 5.7 Restudy the flat roofed element on the new duplex. 6. Restudy the new duplex to lower the plate height on the second floor to 8' if possible. 0/0 7. Confirm that the setback variances listed on page 4 of the memo are correct. HPC grants these setback variances finding standard #1 is met. The FAR bonus may be related to condition #9. 8. Confirm that the 35% open space requirement is met. c,/c ,/0. ~**Restudfthe-pfpeaad_[emor'-otthe-&9911*le'lzetelagotanaFggm@nt t"at-the-shed-Is-men=contributtogzto=tllâ‚¬historic-mgnifi*~ce-of-fliipargel. < 10. 02 Provide a relocation plan for the structures for final. ~11. j> Secure a bond to ensure the relocation of the structures (amount to be set 0 by HPC at final) prior to submitting for building permit. 12. p HPC shall waive the Ordinance #30 standard dealing with the principal window. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 0 8 DEC-12-'95 TUE 07:59 ID: A ** TEL NO: - | L WY $2127'&P92/1060 4 1 1 1 . i ATTACHMENT 2 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORN 1 1 1 0 Applicant: John DaÂ¥ 1 s. 1 Address: P.0. Box 966 Baâ€¢alt, 90. 1 i Zone district 8/M, 1 1 , Lotsize: (6,004 8.14 Total)/ 1/2= 360021 Lot 2 ; Existing FAR 1.499 Total 1 AlloWable FAR: 3.240 4.-306 Bonue â€¢-3740 1 Proposed FAR: 3,540 -t36*Z.- Existing net leasable (commerclal): ~ry n A 1 1 Propo@ed net leasable {commercial): i'Nome 1 - ~>2:4/1 Uâ‚¬Â· Existing % of site coverage: CLot 2: 19 X -1 - i Proposed % of mile coverage: Lot Zi 03 7- i Existhng % of open space: _ 'Lox 21 81 %- f : PropqsedÂ· % of open space: -2../Lot 21-.10 5 i Extallog maximum height: Brinclpal bldel: 19' 1 Ac-JeeorÂ¥ bid*:15' , Proposed rn@x height Frincloal blda: 30,4 ..peakACce:Bervbldg: 11?3 Proposed 96 of demcIRion: 3.6 rs . - Existive number af bedrooms: applox. 2 Proposed number of bedrooms: 3 ahove graje 1 .--IL. Existing on-site parking spaces: 1 1 1. 1 On-slte parking spaces required: 4, (poâ€¢mibly 5- pari 'F'Tend *ZI) . i: 20=lighi Existing: Mklimurn required: - Propo~ed: 0 *P Front 10, . Front: in, Front: U.C.Â£Lid Roar: , 0Â·' Rear: 10' Rear: i lo' .r~,6/ Combined Combined Combihed i Front/reartliL FmnVrearle- FronVrlâ€¢Â¤ 0_1_~~* 16 i ' Bide: .. 0' Side: 5' glde. 1.59.31 Side: ,-JLAL Side: _.10 Side: _.-L- Combined , Combined : Cbmblhed I Sides: ~.__UL Blde# 10' â€¢â€¢ch unit sides:.-m,--1~-- 1 , Existilig nonconformities or encroachments:411 existing buildinge lara encroachi. -06=aa,2.*Jines or over . . b , I , 1 Varlattons requested: y,nit 10.1 ; 99 0,4 .10. ,-A v.1 ..+ 1-,lrf n, a raA-=A Ilse Nnit"P,: 2' front yard aetback, 3! rear setback. 1'6" dideyard setba on east aide for historic structureti, 71 combin,d s-idey,rd setback. I (HPC hes the abi[Ry to valy Ihe lbllowing requIrcments: setbacks, dlztenge bet#8 51, buildings, : FAR banus of up to 500 aq.fir site coverage vadance up to 5%, helg,t vatiattons under Ille cottage' Infill ptgram, parking wsivers b residential use s IM the R-8. R-15, RMF, CCe :41 O zone dist,lots) i .. 4'6" variahee request for minimum diDtance between 4uild#nge on re#r 30' of parcel. 1 1 TnIAI P. Al WARD and ASSOCIATES inc architecture and planning Attachment 2 Date: December 4, 1995 Applicant's Name: John Davis Box 966 Basalt, Colorado 81621 (970) 927-9700,(970) 379-6392 Representative: Mark Ward 2945 Center Green Court, Suite A Boulder, Colorado 80301 003) 442-1201 Address of Development: 918 East Cooper Avenue, Parcel 4 All of Lots O and P, Block 35, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. The proposed development will incorporate two existing historic structures on Lot P. Lot O will be a new single family residence which is compatible with Lot P. Special considerations have been made on Lot P to allow the historic structures to stand on their own. They have been isolated as much as feasible from the new attached building between. The lot depth is 100'. The proposed placement of historic buildings and orientation on Lot P require over 50' lot of depth. With front and rear setbacks totaling 15', this allows only ~ approximately 34' of