Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.19960814AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 14, 1996 REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:00 I. Roll call and approval of June 12, 1996 minutes. II. Commissioner and Staff Comments III. Public Comments IV. NEW BUSINESS 5:15 A. 315 E. Hyman (Benjamin's) Minor Development V. OLD BUSINESS 5:35 A. *t~ance-U**spe:u mentf=. 6:05 B. 935 E. Hyman Conceptual & Final - Public Hearing 7:05 C. 414 N. 1st - Worksession 7:30 VI. ADJOURN mill PROJECT MONITORING Donnelley Erdman Meadows 624 E. Hopkins 220 W. Main - European flower 420 E. Main Galena Plaza Jake Vickery Meadows 520 Walnut Street - Greenwood 435 W. Main - L'Auberge Roger Moyer 303 E. Main 420 E. Main ISIS 939 E. Cooper Lindeau 426 E. Hyman (Curious George) Sven Alstrom 624 E. Hopkins 712 W. Francis - Orbe residence 918 E. Cooper 820 E. Cooper 939 E. Cooper Lindeau Susan Dodington 616 W. Main 316 E. Hopkins - Howling Wolf 525 W. Hallam Wyckoff Melanie Roschko 918 E. Cooper ISIS 123 W. Francis 706 W. Main Suzannah Reid 320 Lake Ave. 3 1 5 E- t.j N h .»- i 303 E. Main 702 W. Main Mark Onorofski 426 E. Hyman 123 W. Francis CONCEPTUAL APPROVALS WHICH HAVE NOT GONE TO FINAL: ' -6 W. Hopkins (Isis), expires August 23, 1996 ) E. Cooper (Anson), expires September 27, 1996 739 E. Cooper (Langley), expires November 9, 1996 520 Walnut (Greenwood), expires March 22, 1997 834 W. Hallam (Poppie's), expires April 26,1997 123 W. Francis (Vickery), expires May 24, 1997 lY- A) MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director - 0 - FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 315 E. Hyman Avenue- Minor DATE: August 14, 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to renovate the Benjamin's Deli space. Changes will be made to materials and window openings, and a trellis is to be added. APPLICANT: Eric Casper, represented by Jeff Halferty. LOCATION: 315 E. Hyman Avenue. 0 PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 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 .... Response: The proposal is to change the arched openings in the Benjamin's deli space into squared openings with folding doors. The brick facade is to be covered with teak board and batten siding, and a new wood trellis will overhang the patio area. Staff finds that the chan~es proposed will provide a more interesting street elevation than curently exists. The facade will no longer match the rest of the building, but it may be a benefit to create more individualized store fro nts. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The intent of the proposal is to create a restaurant space that can be opened to the outdoors and which has some shade for outdoor seating. This is in character with the commercial core. 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: No historic structure is directly affected by the proposal. 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: No historic structure is directly affected by the proposal. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: • Approve the Minor Development application as submitted. • Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. • Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific recommendations should be offered.) • Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the minor development application. Final material selections can be approved by staff and i + monitor. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve the minor development application for 315 E. Hyman Avenue, with the condition that materials are approved by staff and monitor." 1-rorn: Jeffrey Hallerly Jettrey Ilatlerly Design r,c [9 70) 920-4535 Voice (970)920-4535 TD: Anny Ankidorn at Il,sloric fleservation Cormnitee rage 4 c-15 Wedriesday JuN 31 99£ 1 4 *: 3,.1 . 4 . i. hA ·. p·.i<- ~ZEZE=Z.'di#624*.. 1 :3.NU. ' 141-64£ r I.---1 -2 C F--7432*h.'tte:· \\·4· »4. .. 1 . •' t. · 1 1 1 /-2 'll r / 1 -11 1 1 trj,Br,--- 9.7--=n- / / L:14-1, ·· + fl ,l L i 4[ 1 6.- p.-T f I $ t. .4. r.-1 8.1& 4 Irlid .12 5 . 4 .T:. 1 .5. 1 41 /: ··~=, i,ViIA: -imir<lizi#NiV: 1 L=.-1, ...... . · 1 . p 13.(al. - ' - i. .$ lili, .»« 1 1-4-4- ... I'.*. ': I 1 piwl me"g i 4 3 .. , h.).1 GLA. » . ' } i -,3*il 1 13€4& 1.;>9 '41" ., 1 *14 1 %86.1 ->i,·b ,% · ' ' i '·t \, la ' .1 1·- . r 1 N€,37 ,-- 1 ' I -Ill. . . . + - 141 .. 1, ;.a - 4 ' , ....... 17 - , 2 a .... ..21 r.al 1 1 i . 1 41.k .. · 0 . - . 4 ' ..i= - - 1>3 · b.