The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.19960605. AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 5, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING SISTER CITY ROOM 5:00 I. Roll call 6 II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. Entrance to Aspen V. OLD BUSINESS A. 6:00 VI. Adjourn PROJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows Collins Block/alley 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 930 King Street 420 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 130 S. Galena 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 205 W. Main - Chisolm 610 W. Hallam Leslie Holst 303 E. Main Kuhn 930 King Street Roger Moyer Holden Marolt 303 E. Main 520 E. Main 107 Juan ISIS 939 E. Cooper 426 E. Hyman (Curious George) Martha Madsen 132 W. Main - Asia 435 W. Main - L'Auberge 706 W. Main 702 W. Main Stapleton 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 0 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper 820 E. Cooper Sven Alstrom 939 E. Cooper Susan Dodington 612 W. Main 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper ISIS Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1995 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26, 1996 123 W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1996 406 W. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 820 E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 939 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1996 824 W. Hallam (Poppies), expires April 26, 1996 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Entrance to Aspen DATE: June 5, 1996 HPC first discussed the entrance to Aspen alternatives proposed in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)" on June 19, 1995, and forwarded a motion to CDOT finding that any disruption of the National Register or locally designated sites, or the West End neighborhood is not warranted, that no new unrestricted 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 the 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. At that meeting Stan Clauson, Community Development Director, presented information regarding "Alternative H," which was developed as a result of the Transportation Symposium sponsored by the City subsequent to the release of the Draft EIS. HPC had specific questions about this alternative which could not be answered at the 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. The City then hired a consultant, OTAK, to examine "Alternative H" in depth. Stan Clauson returned to HPC with further information on December 13, 1995 (minutes attached) and HPC adopted a resolution (attached) indicating their general support for "Alternative H." This resolution was submitted as part of the formal comments on the Draft EIS. HPC subsequently made a motion on January 24, 1996 clarifying their interest in further study of mass transit options (minutes attached.) Since December, CDOT has considered comments and continued to refine their analysis of the proposed alternatives, including "Alternative H," in preparation for the issuance of the Final EIS. Attached is more finalized (although still a draft) mapping of "Alternative H," and CDOT's assessment of effects on historic resources. Once again they ask for concurrence from HPC and the State Historic Preservation Officer. There are two possible alignments of "Alternative H" to consider; the Castle Creek alignment (along the top of the slope) and the Modified Direct Alignment. The affected resources and staffs recommended findings are: Maroon Creek Bridge- A new highway bridge will be built adjacent to the existing bridge. Staff concurs that there will be no impact to M.C.B. Staff recommends that HPC be allowed to comment on architectural compatibility and placement issues related to the new bridge. In addition, any changes made directly to the Maroon Creek Bridge must be reviewed by HPC due to the bridge's inclusion on the City Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. Holden-Marolt- The transit right-of-way will either cross the property (called the modified direct alignment), probably in a "cut and cover" configuration, or run along the top of the slope (called the Castle Creek alignment). Staff recommends HPC concur that the right-of-way should be placed as far on the edge of the site as possible in order to reduce visual and noise impacts to the Museum site and that options for berming and cut and cover solutions be explored, to be finally approved by HPC. In addition, construction of the new Castle Creek bridge must minimize any impacts to the foundation remains on the hillside above the Creek. )4 r r i <flv, g <T)' 4* Colorado Midland right-of-way- A portion of the right-of-way will be taken over by the new transit way. The right-of-way has been compromised, but is fairly intact in this area. Staff recommends that HPC find the taking of part of the right- of-way should be limited to the extent possible. Castle Creek Power Plant- Staff concurs that the site will not be directly impacted. 920 W. Hallam- The street in front of the house is expected to be narrowed. There may be some alteration of the retaining wall at the front of the property, which HPC should review and approve. 320 W. Main/ Smith-Elisha house- Staff concurs that the site will not be directly impacted, however HPC has indicated that issues of the rail and overhead wires which will be placed in streetscape is an area of significant concern and that they wish to be involved in their review. 303 E. Main/ Kuhn- same as above. 