new construction between the historic structures. The architectural character of the development will enhance the historic qualities of the existing strudures as well as neighboring properties. In two work sessions with the HPC, suggestions have been made and incorporated into the proposal. Specifically, elimination of tall chimneys, orientation of the rear historic structure, use of compatible materials, locating Lot P unit closer to the front setback to enable it to be more visible, lowering the second floor plate height, elimination of some glass, placement of windows in regards to side by side units, duplication of mass and scale in unit O to enhance Lot P. With consideration to lot configurations, the use of two historic structures and the development of the project with HPC recommendations, we feel a FAR bonus of 300 sq. ft. is viable. At previous work sessions, we proposed greater FAR numbers and now have compromised down asking for 300 sq. ft. which enables minimal development for marketable residences. The owner had the option of developing one large single family residence, but chose to build two smaller residences which is more in keeping with the historic nature of Aspen and making them more affordable. We appreciate the HPC design input and have used it to a great extent. Thank you for your consideration. +Jal ' Mark Ward Architect M. Ward and Associates, Inc. 294S Center Green Courts Suite A â€¢ Boulder, Colorado 80301 â€¢ [303] 442-1201 .. A:I:mCIEMEND 1 IAND USE APPIX(XCION N]el{ 1) Pmject Maine 918 EAST COOPER AVENUE 2) Project location 918 EAST COOPER AV#NUE, PARCEL II, ALL OF LOTS 0 AND P, BLOCK 35, EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNT w (indicate street acklress, lot & block n=ber,. legal descriptial where PITKiN, S TA apprcpriate) COLORADO 3) Present Zoning R/MF 4) Iot Size 6,004 S . F. 5) Applicant's Name, Address & phone # JOHN DAVIS, BOX 966, BASALT, COLORADO 81621 (970) 927-9700 (970) 379-6392 6) Represerrtative's Name, Adkiress & Ehone * MARK WARD, 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A, BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 (303) 442-1201 7) 'Type of Application (please chedc all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA X Conceptlial Histaric Dev. Special Review .-' Final SPA - Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline . Conceptlial POD Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin .-' Final POD Â· Historic Demolitirn M=Itain View Plane Subdivisian - Historic Designation Corxicminiunization '2xt/Map Amendment QUS Allot:ment Iot Split/Int Line, - GMCS Exarption Adjustmerrt 8) Description of Existing Uses (nt=ber and type of eocistingÂ· structures; approximate sq. ft-: 'rtmber of bedrocms; any prewious approvals granted to the p=perty) - TWO EXISTING HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO BE MOVED AND INCORPORATED INTO LOT P, SINGLE FAMILY. BUILDING ONE IS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY, BUILDING TWO IS AN OUTBUILDING/SHED. 9 ) Description of Developtrrit Application RELOCATE BOTH BUILDINGS TO LOT P AND INCORPORATE INTO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOT 0 TO BE NEW SENGLE FAMILY COMPATIBLE TO LOT P. 10) Have you attached the following? X Response to AttadI=It 2, Mininum Elinission OxItents Response to Attact=nt 3, Specific Submission Conterrts Â¥ Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application 1111111 L 9- - ----1-- 1 1 E HYMAN /~VE .. 40 - -lT - - 3030 Â»r) 03Â«71 1 ' 1 0 :1 F\ 1 -1 7------ 31 W 1-- ..I...I--Il-- 11 1 1 0 - 6 , 4 .1 1 . - c j i .. . 1--.--Â·- , 7-1><30<1 r-i %-> 1 1 . l, 4 -' SL-11%. 1 4 - - -*. i 1' f W **111222**rlÂ» -/1.lul-70PP~SIT/1922) 04 -9-Ut~~FL- -- triEXÂ»Â·~' 1 1:'en - 3 - -WeAâ€¢59 . I N317 -0--9 - -0-f:Wa - 49c---A i 11 â‚¬ UPUE,9 1 _ 4'MA 114 (vic* 1 1 FIEA 1.- ...7 If r 11 1 - l' 1. All--- \I - \1 A -- ,--rt:--2=12'-164;*.Il--1 1--1--1 1 . ND \ * re-coopERAVE - * A IS I TeL PLAN 1 1. g EDO, Pu 1-r i E-r 'r--1.-1-1 - = - -. . -----0. 1 a .I- . i J 1 L--7940 / 1 .. , .- 1 =1 :-I -.. O . -.