~ -**.Im'"01** I . - . r,8-.A·.*-1 I 'P .. -, .4Krv.=P-=:.F.'... .- »4«1 A_ ~ - 9414 0 m" A.lig - 1 hi . Irt' € f .. . . 1. " . trin ·· 4/, t./ , ,-¥».. 3 . ~ 1/· 4 a =11.... . .1 4 524 t - 1 € 3 5 1 - &-I. 0 ' 1 '. .--..... . . Je:.1,@e'•-94.~ 141 }Blj'Q'i~~ . M -84#,4..11 . . . 1.'r --1 -4- gr43 Wi P#fm#B J··· e - <L 1 3 ........ . 9 ·'V· m'Op PNP 4 ' 1 £:Sm - .12@1 LP .. L'-1•-*A ,-•Ati: gib 40/- ? .r#.P<14-'... -V.----I ' t, , *Adt: 9.*A-· · . 1.1 - 4-/ f '741. - r 1 = 69· . 1 . 6 .- . t . 1 .. I 4 9 i .4 1.% - .. A 19*@2 I >Up, . : .. V.' . 1- t - - 1 ' . O% r - .i- f .- .'. . I . .. t . -096/ 1 0 11 -= :.:.3*4: 1, 1%1**I , ~ . ~ 11 1 I 4 Il -1--|~Tr --rrwTIrrr,r i I '' D- 1 1 . I 9. . r ¥ . . mic. F,4 - , I 4 - 1 A , ....I .- ' .. F 6- X - I I '01 - 0 1 - . 1- 'S 14 ' 4.h,f' .-_1 - ~ 1.4 0 01:1 0 4 , I r or· f \ Nd 5: 98 i 366. -1 E 4nriepSBUpem lg plebed ak)1!lut-100 U[Jlw,UAISEUd OP049!H Lle ulopltUV Attl~f Ict- lir'il' 0£6 (0£6) *doloA LEJ;,-066 (0£6] 302:1 UB N o 4Iai•dH Uuar 41-,elieH Aewer:tWo.d .lii ' 0& 7 QI p L 00.1 ·*019- :4 Iron: Jettrny Hallerly Jettlrey I tallerly l)(Isign 1 Foc Ill (0) 470 45:Ii Voke (4/0)970 4 !,35 to: Anly Arntdom at litstotle. Proserval kon (hommitre page.lott, Wednesday. Jur; 11.'99£ 114 ' jOI'M .. . 0 . - 4 '1-19..1 ., I ' A"j:· :.L . ..2" ./*.4 - 1 .. . I I. 9 4 - I. - 1 i 4. I ./- . e. ., 4 . » .444 + 1. W 1 ,-t=c54.-a, - . „ $ . -K .../.E . 1..Men /4 I :- 1 5, - . 1- 1. .. . + 8 , 4. £ '* t . .- I . 1 .2.1 -4 - V =4 a f.· 4·/ 4 ... 0 · ~ .··1 :)*r I.ji.. i ..·: . . 19*1<,#'3*, .: 94'Q.-g:E· 1 # 8 2 - € r: - 3 40=., . ..4$, .$4 .......,1.44 am . 0. 1-ko ... E 113 . . 3 ·· r . 1 -·6 1.1% m j i i , Le 1 '4 . 11 - -- . . .2 ., ,; 1 1. . 1 . 1 . .-4 - 0 ., . ·d · 1 .. Ii....1 rf .r . . 1 .. 1. r -d -0. . -3 , 46 '61 L £ . '4£41 4 2-ft *--,Al-*L-61 1. 1 41 > 1 1 44 6 ,-· I = .. f i ··. w. , 6 - -» . I , t.$,C , + 4- .-' 1 . (lr C, 1 ri-1..6 ~ i.- . 3 1 4% 1 1 .4 D .4 , 1 I f· 1 ' 4., It 't .1 j e., . I .It . k. A ' */I' a , . I . 1. . C I : ....... ... . , 1, . 1 • 1 . 1 .//4/0 41!.. 4. , I ' · 1 - 4. 1 1 .l; I 1 ' , 1 11 " 'il .t} . . . I f th.?© I It 2 - .Ft*fl I .6 * 4. 4 * 1- ** P , 4-1 1, . « *f¢, I 4 ... * h WS.X . I A . 1 - .. ,. 2' 1 ' J .a 1 Z ··i C. 1 4·f 2 , . t i ' 9 .·(·11£i·J.:i.;AL.0.6 C , 4 . :140*11, 14641.,7 -H J .. · '14· #' •,t> I ' £ . 1 8,1...1-.f r ..'· 3 me..1,4/ j · C I l.: 1% I j ·rall> . p , t ' . 1 - S..'tp~ 1 . , 1 4.1. • /2 1.1,1.1 4 2 4 4 ·t . '· ·rl v / 4 . 17 :.IM. et 11;1 ..41. 19 /,f, f £ 2 ·i.. .,«k :, 3 76)F 4 i ..,<· 44.1 10 1 1 lf# 41· g W '6*% f#30£#9*1464., ~ .~ 1 1 4" 4 1- .-45 F 4 1314 ...%-7..,~t.77 .1,144 .,-.t,Ch , 1&1 4,-'.: 1,- ihip / MNE:j-4 *·· '41·: V £ P·»1 : . hy· 28 , 6 •. p e: , .r.'fi .. ··NU ' b 14'*MA«·2. 14. ' , /1 "B j 14. '.1. -1 Fkil.. , ' . 0 14 9 AN,.?j. 4,,t , 1 ...4. W % t; :.:'44 :. € A) MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission \Ij , THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Entrance to Aspen, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DATE: August 14, 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, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, to examine "Alternative H" in depth. Stan Clauson returned to HPC with further information on December 13,1995 and HPC adopted a resolution 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 stupy of mass transit options. After December 1995, CDOT consijiered comments and continued to refine their analysis of the proposed alternatives, including "Alternative H," working with OTAK and Centennial Engineering as their consulting team. HPC discussed the 4f draft analysis proposed for the DSEIS on June 5 and commented on it (minutes attached.) These comments were submitted to CDOT. The DSEIS, indicating CDOT's preferred alternative taking into account and 0 attempting to mitigate impacts the natural and built environment, was released in mid-July. The alternative selected is the :'modified direct" alignment, which crosses the Holden-Marolt site where the roadway dips below grade. HPC's comments in June indicated some serious concerns with this alternative, as compared to "alternative H," which had the roadway placed at the top of the embankment, skirting the Marolt site. The public comment period on the DSEIS ends on September 24. CDOT must respond to all comments in their preparation of a Final EIS, which is the next step in the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) process. A review copy of the full DSEIS is available at the Planning Office. Copies of the executive summary and 4f analysis are attached. Stan Clauson will be present at this meeting to answer any questions. 