835 W. Main/ Berger cabin- CDOT is only required by Federal law to mitigate impacts on historic resources which are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In the initial writing of the DEIS, CDOT relied on a determination made in the early 1990's that the Berger cabin, designed by Fritz Benedict, was not eligible for the National Register. Because Fritz has recently passed away and because the Abin is closer to being 50 2 8-10'(4,1, ~ b 'f 4, 1,~ - C t,lkÂ«Aâ€¢U; 0 0 0 1 ' -+Â» jp_av-,A=#-%400<L '14/ 3 4 L (At~-A~ j td.0..111-) Cuf 02<-11 1 0 f--,L.4-JG_L,f years old, the Colorado Historical Society reconsidered the evaluation this winter and has declared the Berger cabin National Register eligible. "Alternative H" is likely to necessitate an on-site relocation of the cabin. Staff concurs that moving the cabin on-site will not have an adverse impact on its historic significance, however siting and landscape treatment must be reviewed by HPC. The following locally significant resources are affected: 834 W. Hallam/ Poppies, 735 W. Bleeker, and the Main Street Historic District. The first two resources will see no impact. The Main Street Historic District will be impacted by the introduction of rail and overhead wires/ posts. HPC must be directly involved in design review of these elements. In addition, there is expected to be some modification of the curve radius at 7th and Main. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC evaluate the impacts of "Alternative H" on the resources described above and forward comments to CDOT in the form of a resolution. STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION . 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 -lia- (303) 757-9011 April 19, 1996 Ms. Amy Amidon Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen - Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Certified Local Government (CLG) comments regarding State Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Improvement Project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transpor- tation Act (80 State.931; Public Law 89-670), as amended in Section 18 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968. Dear Ms. Amidon: The Colorado Department of Transportation is requesting comments on the potential impacts of the State Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen highway improvement project on historic sites from the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee within their official capacity as Certified Local Government (CLG). A discussion of the historic resources potentially affected by the proposed project is attached for your review. To clarify, the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, requires comments from interested parties as an integral part of the public process when an undertaking is proposed that affects a property eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The USDOT Section 4(f) regulations regarding public comment also takes into account historic resources, however, requires only that historic properties listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Re- sources be included in the evaluation. Those properties eligible for or listed on the National Register and therefore subject to Section 106 and 4(f) regulations are the Maroon Creek Bridge, the Uolden Smelting and Milling Complex_. the Colorado Midland Rail- Egad. the ,Castle Creek Power Plant, 920 W. Hallam., the Berger - Cabin at 835 West Main, -320 We~t Main. and 303 East Main. The additional historic resources of local interest are 834 W. Hallam, 835 W. Main, _735 W. Bleeker, and the_Main Strget Ristoric Districti CDOT is requesting the comments from the Aspen Histor- ic Preservation Committee on all historic properties potentially impacted by this undertaking and appropriate mitigation. 0 The attached project map indicates two different alternatives: Alternative H (Castle Creek Alignment) and Alternative H (Modi- fied Direct Alignment). A letter to the State Historic Preserva- tion Office discussing the impacts of these two alignments is attached. We ask that your written comments be sent to us as soon as possible. Thank you for your assistance. Please feel free to contact Sally Pearce, CDOT Staff Historian, at 303-757-9786 should you have questions or require additional clarification. Sincerely, Be %24 ~KKenneth M. Gambrill, Manager Office of Environmental Services 0 0 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAnON 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver, Colorado 80222 -ill=.I (303) 757-9011 April 19, 1996 Mr. James Hartmann State Historic Preservation Officer Colorado Historical Society 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 RE: State Highway 82/Entrance to Aspen Dear Mr. Hartmann: This letter and attached pages constitute the request for concur- renee of the potential effects to historic resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. We have met with members of your staff to obtain their initial comments on effects. Their comments have been incorporated both within this letter and the draft Section 4(f) statement. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proposing to improve an approximately 3.2 kilometer (2 miles) segment of Colorado State Highway 82. The study corridor, which lies entirely in Pitkin County, extends from the Aspen Airport to Ruby Park in downtown Aspen. In our letter dated June 15, 1995, eight highway improvement alternatives are discussed. Two additional highway improvement alternatives, and the subject of this corre- spondence, are currently under consideration: Alternative H (Castle Creek) alignment and Alternative H (Modified Direct) alignment. The attached map illustrates the two alternatives. Within the original (Buttermilk Ski Area to Seventh and Main Streets) project area five National Register or National Register eligible properties were identified: 1) The Maroon Creek Bridge (5PT136) 2) The Holden Smelting and Milling Complex NHD (5PT539) 3) The Colorado Midland Railroad (5PT542) 4) The Castle Creek Power Plant (eligible, not listed) (5PT498) 5) 920 W. Hallam Street (eligible, not listed)(5PT537) The Berger Cabin at 835 West Main Street (5PT592) was originally determined not eligible because it was outside of the 50-year eligibility period, its architect Fritz Benedict was still alive, and there were better examples of his work in Aspen. Since that determination Fritz Benedict passed away, another more signifi- cant structure has been demolished, and the 50-year eligibility is closer. We recently consulted with members of your staff who Fi 0 Mr. James Hartmagn April 19, 1996 Page 2 determined the cabin to be eligible for the State and National Registers. Additional National Register properties potentially affected by H Alternatives are as follows: Smith-Elisha House 5PT114.19 320 West Main Street Thomas Hynes House 5PT113.15 303 East Main Street We have met with members of your staff to obtain their initial comments on the effects of the proposed alignment. Their com- ments have been incorporated both within this letter and the draft Section 4(f) statement. 1) Maroon Creek Bridge The historic Maroon Creek Bridge is located on State Highway 82 approximately 1 miles northwest of the center of Aspen. The 0 bridge, built in 1888 by the Colorado Midland Railroad, was converted to automobile use in 1929. The structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as one of the last remaining metal multiple-span high railroad trestles in Colorado. Under Alternative H, the new bridge will likely be built approximately 15-20 feet to the south of the existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge would be approximately 10 feet narrower than the other alternatives and run parallel to the existing bridge. Should this not be feasible or prudent , the bridge will be constructed to the north of the existing structure as previously discussed. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility and placement of the new bridge structure included in Alternative H. b) If the Maroon Creek bridge is used for transit purposes and requires some structural modification, a photographic record, plans and drawings of the bridge before and after modification will be provided to the SHPO. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse 0 effect to the historic bridge under Alternative H (Castle Creek) alignment or Alternative H (Modified Direct) alignment, condi- tional upon review and approval for compatibility of the ultimate design and placement of the new bridge. 0 Mr. James Hartmann April 19, 1996 Page 3 2) Holden Smelting and Milling Complex (National Historic District) The historic Holden Smelting and Milling Complex is located on approximately 8 acres on what is now called the Marolt-Thomas Open Space owned by the City of Aspen. Although most of the buildings have been torn down, there are potentially significant archaeological remains of the mill structure on the east end of the site: the salt warehouse has been cut in half, but is still in its original location; the sampling works building (barn) has been altered on the interior, but still retains most of its original exterior appearance; and the office building, now known as the Marolt House, was significantly remodeled by the Marolts but is still in its original location. This complex was con- structed in 1891 and purchased by the Marolts in the 1930's. The siteÂ· has been listed on the National Register for its association with the mining history in Aspen, as one of the few remaining structures from the industrial aspects of Aspen's mining history, and because the site is likely to yield archaeological informa- tion about the smelting and mining industry in Aspen. 0 Under Alternative H (Castle Creek) alignment, the total take from the Holden Complex would be 0.16 acres. The proposed edge of the pavement passes within 150 feet of the Museum, 320 feet of the Marolt House and 280 feet of the Salt Warehouse. The pro- posed edge of right of way passes within 120 feet of the Museum, 250 feet of the Salt Warehouse and 280 feet of the Marolt House. Under Alternative H (Modified Direct), the total take from the Holden Complex would be 0.43 acres. The proposed edge of the pavement passes within 130 feet of the Museum, 250 feet of the Marolt House and 280 feet of the Salt Warehouse. The proposed edge of right of way passes within 70 feet of the Museum, 190 feet of the Marolt House and 220 feet of the Salt Warehouse. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) Conducting an historic archaeological survey and moni- toring during construction; slightly reducing the right-of-way width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way; and/or extending the cut and cover to the bridge abutment (struc- tural delineation). b) The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to review and approve the berm design and landscaping plans if determined necessary during design. 