- ... A 1 + 1\ / r.arl. -Â· Â· Â· -: 17 4 t r lS ON~ 0 -- NO 0\ 1 , , 4 . .4 ..... 1, 1%, " f: . VICINITY MAP i -E.*14~*.,1.. .a, AN/*YFIRVW"* 41 . U.- -*" 5 9 4 U .. M i ., 1 ;ziti~ ... r d Â¥ 5ht Â· UNTEÂ·t. . 1,40 2 19 : 1 Â·tâ‚¬+ C Not ICE ACCORDING TO COI 40 LAW YOU MUST C NCE ANY LEGAL 1 â€¢Cl 10â€¢1 BAS#C Ord# ANY 1,1|RtÂ¥ GN'THI, PLAT 1,1~N THREE YEARS i, p sER YOU FIRS, 0Â£0(41~~ SUCH Dat Edt. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION 1 -Â· liz P ON ANY DEKErT THI S PCAT BC COMMENCED HORE THAN r*N e r:MOH vile DATE of liE CERTIFICATION #WOWN HEREON. THE i' , 1. VOID 1, 4(,r IliT brAMPED 0. ru-Â·1*}11: EfAL OF THE â€¢ . -L_-1 / 0 11,5 0 --/C./ / U.., W - R Â« r,-2 - - 1/ Â£ 1-8- A 1.0 , 77 + 4 ., Nkf T E r- - 3 r-3 'pi 71N , 7- Z j- -E~ 0-l - Lili / il 01* / 1 U.- --6 0 i -1%:Rl Ali=71 44 1 __ |1~ 1. ~5~ .,~Â£V Ll .- .L dil.ZO - 3 2 1 826*-1*1 &30-32 834 900 902 804 306 908 810 8/2 814 316 30 ~ 820 822 824-26 928 330 93 I - AV. ~1 1 p'.De. =11= === === === ===== == = == 1=.I/= C= 0// ===== 0- e ll 2_827 825 427 829 83/ 833 83.5 -tlIZE : 11 2 90/ 903 905 907 903 8/1 913 91-fi 817 919 01:1 923 825 827 929 83; 93% 2 - 12 1 \ 11 0 77};Z-7 27 ~ 5=111 4 3 2221 ~ I Ill.3 4 Â¢ IT-*1 J / 0 117 1 B ler, 1 L 6 H i 1 <~ A R c 0 E. F 6 H I 11 'AT-71 7-71 . 01 1 1.1 611 4 L.K...1 *1 21 XI rl M ~ 126$*,6,1 ~ 35 / 9Â£2~~~.63 *11 1% G P.# r.. ./- 1 1 *1 F * 1-11.I ,-i I ' *' ' Â° " / Â° 1 4 : 0 14 4 \1.21& 1--1 11=Z-1.-~ 0 It , 1/ * Q RE. ~ N K Op Q R. S M N 4 8 4 4 11 4 4 17=1 411 4 4 . 1 1_1 ' 7-EÂ» 7771 L Â£ D. -0 77 77 -- - 1.-61 -L-_Â£ 3 -4 7.11 if_,1 8. #17<- 3 1 " i g i~ p *1 .|/, 77 , *| 2- 1-3Â£ i ji b L- 9 , , ~ 9 1 " 1 It + ' IZIX 215 h U-11 - \ 11".1 '22 824 826 6'22 830 832 834 A /le 300 902 904 go 6 308 -10 87% 9/4 3/8~ 820 822 324 926 828 930 932 /(3/61\ ~ ANDO",0, AV. Â»hx'*/,05... - 1- S Scale of Feet. 5 0 40 30 â€¢20 ID W 5.1<,11-:<- - 0 50 100 90/ 903 905 907 909 9// 8/3 9,5 9/7 9/3 'heÂ«~3 825 927 929 93/ 831 873 823 827 829 #3/ &33 935 0 , ... 12 6/ .D_Il-L~ ' 9 Tr _~79 47 77r7-% Tr-21 1 4*0 7-71-r.- 10Â£0; 1 1 , Al i. I f / .41 *1 2 . 2 1/ 29./ 1 F - 4 1 4 ; *J I [/ *. 1, / t 1 17,4 -~% s ~ IN 8.- c o _ E F 6. FT,7 3,7 Xi 42 A I,Xol - , *1 to 118 33 1 1 1/0 1.4... /1 J 1 L I At 11 1# 1 , 1 r' * I I I '*Ill'z Ir-43/<4Â·21 k 307 305 303 30/ 32 ~ 4 ~-~~02 25947 4.JO W.C. 64 -,- ELECTRIC TRANSEON 3Â· / BUILDING 4< 2 1 Â¥ O /\ t P - LOT 1 0.138 ACRES ./- 6.001 SO. FT ./- -. Â· LOT z @ 4 ~ 1 LD I NG/ 0.134 ACRES Â·/- 4.004 SO. FT. ./- f Â¥4%1,1\61Â»9<5 . gla. - 'tr 94* j 6 \ 386Â£6.6,4 I g . 4 'oo.00 r / 91'St..%4.1 4 - . *Â·V'Â·,Â·'Â· 5.Â·- Â·,-421;fÂ»...., 1 4 , 1 2 *Il . . * 4' .Â·3< 4.<.~:,- :T..,t~~ 1--Â·. ...~f f *:,j:.9,tl*40:~~.:-#9,~6.8 :';,f h..: :Â·:: - 0 , . , A â€žd:z==14.---1=q~ < A-relbe-to 42#. * - - -1 FRFEit 1. - . 1 - L.Li - - - . I. 64 - ic- IZ~-1 1 ~ -T -_n , â€ž'6 11 1 .r 26:1 L Â· r.- P / --' J. -UER.. ..tÂ· - trT -9.ILL ~ 13.--41, . 1 Ill=- 1 --7- 4 'll -I---Ii-/0 M-. L .1 - 1 11 .. : -I. .h- -1-i MZ..I./0,-ly--Il./.....I---,P.tj'.I-=--....V.Cralp..& ------- 11 --- I.r . 1 du_ I to' Or') 'CLI - 1 . , j j 1. 4 - Af , . . . . . -- ..54% '.. - . i. .33,/ .:, 4.- ' ' ~ * -8%2Â£;25.44 4 . ~.. 1 Al 1-- . 9 74. . ... -rr- . .. .A-- --FI-* .' .:.Â£ , __~__ -*-* . *. -*~ -~_-* __~- - *. - -- --*_ _ - . Â·1 al,- 14:,v (TrÂ© 1 , 4 , -1 . 1 : ; E-- C A- ps-g)flo - I.I. 1 . 1 . 3. Â· 7 -,V /.FL r 4 - -- ' 'It=fti-0~ ' i. -- 4 r . 1-7#4 1. r ~ -- 11....... __.. m '. 1 111 12- 9 1 -7 Ill-~ tf Uuy -' 'Xe,- r 1 1 .: - - --5. -- .1 - , -,fl,eâ‚¬,L - 11.-1.1.-_ 1--2:1 - 1 It---- - -r - I'... - ./ ' / i . i -L i. - 1 ____~_...........&'.-...,I.,I.,I-let:=--*.I....... -L + -- Â«Â®Pll--T. . i --4'.---! L----- 1-- -7 I . -Ill-- - .1 .-I -*-41* f. . -=11 Â· 1 . 1: 3 -1 - ll- JI====:=. - 1 ...... .r--- . . -- - I .- ------ , -,--- ... 4- - a - i P'- i \1/ 8 9?T - -- --- ' 1 j I ... - / 0 - . . & I. 4 'fÂ· ' . 1*. I. , 1 ... 9 ; 0 9 . 5 F f -'. , 4 a - 1 _3.--ZE._ . .2 - Â©21*7 1 t-III 1 -1- aL]=909Â·Â®~ae=rtil i .Â· Â· w-ri - .- -t.. + ....-- - MF-- -- 111 =3~ r -, 1 . ' I i- 1. i . -1 lili , . . 