0 Summarv The extension of the project corridor to the northwest of Buttermilk Ski Area includes new Iight-of- way for light rail alignment and a light rail maintenance facility. The extension of the project corridor to the east of 7th Street and Main Street includes a light rail alignment and new traffic lane configurations (within the existing curb lines) on Main Street, Monarch Street, and Durant Avenue to Rubey Park. Ok 1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IillII*V*I# VIFIWNPII~ Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is contingent on actions by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village, CDOT, FHWA and the private sector. Both the CDOT and FHWA are legally restricted to implementing only transportation improvements. Neither agency has a legal 1 basis for controlling land use decisions or implementing demand management policies such as increasing parking fees or changing the transit routing and scheduling. CDOT can only use state gas tax funds for highway related projects. All agencies must work together to successfully 1 1- implement the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative for the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen DEIS is the Phased Modified Direct Alternative. This alternative, evaluated in the DSEIS, is presented for the purpose of public discussion within the community. The Preferred Alternative includes a LRT system that, if sufficient local support and/or funding is not available, will be developed initially as phased exclusive bus lanes. The cross section of the Preferred Alternative allows the exclusive bus lanes to continue in operation during the construction of this LRT. The Preferred Alternative also includes a cut and cover tunnel on the Marolt-Thomas property and the Incremental Transportation Management (TM) Program. The Preferred Alternative solves the transportation problems of the corridor, reasonably reflects the agreements among the communities, and provides flexibility for unresolved issues which will be addressed in the future. REVIEW OF THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN DEIS r Jlbow.*A The original project corridor for the DEIS was between Butterrnilk Ski Area (milepost 38.57) and the intersection of 7th Street and Main Street (milepost 40.49). The DES identified ten project objectives through the environmental scoping process that are also part of the DSEIS. These objectives are: Community Based Planning Transportation Capacity r Safety Environmentally Sound Alternative • Financial Limitations Community Acceptability Clean Air Act Requirements Emergency Access . Livable Communities • Project Phasing 0 Entrance to Aspen DSEIS S-3 VII. Mitigation Summary 17 HISTORIC RESOURCES il~ Mitigation measures to the historic resources located along the DSEIS corridor include the following. These measures prevail over the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIS. Maroon Creek Bridge: The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will be provided opportunity to comment on the architectural compatibility of the design and placement ofthe new bridge. Design plans, drawings, and a photo record will be provided to the SHPO ifthe existing bridge is modified in anyway to accommodate transit use. Holden Smelting and Milling Complex: The edge ofthe pavement for Alternatives C, D, E, F, H, and the Modified Direct will be shifted to miss the Holden Smelting and Milling Complex. If this shift is not possible, prior to construction of State Highway 82 improvements, a Memorandum of Agreement between the SHPO, the CDOT, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of Alternatives C, D, E, F, H, and the Modified Direct. Possible mitigation measures include conducting a historic archaeological survey and excavation, slight reductions in width requirements for the new State Highway 82 right-of-way, extending the cut and cover to the bridge, and the SHPO review and approval ofberm design and landscaping plans that partially screen buildings on the property from the highway. Colorado Midland Railroad: Designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of- way width for the improved State Highway 82. 