0 The SHPO has determined that there would be an adverse effect to this resource under the two Alternative H alignments. The SHPO has requested that CDOT consider the following two alternatives, which they state would avoid an adverse effect: 1) shift the pavement edge to the north to entirely miss the 0 Mr. James Hartmann April 19, 1996 Page 4 National Historic District boundary, and 2) extend the length of the cut and cover for Alternative H (Modified Direct) past the National Historic District to directly connect with the proposed Castle Creek Bridge. Alternative H (Castle Creek Alignment) would avoid an adverse effect if the pavement edge is shifted to the north to entirely miss the National Historic District and, if determined necessary during design, a berm is constructed to shield the National Historic District from noise and visual intrusion. The alternatives would be determined a no adverse effect, subject to berm and landscape review and approval. In addition, the SHPO is requiring an on-site historic archaeologi- cal survey be conducted with the Area of Potential Effect within the boundaries of the National Historic District. 3) Colorado Midland Railroad The Colorado Midland Railroad arrived in Aspen in 1887, a month after the Denver and Rio Grande. Very little of the railroad grade remains in Pitkin County, as the majority was obliterated by the construction of State Highway 82 to the Aspen city limits, crossing through approximately 4 acres of the 0 Marolt-Thomas property. The line is eligible for the National Register as the first standard gauge railroad to penetrate the Rockies, and for its association with Jerome Wheeler and the early railroad history in Colorado. Alternative H alignments would use 0.32 acres of the histor- ic railroad grade. The SHPO has determined that this loss would not effect the historic resource under the building alternatives. 4) The Castle Creek Power Plant The Castle Creek Power Plant is located in Castle Creek Canyon on approximately 1.5 acres of land, just below and to the north of the existing State Highway 82 Castle Creek Bridge. It was constructed in 1893. Known originally as the Roaring Fork Electric Light and Power Plant Number 2, the building is a two story, brick warehouse type building with a gabled roof and is now owned by the City of Aspen. This resource is eligible for listing on the National Register for its association with three of Aspen's most significant individuals (H. P. Cowenhoven, D. R. C. Brown, and James H. Deveraux) and as only the second commer- cially run hydroelectric plant in the country. 0 There would be no direct impact to the historic Castle Creek Power Plant under Alternative H alignments because the existing bridge would remain as a local access route in its present configuration. Bridge pier placement would not impact the historic site because they would be placed well to the south of the property. 0 Mr. James Hartmann April 19, 1996 Page 5 5) 920 West Hallam Street This historic privately owned house is located on the north side of existing State Highway 82 on approximately 0.2 acres of land just east of the Castle Creek Bridge within the Aspen city limits. This small, one, story, wood house, built about 1888, is eligible for listing on the National Register as a good example of the typical late 19th century miner's cottage. Under both Alternative H alignments the highway would be narrower than the current facility. In addition, traffic levels will be decreased in front of this resource since only outbound traffic would flow along this section of roadway. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to review and approve retaining walls and railing designs if they are deter- mined necessary during project design. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect on this historic resource under Alternative H subject to 0 their review and approval of any retaining walls and railing design that may prove necessary. 6) Berger Cabin - 835 West Main The cabin, constructed in 1947, is one of the first build- ings built in Aspen by longtime resident and architect Fritz Benedict. The building represents a style of Aspen architecture that is largely unrecognized, the Wrightian Style. Although there are other Benedict buildings in Aspen, this is one of the first buildings he built in the town and represents the begin- nings of the new Aspen that came into being after World War II. Under the Alternative H alignments, the edge of the pavement is 30 feet from the Berger Cabin. The edge of the right of way is 10-15 feet from the cabin. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) Moving the cabin back on the property and provide additional landscaping. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect to this historic resource under Alternative H subject to 0 their review and approval of landscaping or relocating the property on the lot, depending on what is determined necessary during project design. 0 Mr. James Hartmann April 19, 1996 Page 6 7) Smith-Elisha House - 320 West Main Street The Smith-Elisha House, built c. 1890, is significant as one of Aspen's best Queen Anne Style residences built during the height of Aspen's silver mining period. Original owner Eben Smith was one of the most prominent mining men in Colorado. Second owner Laurence Mansor Elisha assumed management of the Jerome Hotel in 1935 after the death of his father Mansor Elisha, who came to Aspen about 1888, established a business, and bought the Jerome Hotel in 1911. Alternative H stays within the existing curb line. The alignments provide for two lanes of traffic or one turn lane and one through lane with no parking. A transit stop may be erected in this vicinity. Posts may be integrated with street lighting. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to review and approval of street and wiring designs. 0 The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect on this historic resource under the Alternative H align- ments. 8) Thomas Hynes House - 303 East Main Street This 1885 house is one of the few remaining single-family residences still used as a single-family residence currently and during the mining days within the commercial core area of Aspen. It is an excellent example of a typical Aspen Victorian Miner's Cottage. Little is known about the original owner Thomas Hynes, a miner. Alternative H stays within the existing curb line. The alignments provide for two lanes of traffic or one turn lane and one through lane with no parking. A transit stop may be erected in this vicinity. Posts may be integrated with street lighting. Efforts to minimize harm to this historic resource include: a) The SHPO will be provided the opportunity to review and approval of street and wiring designs. The SHPO has determined that there would be no adverse effect on this historic resource under the Alternative H align- 0 ments We have requested comments of the Aspen Historic Preservation Office and will forward them to your office as soon as they are received. Mr. James Hartmann April 19, 1996 Page 7 CDOT and FHWA will continue to take all steps necessary to reduce and minimize impacts to these Section 106 properties. These mitigation opportunities will come during actual design of the highway facility in each alternative section and may include construction and replacement of sidewalks and appropriate land- scaping between Castle Creek and Ruby Park and assuring design of the preferred alternative is architecturally and environmentally consistent with the surrounding landscape. In conclusion, we are requesting your concurrence with our determinations. Your response is necessary for completion of the Federal Highway Administration's compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations 36 CFE Par L 800. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you need further information, please contact CDOT historian Sally Pearce at 757-9786. Very truly yours. Â»e- 94Â© c~,- Kenneth M. Gambrill Manager Office of Environmental Services enclosures I concur State Historic Preservation Officer Date 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 DEIS 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 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 DEIS and draft Section 4(0 evaluation seeks public comment and the Historic Preservation Commission desires to offer its specialj knowledge and expertise to CDOT. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION 0 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: 3 . The Department or Transportation, State of Colorado, be informed that the Historic Preservation 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 DES. 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Aspen on the /* /0 ' day of -0335061 /Â»92 , 1995. /279â„¢Â£Â£60 6djui r_ Chairpdson I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing,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. / Deputy City Clerk ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 Chairman Donnelley Erdman called the meeting to order at 5:08 with Holst, Madsen, Dodington, Vickery, Moyer, Smisek and Roschko present. Excused was Alstrom. MOTION: Martha moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 29, 1995; second by Susan. Roll call vote; Vickery, yes; Holst, yes; Madsen, yes; Dodington, yes; Moyer, yes; Erdman, Yes; Linda submitted her packet and corrections of minutes to the Assistant City Attorney and then was excused. RESO. 3, 1995 DRAFT EIS Stan Clauson, Community Development Director: While all of the alternatives impact the Holden Marolt site it is believed that alternative H impacts the least. Alternative H pushes the transportation facilities as much out of the view plan as possible while still providing some facility on the Marolt Holden site. From a standpoint of other historic properties we believe that alternative H has no impact on those properties. It may have impacts with respect to the Berger House in access but we do not have all of the reports. We are asking the HPC to execute a resolution saying that the Commission believes that alternative H within the EIS is the least impactful at least from an Historic Preservation. A system map is set up as it emerged from the charette and the Mayor and I are here to answer questions. QUESTIONS & CLARIFICATIONS Donnelley: The focus is on the Marolt property and the impacts by Alternative H. Since there are no topographical lines how far below the general grade of the, open space would the new alignment of the one inbound lane be placed? Stan: To some extent that is subject to detailed and engineering activity which has not yet taken place but conceptually the alignment is approximately on axis with the intersection of Cemetery Lane following the gravel roadway and it is my impression that it puts it lower than the level of the open space generally. Donnelley: The intent is to drop it below the generalized grade level so that there will be less noise and visual impact to the historic resource. Susan: If it is below that level will it interfere with the Holden Sme 1 t ing complex by the ]9ridge below? Stan: It will not bd that low and not on the embankment. Susan: Will those ruins be effected? Stan: At present, no. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 Les: You are asking CDOT to consider the original H which is two in and two out and are there other ramifications to look at? Stan: The inbound lane would cross on the Holden Marolt site and turning to go on the axis of Main Street and inbound and outbound light rail. It would be possible to use a one track system for many portions of it so inbound and outbound would share the same track. At the base closer to HWY 82 where there is a station the rails would be separated and there would be two tracks. John Bennett, Mayor: The implication is one light rail vehicle each way every ten minutes so a total of one vehicle ever five minutes. The vehicle selection hasn't taken place. Martha: Is this overhead cables over Main Street? Stan: There would be a single wire that goes over each set of tracks and the wire is suspended by a support system. The vehicle that rides the track has a collector to get current from it. Martha: Are you having safety gates at every intersection going down Main Street? Stan: No, any intersection would have a cross track and they require signals. What is contemplated is that some intersections would not allow cross traffic. There will be a provision for pedestrian crossing which would be handled by either a special pedestrian crossing or a signalized intersection. John Bennett: There will be central islands for pedestrians to cross and actually it would be easier and they would be landscaped. Today you have to cross the seven lanes of traffic. Martha: From an historic preservation standpoint the distraction from Main Street are a concern. Roger: Have you looked at other sources of power? Stan: Yes and they are not available when all of the factors are considered. Jake: What about a third rail? Stan: A third rail can only be used when you can isolate the track. Pedestrian crossings would not be possible. 6 - Roger: ,if this is done there would be two tracks down Main Street and historically Aspen had two railways coming into town the Midland and the Rio Grande. Have you looked at using the former original railroad right-of-way so you would in fact have a loop and 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 this system might hook into down valley and therefore eliminating the two tracks down Main Street. Stan: It would be difficult to install tracks on the Rio Grande. Bringing it down Main Street would be a central space in order for people to get on. With respect to the loop there is one proposed and the Aspen Street Railway could have its street car on that loop as a more local facility and it would be compatible with the use of the historic antique vehicle. Donnelley: The two historic parcels effected are the Main Street Historic District and the Marolt parcel. Jake: In terms of conceptual approval we have given it before and sometimes it ends up being the final such as the pedestrian bridge. John Bennett: In this case I would be very surprised if the resolution was giving any kirid of conceptual approval. It is simply making a statement to CDOT. We do not pretend that this has no impact and we wish it had none. Donnelley: The greatest impact is to Main Street and the Marolt has been minimumized. John Huffer: I see this as enhancing Main Street as it will break up the seven lane and with landscaping on the median it will enhance it. Donnelley: Our greatest concern is the source of power. Stan: Approximately 1.6 acres of the Marolt would be taken and that is from the report done by Tom Newland. Donnelley: Next to doing nothing this has the least impact. Jake: There are numerous people coming into town and leaving after work and I still don't understand how it works with the one traffic lane and the use pattern. Stan: The Otak report has a .light rail working as a system in conjunction. A long debate was whether all traffic should be on the S curve or on the Holden Marolt. With the lightrail functioning you will have adequate traffic capacity with the one inbound lane. The S curve reduces the speed at which you can negotiate the curves by one half. You will have two lanes outbound ind one inbound and they will merge after the Castle Creek Bridge. j Susan: Other cities that have light rail seem to be bigger cities and a train size vehicle going down Main Street might look fine in Portland or Denver but in Aspen our scale is much lower. Are they 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 going to be small and low to fit the scale of our small town? Stan: The vehicle looked at has relatively small cars. The ultimate selection will have to take into account scale and aesthetics. John Bennett: We have to be very careful in picking the equipment. Donnelley: We actually aren't talking about equipment we are talking about routing. Les: I have been at every meeting for a year and a half and represented the HPC and I guarantee you ever question that has come up as been asked five different ways and addressed. I tried to ask every conceivably question. If we don't do H twice the automobiles will be coming in and we can held them. Martha: My concern is by sending this resolution alternative H which is the best solution is not refined enough to my satisfaction. I have some reservations about committing to this resolution unless we get to say more. Stan: All the Boards will be asked again to make a comment. Jake: I am having trouble with the wording in the resolution and it states final. John Bennett: I would suggest that we include in the Whereas clauses "although we recognize that this alternative needs further refinement and development and Whereas we wish to be involved in the process of