1, 4---DE 1 '.ri--64. Â«Â»he... 1 Â· 0,2---Â· ' -i~;2*-r_ . - --- - ---- ---- - -XX- \,prt- /7. li , 1 ii Â· 74 - - -- Ni<.520' : 7, - 1 . 11 T-- 11/imelbli_J 1 . y. 0 - --- 6-6. -INT/FI â€¢ Li.-1. Iii I k \ -7-- \ -- 4 11 ' / gr-,1 1 .t , .- - -- ..0 V 4.*- 1 -0*>Â»- râ‚¬03> 1.- .1 . L--a- -- 0-/ -- I .- -10"...r....6,&.7461'. r ' 1. 1 . O o ?-TH PVE,7- - Fl 1 ..: j : I â‚¬'rE ~r-'I243F~rÂ·1!10~~ I 1 . 'i. - I 'Â«'r i -Er - -Py-, 1,-=-=-,1~,,AJ~Jajjfd~*~M4JS~~~~64tv.94844448-- Â·- Â·~ * L 'L .. h 1,1/ . /751 Wal#*IL + - -- 6 -3Pulu- 1IFI Ir....34#0/ 02"hAI k~ aa.- *47%Â¥71:,4:1 2/[ =-!; F~IlljjjÂ·+-., . 1 (4; 4-1 1 /9%Â§* :Irl- i : 1-11- 711-1 ti 1 -1J .1 44.1 [1---.1 a,g. i *41 1 \1;1 1 61. - Â· Â· 1%-Â· - - iii 4 11 . .. 1 I %.Way A. & r . - 1 ..9 12 1 Â¢59. . . I L ; 11~=Eolil.111# Cl , . Â·gi. i ~ , 1 Â· 1 1 111 * : EBU ~~ -. 41It A 1 11 0 1; 1 / 1. 1 - ' ~ ,â€ž7 -7 1 1-14 1 F 1.; 1.1 , 1 1 1 1 1,1 :1 11 , ill 1 lk! ~ Â· : Â·-19 L_ ...i.LUDU+J. fi - -11, 1 11 ~ i. . ~ 0 li lilli 1 1 :.\ 11; -! 4 11-<.il -11 -. 1. : !11: 1 t Ii,1 i . i i..1! t d Ki~ /1~ 1~ i - iIi 1 IL.-1.' ! 1 1 ; 1.)1.-i ' 11 i Ill 1, 1 1 '1 'ilt 111 lili.1. 1 11'J' / 1 466. 11 1 - --- . 1 f -/1 1 - , 4 74.2- :' 1. Jillitii Â·Â· . Li 9 .*rk 1 Er 2 1 1 1 ' '3 4 '' 1 1, i , Lea h/\ -: 2 -,7..2-n21. t - . .... -+ I : r-Â»i b 4 ,. .Â· . - . 1 - â€¢kÂ· f 9. . ... t -- 4 -F 4 P -- i i ///1 , 7\ 4 1 U *10 I -f 11 1 J. . 1 L . 4- 1 , . - . 1.- ... I , t.. 1 Â¢ â‚¬ i \ . fL + 9 9 75 CA .. i/6,91 4 0, L g.' 4:94) 31*0 /4 , + -I ,+ .e:*. . . - Â·at .:20~ ... 7 . . fu ae; 4 - 1 1 r.-1: ---0 . 7 1-f--' 6 & 4 ....4 - - ... l 7- 34 2. r lit91 1 -. 1 t2E2=tsÂ· 4 M Â»Â» , 1 $ I. 1 8,41 *==J Â· .. 14*- *1- 6414.F lU_ 1,7 1 1 Cj Â· rt 1 HI - 1 1 =11-4 , 1-1 1 E zi Â¢1 1 .. L- -1 . 1 1 11,40. + t 1.- 1 1 r-v=t=t.= ./ 1 1-l 7 1 0 - rn. 1 P 1 *1 =M-*5 4 , 4. 1 . : It 6 -li- 6*7962* I ' r -13Rj 00 5. F . f 1 -* , -, 1 ' NA ' i 1 1 1 ... 1 ' 1 Â·'' , Â·Â· - - 1.--- .-.-- - 1 .- Ii- --' --' 1 .-.4- 4---/ . I. :/ g ' ~ -1'â€¢L 11 rf 6-p- - LEV e t_ - ..MIL:go F- - fLAN - - --- - - - - 4 . ' f I ./ I ..... I P .I e.c Al-Â·Â¢Â· ' 7 0>KeÂ£Â¥:01. I. 4 5 . Â·Â· 0.*. 4/:*Ij.:)Â£ - ' .. Â· Â· t. .. 3/ .'1â€¢ \09.00\ 11/ .. 10 1 h,Wh . di - - A,w J ---4 Kj - -T . |0 1 1 . 1- 1 0 AN. , : * \ A, W. 1 - +t./ ~ 3- - - -- 1 1! - 1 0 1 i Â» h//0 P- 1 1 - 4 t4 1.\V F+1 Pl hilk|6, < f : I . 14 1 0 CA 0 . i i - 1 1 '' lei 4 4= -41 1 I &61 71' p. 1 1 r . ' k. 2_l,e "4~9 I-Â·i - -5 0,0~ 14.--- M* [1 ' * -1 121.2Â¢ . C- - I ---I-/-0/ 5- 8 . 8 TH\ -- *-T ANÂ«, 4-~ 4 0 6- - 0 t--1 3 . T ' / 1.1- - -- 2- c,+ fbp,1- 1 -1 -1 t.* , 45<*ah ~ - ~4 1 bi 1-14Â»M r -1 . PININ G 14- -1 ~ Â»Lh.---1 \ / -3 alt\/ - ,#..19-raf- tax d tr 13! L__- , .. 2 61 pa'*15- P 4 t*1257 P-1 c A f.+12: 1,2 9 4 4, Ft -t E=fi :19-2 fl 581- _.trl -1 .=t-- -13-__dÂ»'\M - 1 6. 7. U - 14' 1 LitbM=--1 .r~Jgf â‚¬ 6 J . 14+114- L.EEVEL FLAy FL -PLA d . V'. - ./ -9 - 9 chl- E. ---1 1616 -197 -- 9 I j. TO: AMY AMIDON 1â‚¬. FROM: JAKE VICKERY K E RE: 820 EAST COOPER VIC'KERY OPENING SPECIFIC LIGHT WELLS DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1995 , moSOUTH St'RING ST, #1 POST OFFICE BOX !23.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS I 'F\.CO !.ORAIN )8!hil 11Â·IE!'1{011 3 1+A'Â·411111 1 (4 70) 425-3(,h{I The deep egress light wells have been relocated to the sides of the existing cottage. There size has been increased to accommodate a 6 foot wide window. An operable grate has will be provided so that people can walk along the side of the house. Roof diverters are necessary to minimize drainage into these light wells. The structure has been elevated slightly and additional windows are provided on the south street side to provide more light and some view because the egress wells are located in dark, wet areas and are very restricted in terms of the light they will get. The front windows are screened by low shrubs. We are trying to create a high level of amenity for these below grade spaces to help offset their compromised basement location. REFERENCE The Secretary