920 FFest Hallam: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the proposed retaining wall and railing or other improvements which may be required under the alternatives in the vicinity of this resource. 834 West Hallam. 734 West Hallam. and the Berger Cabin: The CDOT comm\ts to apholograplic record of these locally designated resources if adverse effects cannot be avoided. Efforts to minimize harm to these resources will include designing the Preferred Alternative with the least possible right-of-way width. Smith/Elisha House.- The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Smith/Elisha House. Thomas Hvnes House: The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Thomas Hynes House. Entrance to Aspen DSEIS VII - 3 VII. Mitigation Summary ~ Berger Cabin: The Berger Cabin will be avoided if possible. If it is not possible to avoid the Berger - Cabin, it will be moved back on the existing property. The SHPO and HPC will review and approve the landscaping and LRT overhead wire design in the vicinity of the Berger Cabin. M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Archaeological Resources mitigation described in the DES has not changed due to the extension of the project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation information is provided in this section. N. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Paleontological Resources mitigation described in the DEIS has not changed due to the extension of the project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation information is provided in this section. 0. SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 1 A discussion of the mitigation measures for the impacts to Section 4(f) resources located along the project corridor are in Appendix A: Section 4(f) Evaluation. These measures will be adopted by the FHWA prior to completion of the State Highway 82 Entrance to Aspen FEIS. The Section 4(f) 1 Evaluation in the appendix of this document replaces the Section 4(f) Evaluation in the appendix ofthe DEIS. P. FARMLANDS The Farmlands mitigation described in the DEIS has not changed due to the extension ofthe project corridor or the alternatives evaluated in this DSEIS. No supplemental mitigation information is provided in this section. Q. NOISE AND VIBRATION A noise barrier was analyzed along the south side of the proposed DSEIS State Highway 82 alignment from the east side of Maroon Creek Bridge to Truscott Place. The noise level at Receiver A is reduced to meet the FHWA criteria. VII -4 Entrance to Aspen DSEIS 1-1 - ..1 - - ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 ENTRANCE TO ASPEN Stan Clausen, Community Development Director stated that this project has had a lot of discussion in terms of what changes might take place, generally whether the terminus might be at the base of Brush Creek Road or whether the line may be entirely on the South side of the Highway or would it be better to go up Galena or Hunter as opposed to Monarch Street. Clausen said that the reply from CDOT is really an environmental clearance based on the consensus over some project parameters that where developed with the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) for Snowmass, Aspen and Pitkin County, these things will remain fixed throughout the analysis and the finally EIS can make any of those changes that seem to be appropriate that stem from this analysis. Clausen stated that there have been some minor changes as things have progressed and the engineering has progressed, the "in" station is still the airport terminal, they have provided for a possible, future CMC station, a North 40 development station, they would service the LRT at the maintenance facility, not far from the existing RFTA maintenance facility, the intercept lot would be the point of auto transfer, the Buttermilk station would be the point of bus transfer and there would be two lanes in from Buttermilk, he said this is all subject to change iii the final EIS. Clausen said the rail would go along the South side of the Highway as far as the Buttermilk station and Buttermilk would incorporate a relocated Owl Creek road into a single intersection with Buttermilk parking lot, the new Maroon Creek Bridge would carry two lanes of automobile traffic and a single track of light rail will be located to the South o f the existing Maroon Creek Bridge, this would have no impact on the ball fields or Zoline Open Space but