the development and refinement none the less we recognize this alternative to be the best", something that states you are not endorsing all the 'details because all the details do not exist but you are endorsing the concept. Donnelley: Paragraph #3 states that alternative H to be evaluated. Les: I feel it says we will be involved. Susan: I am not quite clear and to the position of the rail? Stan: It will be right down Main Street. Roger: I do not have a problem with this resolution but feel we should send a strong message to the City and Planning Dept. that 6 all means are dealt with to remove the wires. We have spend ' numerous dollars to get rid of the wires and now we want to put them back up. From an HPC perspective that is not acceptable. The other part not acceptable are the two lanes down the middle of Main Street as Main Street was never that way. 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1995 David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney: My suggestion would be to vote on the resolution proposed and then send comments in a motion form and to be given to Council. Melanie: If we do vote in favor of this changes can still be made. I never got an answer as to why we had two lanes on the S curve and then it is going from one to two and back to one again and also there was made mention of additional signals and I would like to know where those are? John Bennett: If this meets with success at the state level and goes forward there will be a good year of public meetings and citizen groups and making the refinement and developments. MOTION: Les made the motion that the HPC adopt resolution #3 Entrance to Aspen series 1995; second by Roger. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: Can you consider other routes besides Main Street? Stan: I doubt if that would be considered but modifications can occur. MOTION: Roger moved that HPC' send comments to City Council that all considerations be made to look at other power sources; look at original historic alignments that might be close to use as possible corridors for two tracks as opposed to two tracks going down Main Street; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries. Jake: I feel alternative H locks Main St. in as the way to go. Les: I feel they should hear our concerns. 610 W. HALLAM Amy: We had discussed this at the last meeting and you have received an opinion from the city attorney in a confidential memo. I have presented essentially the same memorandum to you finding that the landmark designation standards are no longer met due to the amount of demolition that has occurred on the site. Donnelley: All of the standards are stated again for local designation and in terms of rescinding designation you have to find that none of the standards are met. Amy: Procedurally this goes to PIZ next Tuesday which is a public hearing and then to City Council for first and second reading. Donnelley: What were the standard that were met before? 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24.1996 EIS - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Amidon stated that HPC endorced the idea but there were other issues to be resolved and needed addressed. Erdman stated that our bus system is one of the best in the nation and flexible and would possibly work better than a train. There could be an HOV lane and a bus lane. I know John Bennett is pushing the train. Madsen commented that the Board was OK with everything except Main Street. Erdman stated that he did not want HPC to have a carte blanche approval of the plan. There is concern in the community that rail is not the way to go. Moyer inquired about the trolleys and if they were being considered there would be another object with wires etc. going through town. Alstrom stated that Jon Busch is looking at trolleys from Lisban which have the same gauge as light rail so that the cars could run on the same track. Amidon stated that she would find out the answer and report at the next meeting. Smisek stated that she received a phone call regarding the EIS project. Vickery stated that HPC passed two motions regarding the EIS and that HPC really endorsed the light rail. Moyer stated that he thought it was an endorcement of the concept. Erdman stated that was true but the reso. incorporated the concept. i Alstrom responded that he was a member of the Railroad Association and , ~ he also through it was a movement in the direction of light rail. j Moyer stated that the HPC could make an additional motion. 2 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JAN. 24. 1996 MOTION: Erdman moved that the endorcement of Alternative H does 0 not preclude the investigation into using buses and multiple passenger automobiles and an HOV lane in. lieu of the light rail system; second by Moyer. DISCUSSION Madsen stated that the HPC did approve the concept of the light rail coming through town. Erdman stated that he would like other alternatives to be considered. Madsen stated that she recalled HPC approving the reso because without it we could not get the routing. VOTE: Passed 5 to 2. Smisek and Alstrom voted no. 918 E. COOPER AVE. FINAL Vickery stepped down. 0 Dodington seated. Amidon stated this was a final review and she was recommending approval wit conditions. There are four lots two of which are not normally part of our review M&N but it was discovered they were listed on the historic inventory. At conceptual review it was recommended that mandatory mass and scale review occur on the new duplex and subsequent to that they will be removed from the historic inventory. Plans of the duplex have been given to you and it also has to comply with Ord. #30. The large window on the east and west facade does not comply with Ord. #30. This is a mass and scale discussion. Amidon stated that condition #2 is standard. Once the siding is offthe historic resource Staff and Monitor need to be informed if there are details there and it should be talked about at the site. 0 3 Aspen Airport LRT Maintenance RFTA Bus itung 633 tt32-9~zE---~ Facility Maintenance .D Pivkizft-ounty MaingnancÂ¢ -0 \ ~acflity-1 e -\to- --- Future Colorado Mountain College (CMC) ~ --- ..