of the Interior's Standards are the basis for the following discussion. PRESENTATION Below Grade Space: Use of below grade space to accomplish adaptation to modern livability is generally preferable to the creation of above grade space in connection with historic structures. However, if there is a significant compromise in the quality of this subgrade space then there is a disincentive to do this. It seems appropriate to create incentives and techniques to utilization of this below grade space. Reasonable light and air characteristics are necessary for these spaces, since these spaces have most likely lost most outward views. Oversize light wells and bringing light in from 2 or more directions or wall surfaces improves these light and ventilation characteristics. Attached are some designs we propose for this project. We feel they are acceptable options which have been engineered to improve the usefulness and "delightfulness" of the below grade spaces. The utilization of highly developed basement spaces is an important aspect of historical rehabilitation in Aspen. Relationship to Ground Plane: Opening specific light wells properly detailed and landscaped need not radically or negatively effect the traditional or historic relationship of a structure to the ground plane. Elevating one story historical structures can improve their presence as well as provide options for windows for the below grade space. The attached studies address this issue. Preferred placement: Preferred placement of light wells is that they shall not be on the streetside elevations. However certain e>jisting conditions regarding this project make this problematic. Requiring light wells to be placed in dark, wet locations by default is counterproductive. Preferred detailing: Please see attached sketches. 319.R'C~Htl i'+171~ SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS SPECIFIC REPLIES ~~ To be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. Minimal change to defining characteristics: Use of basement spaces and light wells help minimize impacts of new space on existing structures. 2. Avoid or minimize removal of historic material: Light wells are an element in the new construction and use of basement space helps lessen demolition and above grade modifications. 3. Physical record of its time, place, and use: Use of basement space and light wells are is minimally intrusive. There is general acceptance that buildings change through time. Allowances must be made for the adaptation of existing structures for current conditions. 4. Buildings do change, Newer changes can acquire historical significance of their own: New compatible additions or modifications become a continuation of the evolution and "story" of the structure. 5. Preserve distinctive features: Use of basement space and light wells is minimally intrusive. Further, there is no 0 obscuring of the preserved features 6. Repair deteriorated historical features: N/A 7. Gentlest surface cleaning: N/A 8. Protect archeological resources: N/A 9. Differentiate new work from old, new work shall be compatible: There is general acceptance that building change through time. Allowances must be made for the adaptation of existing structures for current conditions. "Compatibility": 10. Reversibility: , Light wells are easily reversible, however because they are part of new j construction this becomes less of an issue. CN 5520 BAT LO'P~' int-nol M\N q Uh+10~ CA,fiN Z g. 99- ~ VicÂ»i M<*. # U- e ..294 2-2 - ../ 16 'Gff' -t i Â·dÂ©ff~ 3,1 n I - lul --7 1 -----H 1 593522 T- , I /-*-- gLy -- . 26- : 9--iâ€ž. ........ . 0/#â‚¬7 FR .71 GLE,BA-- \AINRNE Â¥08' 4404 Â¢AOB Â»:* il, 8/ Gif 04,6 v'00*1 AUU- A INRX . 11 1 , /2Â§, 1 -li j T rb, '-*._pgt \*J 1 2â‚¬9= / I. -- - 1--4 - j IRE~- m:*enmr- .-. r L 1. I 4 9, , 1 - 1 1 r-rÂ»Fm - S 4441 *014 217 J 4 -. . .. i - 1 1? . Â·. A â€¢ 4 1 -nL-j i - 1 1 36(Slip MAX 1.0541- RM, 220 per V *A + â‚¬9,6594Â·U Gy+. .. rn Int r. 126; 4141,1-- i 8%~ 0 1 0 â‚¬0144/,fl/10/6 12*1160 + 15'1-25Â¥v mb~=Nas-,-Â·.4;; - ~~~~~wi,~Ak~-r SSM 64*, rv,) -CafrtÂ«. 