would impact private residential development, there would be a station, under consideration for the golf course and the Tennis Club subdivision, there would be a station at the 14oore property Maroon Creek road with a small transfer facility. Clausen stated that one lane of traffic in bound will proceed from the Maroon Creek road intersection on a round about intersection with Cemetery Lane and then along the alignment that will come as close to the Castle Creek embankiment as possible, along with the lightrail, these would come in at a new b'ridge approximately on direct alignment with Main Street, 'the Berger Cabin will have to be relocated on site but will allow the Cabin to remain functionally in place, Main Street would be a double track in the center, Main Street would be two lanes of traffic until the intersection of 3rd at 3 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 which point there would be one lane of traffic and one lane of parking, 0 outbound will have the same configuration for Main Street, the Christian Science library will not be impacted as a building although there may be some easing of the curb radius, two lanes will continue outbound over the Castle Creek bridge and the two lanes would carry until a double left turn at which point there will be a single outbound lane. Melanie asked why the Christian Science building will be impacted if it will go from three lanes to two, can't it swing out away from it to lessen the width and ease that curve without getting near the building. Clausen responded that he thinks they are operating entirely.within the right-of-way that exists, but right now it is a very square corner and they would change it to a 20' radius or something which would not necessarily impact the front yard o f the building but swing the sidewalk in a different way. Jake asked where the four lane, coming up valley will stop and turn into one lane. Clausen responded in this configuration the four lane will become two lanes at Buttermilk. Jake stated so it is one lane in from Buttermilk. Clausen said it is essentially one lane in each direction, inbound is one lane but on the outbound lane is carried as two lanes through the S curves as far 0 as Maroon Creek road to compensate for the slow design speed of the curves, the engineering thought is by having two lanes it will minimize any possibilities of congestion and back ups because the capacity will be increased. Jake asked what will happen to the existing Maroon Creek bridge. Clausen responded that it is slated to be turned into a pedestrian bridge, an engineering analysis has determined that it would not sustain continued use by heavy traffic. Donnelley asked what if the light rail alternative is abandoned, can the present scheme for routing traffic still be done. Clausen responded that is a coinplex question in the sense that this is designed as a piece, the single i travel lane for automobile traffic is compensated for by the capacity of the . light rail. Vickery asked about the points in the road where the tracks will cross the 0 road. Clausen responded that the tracks cross through the center of the 4 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 round about, a gate will go down when the train comes through, it should be understood that the actual crossing at the round about will require 10-15 seconds, the disruption will be very brief. Vickery asked what the frequency of the trains will be. Clausen responded the trains would run every 10 minutes in each direction so there will actually be a train every five minutes, crossing at that point. Jake asked if the train runs at the same speed as the automobiles, do they have priority. Clausen said the train would be capable of running at high speed 50-55 miles an hour, the train will have facilities for signal preemption, before it comes. to a stop light it sends a message to the light to turn it green, it will always have green lights. Roger asked what Clausen's opinion ofthe impact on historical resources for this design and where will the bikeway link be in relationship to all of this. Clausen stated they have not designed bikeways, he said he knows there has been great concern about Main Street and the effect of having a lightrail in the center of Main Street, particularly trolley wires, he thinks this can be well integrated with Main Street and with good urban design work. Susan stated that the streets that were mentioned