- ..-....... 5:St# -- ---1-- and North Forty Development .i ----- Al./.eli-. / ---1 / \ 1\ \ -- /-= .: 4:. ---- 0 =-. I I ./ , .. -/- 5 -//-10 . 0 -. 4 - 5 . - 1 .:sns ./ Air Inteep . * U ABC/ ' rt Â· -- -----*.--7=--- - As en Airlâ‚¬~ - ion ; : 0 -. 1, 3 Allernalive H and . e Modified Direct LRT Alignmenl 1 0 ... 1:<:4 cb* Cb :C .... <7.-7... V J m .0 Ry//gr:,mu.1 f..7ki*92 4-*--37~-3.-.-+.. Interiepu,04'AUK -..2 ./ f ~-f-~~-fntercunt -'?22%.. + - - - - L :11 -- # --'Â·24Â·- $ I ./ ./ r - BE -9 t- L. r: -1 ......2.. \ d 3/ A -4 F 1 -r- px - f 5 7 --Cre--7 - - *Ap>\--\ Â·71\ -.../- il Abag'Elonjf*r ' g Alternative H and / 3)24Â«goad 4Â·JES.*r..*-'--'* %--3- Modified Direct - .2:.4/r.g..2Ntral--IL- --=2Â».15:tr.ii. l LRT Alignment -'x - ----- - 27 r Legend: --. + 423332>22\\ /3.immilim Improvement Alternatives ZtÂ·Â·r '-m*n----22Â« LRT -- Single Track 0 ~ Aballs!1A1@%%4~1 -- i 16 Scale = 1:3,000 â€žEfâ‚¬~*load /// /11 1 0 50 4 LRT -- Double Track 100 meters LRT Station 0 100 200 300 feet Alternatives Between LRT Maintenance Facility and Buttermilk Ski Area 5 -2 1 -96 Ualch Lin ..5, 70'ei, Match Li 26 Buttermilk 0 LRT Station Alternative H and Â· Modified Direct 44.... ~ ~ ab< % 0 . ~1 1 05 22.... -..--- U-----:.---2221 i Ii- 00' a. Oil Bridge ~ .. i : ~~ ~~ Maroon r 22 W 'rk-/ U 2 4 O Gkb 111 0 d i - . Buttermilk 1 - 11.- h Â»13 02 Ski Area C 41+ Iii \ \ 1 p0 \\ 11 \\ ./0 49 Truscott Place 9 . i . \ LRT Station 43 0 Ball Field/ fl \1,4 Soccer Field ~. - * .3 1- i Â· Allernativ#H and Ve ========== Modified Direct Cr k~I< ; i - - Â· . ~\ Aspen 01 - czED Golf Course . ..â‚¬ LD - 0 i 1 .....*...............4 CIO - 1 3\\ 1 4. 12% Aspen Tennis W Er. Club - . .. 4....1. â€¢, â€¢ 3 - 0 0 *R- d Maroon Creek Road q LRT Station Legend: . #maimpmalimmi Improvement Alternatives + Scale = 1:3,000 j LRT -- Single Track 0 50 100 meters Alternatives Between 0 100 200 300 feet Buttermilk Ski Area and LRT -- Double Track Maroon Creek Road LRT Station P 38.5 *444 Liae Relocat 401911 ~2~r, Creek ~ o~ MP 39.8 0 CD i :r S 0 - \ 046680_D i Lbll 0 1 1 0- 0 4 --ColLf 410 I~_d 0 - ~ n EE 1 Aspen , - allam Street ' Golf Course i 6.: 1 .... 1 \ 49 Â° A *Gic -3 \ \1 1 1 a \ 4 \ 0 1 060 42> it \ i 6 10 -1 \ -\ Bleeker Street /:/. 1 n i I \ /\I: i Alternative H 1 5, ~ PiF fla Â· 80 ~ 9 / 1 01 3 4 61. n 6130 4 / 1 \ Maroll-Thomas / ~ ~ . .4*gaws#as*aeaA, e eek Brtdgkj Property 1 ~ * 1 -4 C=] r-192 /:14Â»% 4 \ 1,0..6 . . . '.-Ill.-I.-le-"l l- <D i 2 P / tb--- : 0 , A2 b_ BE} gL \\ 1\ / 1\ \ 1 \ \01:\ -----4 \1\ 0 1 k O V e/V 0 0 - 11 /.. - Legend: S M**MOK=41=t' Improvement Alternatives LRT -- Single Track . Scale = 1:3,000 ,Â· LRT -- Double Track 0 50 100 meters Alternative H Between Maroon Creek Road and LRT Station 0 100 200 300 feet 6th Street 0 31119 J 7th Stree Maroon ~Cre~k L~on~d'1)4) 39,8 MVY Jl~et 8 0 i I.; 04' 04_D #Al Lt .6, 00 ON ..4 - 3 al 2 r. 7 19\0 6-aul u__cul gi ~ n E]8 eD 1 ; C 0 1 Hallam Street f *--- 47 ' i- 1 j l\El 0 2/ 0 Aspen \ t Golf Course \ \ 1 1 / Bleeker Street t 1 1\ 1 ' \ i , / 1 \ i 1 \ 1 \ \ \ 06 \\\ 4 1 1 'it n\ Cr ek Bria~ ~ 41> 660 nY 2 \ tAe Ca , ' .. .-9 ' y '~Â·:9.JJ~ i~329*'*Re,~:.*fi=i.EF-Â·Â·--------__. \ ..*4. 'e'. frehar.'Ar.Q.~*LM,37mdit*'449Â· : 1[aroll-Thorrlas i '~462Â¢14Â§4**49*...C- 44>404.~ Modified Direct 6 Ona- i MaileÂ£ Property /--- CD ' NL. 1 1 -f-- -0.-0 / 9--1 6 6 CtÂ¢t and Cove(r C 001 0 ----A ==A CD f it . I 3--9 tA ~ $ 14 0 O /1 5% -/ - r ./ 0 Legend: Improvement Alternatives S LRT -- Single Track - Scale = 1:3,000 8 0. 50 100 meters Modified Direct Between LRT --Double Track -62.9:- Maroon Creek Road 0 100 200 300 feet and 6th Street LRT Station 0 7th Street Maroon, 1%:t t 'D, Match Line 'E' 081Â°~ L'~~~ 46Pb] 5*512 Ebop Fi, 3 1 'Fd Hallam Street Q N U 9113 U l[Il m CZE~~ UP Imo Ocifn in&) PE~ D 14 J 6 â‚¬1, 6 c/] a) ca irmi ~ --mr---c= 0 Crl 00 '' 41 [ l E 0 016{J 7 03[j-8 199 1 1 1 .. . -CD n n rn . 7-11-1 r--Â·Â·-' 17] 1210 D .9 0 0 13 #==ci n 1--1) * AF - i t.. .. Bleeker Street + I I C LJ ~ u IF] 13' gri 6236,4 Ve N L.and 3 ff> E [F Â®[p~ 2*~ " - '33==9 {3]u A El 2~ ~ O 00 El 1=9,Â£=121 0gj#e& DJ+oct Blf 63 u E , 900 09,111 n FDOCIBI ggi00 11821 91 /313 , 1119 0[GIF 0 31_JOOP 3r ~t* i /&/Em m mÂ« 4- _r-4 1 Che> 19 , 00.CK[c] 1 RT~5[ation O LE *03 -01% 31 FF 0133& iny=ZE O EP 922]013]J U FEN 4%1(9 ~ 1 Paepcke -cwj ~,f>l[Ifiti. r-~tation -1 1..... -1= r Park 000 C] 1 I r 1 '-'Ln-1 \ Hopkins Avenue ' . nnarrh Str Wal C . - 010 2 CPI Kai n[72-F - 1-912] 2-912_ LI Park [Cl-M==l 1 r-1 Alt Bass 1 1-aLLL-11 2 ~ ~00 0-'Job' 00 - j-7Â©3- %1ij - / \--4.Rlf Ai -FAme,W Hyman Avenue - - ~ -tti@ 119-1 947---- 09 00 2 ir ~ -2-9 lillie-- Wagner R ~ I' - 1 Park i <_924 044- Rubey Park LRT SIE,t.101~ -1 -~ ~ Legend: 9 Durant Avenue , -'~-*'-~~ 1 S //1 1 4- A-1 4--1,1 -- , 'BAREN""El Improvement Alternatives LRT -- Single Track U.-4 Gulf.- 4 Scale = 1:3,000 0 50 100 meters Alternatives Between 6th Street LRT -- Double Track 0 100 200 300 feet and Rubey Park LRT Station 100118 HIM C BUDIED