4-4- I n\\1:Â· U 4o ~Tr-K *K. elw, tx. 0 - 1-- T /0+Ir# M.N kdlkt. 4 F*19 fy) A, ad' dliy â€ž- , 'Im=,a_...i/*/3..<gu:*AWâ€¢*I*K#.:I/4**##"iN/"WILIE/SH&~~ 4Â·,-rue .< 1 -1 1â‚¬*47:12:4:.EEEFE-23*f*.le#,reffli-*0 -rrrWAgeÂ«5.-W EÂ»â‚¬7 -P:'.-*a--*108 *--41/VeÂ¢7- 1 1. , 4><r l -3 1 : i .,1 1 11 , U -It 1 - y--4 , . A . 1 - -- , "Â·- -71Â©421- 0 - Â£-6,1 1 A f 3 0- O-#240.-7 ---- -1 ..JI,t-- \/.\ / . 1 V...--Â¥ - . Â· 32'.3 ! 1 4 L.&AAA_~ 1 J 1 21 -l ..IF 'r-72 UN rr 2 Â· 22 -- --F. 1 1 / Ir fit .k--rees> e:,1 .... r GER. , . . 1.19>-741 -40 0 0 -- , 1, t . 1 /1- & d ... 33Â« -- i J 1 1 - V 1 , 1 - . , - =-0.AGEM-EGIE.- I.JFFEAN . . 03.Li.ar- - j 820 EAST COOPER JAKE VICKERY ARCHMECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #E /21;192/0 12. â‚¬ Â·61 4- ASPEN, CO 81611 970 -925 366( 1 . I . 1 -- -- 12306Â«0<k, - 10825*Kie . ON i t .--I , :1 -- . 1 -1. /2. i ---I.- IM- . W I gv Â£ Â·i z_,> 1 - e--/1 . P'.134 1 r.7-r--t.Nlk)4.. :. f CU , il '1 % 1 1 -* =.=-=r.= 0 AC,Wle 7.- 1 1 111 134 -tit _-il?*MIl-'f . 4-3 - 4 1 1 1 $ IT 0 - -- -o i Li r-h i 1- 4- --- In.JUY>to-Nkli- Â·-- -Â·->n Â·Â·-: =72------ - - - - 01*.-7*[2*lph].-3 47-=t-:- - '- r- 17. 70- r --* '- m C . 1 11 4-Â· U O 1 .: - -' 11., . \ pÂ»00~i=:e 91 +14*12_ _. Mdpre e. 6 ROU-Kj--ED-~--FLOO R ft *ANS - .. j r SH=er.e 820 EAST COOPER JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECT 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET ~eviseD (1 - gly ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925 36 - . .... 1 , . I f. 3 1 .. 1 p r- - 11 il 1 -1- 1 ftpi i j.: 1 1262:f 4 Ap,vel,4-T?? 1 - /11 /12*/te&'CL- . . 0 .-. 1 ~YAL: . 7- - 7 i - j . LA./ : 1 1 1 0/40/ ; - r- - ~ \11 9*55 - 1 9[7=--.-7 -Il C fa.Eft> - .42.B~ mue.ZE,PEJ _LEU+1,31*___ L It 11 -11 i . . 1 1 495*9510 820 EAST COOPER ; JAKE VICKERY ARCHITECTS 100 SOUTH SPRING STREET #3 0~01),St o (1- S. 9.b'- ASPEN, CO 81611 970 925-3660 . j *t PAP 1 1 1 pl 0 0,1 0 1 1 Gi 1192 Â£27Â£ N --- OFFER 64'02 -61-1 fl* 1 UPI 3,6 40 ele eÂ¥ 1 r - | 229.001 . 1/ 3 2 U .T 10 (0 01 ~ -- 6 ivt) O - f r.- - -17 ~ ' ALF , Ill 5 u PIC, 49 1% 0 i t:99 ~ 5 '+ 0 4C - 1 j... 92 1-\V M 91 N I Al 6 ~ 14- ~ - ~ .il ''Ill iD- f L ' lei X. 1;1 0 6. I . 2 *B *P- 4 0 0 b.lt LTL- ---- M 1 B FAIZ ; 11,1 e'p 4 U.1 I Al...1/*-I./h ----4-4 4 02 , Ii. 1 (n Â® 64 ' 1 -1 4-----=22222-- 9 L , 2 + Ve -? 000 - f m U.1 . 6 - 4 . 11% 1 *#-I - I ...4.--4.4 .- Il 0 1 + 4 F , 1---4 1 Â· --- 1 -t 1 1 *"-'4* - 4 0 6 CO .0 m Â® E 0 107 1 -1/ .t * 63" fe yvT 1 -- .3 a\ 1 i :DE -H AM H- 1 11 -0/-, L e 414 -12-M - 4 4, O 9. \ 40 P' N IN G Â· F- - 1 8,Qr142#Â¤ 1 /3 . 1. --4- o LU Bit 4 41 i - , 14 - 4- 22 == r 1 16 *0 le Â£21 PF4.*#CE. P E 0 / 4. \ 4 ~==11 MUR A A ...11.W, 1 ....AW Of 1'â€¢ lal P- 1,s: A .. - -21 FY:*Â· ; IÂ·'29 1 47,19 mot -ut - r-Â·-- "Â·la *~m J- 1 + ,UJ, 1 -2-le 4-9 Â·Â·,5 --- F|+ 1 K| LEVEL 10 L Gop- fil-Ad . 9 chLE >k)It= 1 4, 1 -9 / i"- 1 . 1 4 -40 L/tb, CY~ fA 7 f O f - , 961 ]4&1 31Va 9:blitlzl .A3 11 'ON gor toâ‚¬08 009&10100 831N33 9463 5 Ke> T 1 C o o F- E ]L hU 00Â¥110100 'N3dSV 1 I , I. * / 3Â¥-- i â‚¬ 6. h_ . ~: . Â· -Â«.*Â·-36/- -VE?,4.- r 0.19:r Â·-r .4.-Â·33 127- -~ -9 -% ..,- . . ili-- . 6 2-- ' U.WIll 9. 1 '. - -1.Â¥ 1 - f 1 i. i . a .l i - i 1 1 f : 1 â€¢ 4 . \ 4 CL i 71 4 0 - 1 .L 2.2 1.1 i *Â· 1 2 ---1 ---- f 1 f --- *r 1.- 1. 0 , 4 Â· 7- 1 -- 1 \/ 3- l 1 - 1 A g <41 2 1 F .4 4 -1... It = ii/0 66 - W $43 0 0 :- Coll. + r IFF=,1 :1= 1 -*ZE=~r=*17-1 i -1 i . 1 1 ~-, 0~4(1 1 it /1 CO> 'b , . -7 2 N.N. ~ ..: 't W- 1-- 1 4 1= A-5 i n Â·1 i 0 '' . 1 , 1 l 1 , . 1 1. . 1 1. , ....*.. ..#I.I. ----- -. ---- -...#.- -- 1 1 0 1. lj k. k .,P â€¢41 4 . ~.-- . . Â·Â·-bEAPÂ·. . ..~ Â·Â· Â· v. #. 7.1 . ... 1 -e 244-2. i.3 JOB NO. 9 ~/ A WARD and ASSOCIATES # DATE 4/4/95 .I /. architecture & planning REV. 12/llf,5 4.2.1201 ' 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 918 EAST COOPER AVE . - ASPEN, COLORADO PFA 9 6404,F - 4. - *.0. i. i i . 1 - i i . K ! 4 , , 1 -1 - - t ! 1 r . . 1 71 - , -l .=.- ? 1 41 :.r ' 1 1 A . 