that it might turn on, of all, Monarch seems an awfully busy intersection, Hunter is a possibility or further up Main Street. Clausen said there is a task force that is looking into other options, in the original proposal CDOT determined that for their analysis they needed to have a functional terminus at either end and Monarch seemed to them as viable a street as any, the quarter mile zone that is drawn around a station stop, when it included the station stop at Monarch and Main and Rubey Park really covered the downtown area, the concept is to have it running along the curb on Monarch.and on Durant. Clausen stated that in assessing this, one assessment is the compatibility of the system concept with historic Main Street, generally and another is the compatibility ofthe program with various specific historical resources such as the Berger Cabin and the Christian Science library, another key area is the Holden/Marolt. Clausen said the.dther alternative they are analyzing is the modified direct alignment, which has essentially all the same elements except the one way couplet, everything is carried in a modified direct alignment into Main Street, the consequence is the Cemetery Lane 5 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 intersection is eliminated and bring Cemetery Lane as the exclusive roadway right in on Castle Creek bridge. Martha asked if the project is phased. Clausen said the cost is being analyzed very thoroughly as part of the supplementary draft and an activity will be taking place at the end o f the month to deal with the financing. Martha said she has heard, strictly rumors everything from it would cost $15 per passenger to come from down valley therefore that would limit the ridership. Clausen stated that i f a four lane highway is built that has the least direct cost, but has greater indirect cost by way of offsite improvements, offsite impacts have to be considered, the costs are pretty close one way or another. Melanie asked i f there is any way to swing the lightrail further South since Berger Cabin will be moved anyway. Clausen stated that although it has never been recorded, CDOT made sort of a handshake agreement with the people at the Villa's to stay approximately 60' away from their buildings. Melanie stated she heard 30'. Melanie said she understands this entrance in can not be underground because the grades are so different. Clausen stated that there has been quite a bit of debate about undergrounding, there are considerably more people who experience the Marolt open space as a view unfolding as you drive into town than there are people actually on it recreating and if you put everyone underground you have to ask yourself is that an entry into Aspen that would really be appreciated by the number of people that actually use it. Amy said next to the Holden Milling and Smelting Complex is about the location of the foundations of the old mill itself and she said she didn't think we want to impact that area with bridge abutments any more than we have to, in addition she did not know the boundaries of the Berger properties but they would like to do an on site relocation of that and the more you move the bridge down the less possible that is. Amy. s'aid there were some specific sites that need to be addressed. Amy snid'in all the alternatives, the Maroon Creek bridge will be left intact. Roger asked if the new bridge would be same height, higher or lower. 6 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 Amy responded that they do not know yet, she said that we all have mixed feelings about the way the pedestr ian bridge looks, but the experience is incredible, getting a look at the old bridge and we will put interpretive signs that talk about how the railroad used to come in and looking at the valley is beautiful. Vickery said Roger's point is well taken, if the new bridge was somewhat lower in relationship it might make the old bridge more visible. Amy said we may want to request a pedestrian walkway somehow, she is suggesting it is too early to get into that sort of plot now. Suzannali said she heard the new bridge would help people see the existing bridge structure. Amy stated that all were in agreement with the comments on the Maroon Creek Bridge, Colorado Midland Right-of-way, Castle Creek Power Plant and 920 W. Hallam. That we find the impact not unacceptable and mitigation's available. Amy said that historically this is where