4 - It 1 i 420* c :Â· i i 71 I 1 9-Â· 164Â·.F- I i 1 - .4 JOB NO. pliIA VVARD and ASSOCIATES DATE 11/4 ~46 architecture a planning " REV. I ll 11 M O 1\ T ~ 442-1201 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 918 EAST COOPER AVE . -- ASPEN. COLORADO ~' 6 0 4 14 - 4*U , 1 - 7 T O V 1 r )4-2=111 Â»4~ 1 4341Â© Oi 9 it ! 1 : 1 1 r Â· i i i I, - 1 1 1 ;pji ,-214 1-4,1 4~ 1 041 *2211 < 1 l In. 9 I gil \1 1 1 0 31 0 10 2 !.YL,4.-4 4 8. 1 . f A #14 1 11 9!ft,7- i - 5 - I- . .- *I- -1 ./--l y. I ./. 1 , 1131 1: Illili . 1 4 1.11 - ! lili, 1 1 1 lid 1 4 14=-46,62.-11: 1,11 9 1 0 11 -1 1 i 1 1 1-R U V-=~ 1: Il :i-T--- .J I.L.~Qi , I . r,1 11 1 11 1 1 1. -,9/....Ill ---- 1 1 1 + I , 1 ! 1 11-1 -_11 iii:EITTA 1 .U-ly--1. 1 -11 Puj[1.1 kgri l 1 . . ..11.: 1 1 '1, 4 ~Â·f 1 fll' 11['1[I[p:=IC ' ' 1 , 1 . 1 1 '1 t i 11 1 1 1 \ , 11, 1 1 I i . \1 1 1/ 11 1 - 1 ? 1: 1" US&2j wi~ . -4 1! 1 tj :-UL'll-Â£1111 -1/41 / 11. - . t r- ., VA' Â«Â»'' ' 7' ! 1 1 . 1 lilli !1 w ,|' ~11.-1-,L-Li__.1: i'- 1 1 i. 1 1 11 ! ' , 1 1 1 1 1 1. Ill . ..1 1. J 1 . LKP:1 . 1 ,1 . 1 1 I 1 1,~-1-11Â¢gif -. 1 V I 1 1 111 - I . t 4 . 1 '! 11 . t \ 1 .4 Ir.1,4 4 . 1 9 Et ) -H 1 1 11 Â£ 1 1i 1 , I 1 1 t : -1 * "1 , 3 Y i . 11 1 -4 i i ---A 1 t 1 I. - A\* 4 â€¢ / 111 IIi 1 1 - - . --- 11 -1. 1 4-'..0.-I r -2-- - LJ L- $ I_ 2 - I -T=-~I~ ~ 44 ; . ....Ill---- 4 il, I. 1 4il : 111 1 + 1 -b .- --wflilli*1 1 / 111 !711 ~ 1 - - 11 't. lilli ,1 . : Â£411 4 --- 4= 1 il 1 '31 - 7,+ 1 11-t--1 Â· I ./. 1- Il -1. 1 .. -1 il_=-= - . ' .Famf I /[IML,di 111 ~ -qi -1 11- 1 t4 - '1.1 01111 fm.1=11*f . f il 1 1 1 .....1. : 9 , r./4 . . 1 11 1 It Â· 9 J Â·1 ''1 , . . : I 1 1 : i 1 -I k Â·1 L A-Â· 1/. i * It ; 1 . I, 1 JOB NO. 442-1201 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 918 EAST COOPER AVE . 4 - ASPEN, COLORADO / h * 1 1 , . -1/- -- -- - 5Â· 1 li 1/ 1 11:011 1 -_-fFI) Ill F} il I Ill 111 1 11* i i WHE . .k 1 i 1 -1 / ~11Â§11 1 -41 11 i 1 71 0.11 Â£'f a - ' 11: 1 1111 /y till- [lf 12:- i/- ",1,11:lAi, 4 1 1 1 f <pl ,/ 1-79 1 1 1 11,4 - 11 ti,i t.- N IIi 12â€žLL.j 9 -- --- 4 : 1 1 ~,1 , 11 ~ ., . 1 . 3 11 B 1 8 / 1 1. 2 1 . 1 .111 1 1 ., - 4-P41==44 1-4 L Â· 5 j" -~ ti 'GY- -trri :1 1 1 1 1// ?Da , 4.===1 .11/NO~ i 11 6 : i i!: i ir i - 1 r K ~1 1-4 -19 1// 5 t '5 11 L.. F 'i It. --- 11, 1 -1 1 11 â€ž i .-41 1 1 1 1 i..i 3 4 ; i 2 - --- 1-0 1 IIi.i 1 - i I l l I J 4 .', 1 1 - ii 111 11 11 1 1 l- 1 : f /-1 - ~ l --1-L l -IREI I -1-: 1 11 :1 1 1 r - .â€¢ 11 i I i I '~I Mi 0; -1. 1 \ I dit --0 : 1 11- 1 - I Â¢ 1 It 1-i i : r.-7 lu 1 ' 52 4'-t -'- -442-1& i ! i ' 541 LL=UU ' 4 9 1. 1 .: 1,1 1 :17-1 , 103 ' NY, ,1' . 1. --rell . - 1 1 11 1 ? 1 , : 4 11 1 1. 1 ; 1--+ Il ' jif -- --14 1 i I ~ - - ' Il'|f}E! 4 1 #-ATE~~r 711 1 t , 2 ;1 Lil~W+*4* 9-44 Â¥ ; i .'10 nd 1~ - ~ 2, ' 1-~~ 1: ilf I . e . I .- Ii'.4 11 / 34. 44 ~1 * I ilt,~ 1. 07 Ah -1.11 i 'li . .1 , 1 hi I i !'' 1~ fTf.# p ' Â· 4> 11 i , :tj~? , .- i 1 ; . 11 ; >5 1.,1 ; 1-1- 1 i 1 4; ..Â¥ 1 3 , liliI i fÂ· IIi!; j i .1 lili :.1 i -. Ill.Il- -i! 1 e t 4 1 0 1: 1 1 -1 0 1. i , _5 1 - L 1 - 1 111-11% 4 . t , . , j. e 020-2 1 4 1 1 0 A Â· 1 4- .1 i . 4 i 4 M JOB NO. 1/ ~ VVARC) and ASSOCIATES g DATE 4/ *5 .- B~ architecture a planning |~ REV. 1-4 ulte 442-1201 11 - 2945 CENTER GREEN COURT, SUITE A BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 918 EAST COOPER AVE . ASPEN, COLORADO . r 11Â·triWic < lA-\Slbfa ti Wl-D 09 -* ~ 11'Sltouc _ ' 4 .*-- -v~A \ --- . I I 4\T - z~- 4.- 2 . ALLEY rk 25947 - ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER EASEMENT v) tv 20 V .... . 6 I . 0 -J i 19 to V 1 1 . ../ I a. C ~ 4 7 * .9- 4. .......+-L..6 / i C.0 1 - - V t 495 BUILDING - -7 1'9L .ilu 5 ELECTRIC TRANSEORMER EASEMENT 25947 4.JO W.C BUILDING 3 'III LOT 1 I 141 LEGEND AND NOTES O 11* ACRES + ' 8 ~ CITY MONUMENT 5,00 1 SO. FT ./- # O FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT AS DESCR I BED D UTILITY BOX , -0 FENCE ~ 111-0 â€¢04 E.DROADI 144;C ALLEY AS EHCM:. - #ITLE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY. STBWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. LOT 2 ORDER NO. 00019145(6 . DATED JULY 27. 1902 4 -4 0 134 ACRES ./- IEI. ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER ILDING ~.,004 10 . .1 , ./- STREET LIGHT I.THE PHILLIPS/GORDON LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO THAT CUTAIN SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AGREEMENT WHICH IS RECORDED IN f 158. 47 ,AaE 11& IN THE Q#~t(E * THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AN RECORDER' 2.THE PHILLIPS/GORDON LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION IS SUBJECT TO T) CERTAIN CURB AND GUTTER AGREEMENT WHICH IS RECORDED )N BOOK , AT PAGE 134- IN THE OF OFFICE OF THE PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AN / RECORDER - +RELÂ© 1 -1 3 ALL SETBACK NON-CONFORMI T IES CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE 77b ELIMINIATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS 1 0 APPROVAL OF THE PHILLIPS/GORDON LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION SHA ALL SETBACKS SHALL CON~ORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF TE R/t ~,60 1<hj ...IDENTIAL/MULTI-FAMILY. ZONE DISTRICT 4.THE RELOCATION DEMOL ITION OR PARTIAL DEMOL IT ION OF A' EXISTING STRUCTUAE LOCATED ON LOTS I AND 2 WHICH IS Lly 170 CITY'l INVENTORY OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES SHALL BE REVIE, j It . APPRO/ED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE AS MAY REQUIAED. 5. ALL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOTS I AND 2 SHALL COMPL B~S'S OF 8EAR/NGS 475*09' ~ CONDOMINIUMS OF LOTS 1 ANC 2 AND NOT IN THE PUILIC RIGHT-OF-*AY STORM RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 24-7-1004.C..4 F PETITE ROCHE MUNICIPAL CODE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING , 6.ANY NEW SURFACE UTILITY NEEDS FOR PEDESTAL OR OTH 11.. SHALL DE INSTALLED ON AN EASEMENT TO BE PROVIDED B# --\AL- 47 7.LOTS I AND 2 OF THE PHILLIPS/GORDON LOT SPLIT S' --- ZONED R/DI, RE*IDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY. ..TWE PHILLIPS/GORDON LOT SPLIT SUBDIVISION HAS APPLIi:ABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSIHO IMPACT FEE: OP THE DI:VELOPMENT OF 1.) ONE SINGLE FAMILY RES I DEK * LOTS CREATED DY THE LOT SPLIT AND (bl ONE DUPLE LOT. THE DUPLEX MAY DE CONSTRUCTED ON EITHER L DISCRETION OF THE LT OINERS 668Â»\\ 2$047 OF PAV- CITY MONUMENT 9. AflÂ·ORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION SHALL BE PROF SE BLOCK COR. WITH *ME SINGLE-FAMIt Â¥ DIFI ' ING UNIT AS Fol' r SINCE DESTORYED D I SCRET 1 UN OF THE LOT O-Â¢b. i H.c OWNER SHALL COLLOUING: 41) PROVIDE AN AOCESSORY DWELLING RESID#iNT OCCUPIED DEED RESTRICTION ON THE S BEING CONSTRUCTED. IF THE OWNER ELECTS TO DIELL NO UNIT ON THE LOT, THE UNIT MUST BE RESTR CTION MUST DE RECORDED WITH THE OFFI 13*UNICE OF ANY BUILD ING PERMIT FOR THE LO PLAANÂ·NO OFF ICE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT AP F A e RECORIWER.OF PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO AND A 43 , 3 747 FECÂ»A ~---~17 10. AfÂ·FORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION SHALL WITH l HE DUPLEX DVELLING UNIT AS FOLLOWS LOT CINER THE OWNER SHALL DO ONE OF TH[ 73.70 (1) P; Ov 16â‚¬ ONE FREE -MARKET UNIT AND e (WITH AN APPROPRIATE DEED RESTRIÂ¢TION) / -'ll-. I SOO E.WARE FEET: 3743 C i i ) FROV IDE TWO FREE MARKET UNITS AND ~ UNIT CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 600 SQUAR - le,1 7 -2 -,---1--- Ii,i)#ROVIDE TWO RESIDENT-OCCUPIED UN RESTRICTED: OR ti.) FAY THE APPLICABLE AFFORDABLE He - - ------/4-4-4----1 - ..7------1 4.- ----% 1 9 /0 ' IF THE 0*NER ELECTS TO BUILD TWO PRE ACCESLORY DIELL I NG UNIT ON THE LOT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDINÂ¢ DEED AESTRICTION MUST BE RECORDED Â¥ AND RECORDER OF P I TK IN COUNTY COL i 4 THE PLANNING OFFICE PRIOR TO APPRC - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 11 PUSUANT TO SECTION 19- 101 (F' -4.-- 44..6,1 Â·t..24,12Â£4. OR CUF B CUT SHALL BE ALLOWED ON TO THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PROV I DF 12 E>ISTING ENCROACHMENTS INTC - REMOVED OR AN ENCROACHMENT LIC' TO THE APPROVAL BY THE PLANNIN APPLICATION