the train came into town, the Colorado-Midland train came right across Holden Marolt and into town at the base of Shadow Mountain. Vickery asked if the modified direct alignment is part of Alternative H. Amy responded that it is an option within Alternative H. Vickery said i f we were to superimpose, particularly the modified direct alignment the location of the archeological survey, do you think this runs through that area. Amy responded that she thinks there are archeological remains all around the site, but the ones in particular are in the embankment that are seen from the existing bike bridge. Amy said those won't be touched. Amy stated that she feels we need them to confirm that and avoid that, the new Castle Creek bridge is probably going to impact it, we need to make them aware that the abutments have to be carefully placed. MOTION: Donnelley moved that the HPC forward j comments to CDOT in the form of a resolution as drafted by Staff with the recommended findings altered as per 7 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5.1996 Staff's notes taken at this meeting and the below alterations 0 to the memo; For Holden Marolt the comments were that both of the alternatives greatly impact the site and its use as a museum. The cut and cover does not seem to accomplish much. There is some favoritism of alternative H Castle Creek alignment because it would result in slower traffic movement and about half the traffic volume and it is further away from the historic resource. There is the possibility of berms but we want to make sure to preserve the visual connection between users of the train and the road and the site. We are concerned about the location of the archeological remains on the hillside and how the bridge impacts them. Amy asked if the Board wanted to mention the Colorado Midland Right-of-way, did we want to express concern about the road base being elevated or 0 close to the existing grade. Amy stated that on the Colo. Midland Right-of-way we want the new road surface to be close to the existing grade. On the Berger cabin there is a question as to whether the cabin can (even) be moved and if not we do not want to see that building demolished. Possibly explore the idea of lowering the road way in that area. For the Smith Elisha House, Thomas Hynes House (Kuhn) and Main Street in general we have a concern with the placement of the poles, stations, gates etc. We may prefer to see the train on one side or the other as opposed to down the center of the road. We 0 8 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 5. 1996 strongly encourage investigation of alternative powers that would not require the polls, wires etc. Second by Suzannah. Discussion: Vickery asked what is important about having the grade similar to the existing grade on the Midland Right-of-way, what are we getting. Amy responded that the idea is to minimize the destruction or changes to the Right-of-way. Susan stated that at the Wheeler it was stated that the traffic influx is not going to be as great as people think, she said Europeans are geared to trains and Americans are geared to cars and she feels it will never change. Amy stated that our valley has one of the highest riderships, in the bus system in the country and we certainly have international clientele. Suzannah stated that part of this entire concept is to encourage people to stay here as well as allowing people to come here and to drive less. AH in favor, motion carried. MOTION: Jake moved to adjourn; second by Donnelley. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk , 9 111. Altgmatix# i. i 0 i 't Eli ~ L 1 -4 - G ~ i 47«\01~111~~ -7= C._':' mi 1 -'u 12 1 O, ·41-, D 10 1-2 - 4-0 1-J j i L-tit :r: i ~ f=N s: ~__~ I-~ic- 1 ~ ~----- -, ' 9\ 11 Hallam Street ./ f 2-1 .7-h,-h -T ~ U (11 4 0 : t Aspen 1 ' Golf Course ~ A , / // 1 -0[ 2 9 t22! s 2, 7 , Bleeker Street 1 j; 1 0.... % , : 1 j ~22. ». ; f OL th l©fLI O -6 3[2, ~ 51 j, 1 & r i 7 *9] El j CLED-_13 I -1 LL li = 11 . Cr ek B>420 \ /01\ f .. . 11 \ Modified Direct : L--4 4-1 ·u 5 Marolt-Thomas 5- Mainbteh · r 4 Property i ;·-~i I Roni Cui and CorA 1 v R \ \ V< ..4 4 Ptl UL --1 C \<,C> %- -9. 0 Legend: - 11 A - ~BEH~ Improvement Alternatives LRT --Single Track g Fig.pre III-5 LRT -- Double Track 3cale · 1:3,000 Modified Direct Between LRT Station 0 50 100 meten Maroon Creek Road - LRT Crossing Gale ' 0..~mi~:3001- and 6th Street 120~ Cut and Cover 111-15 MP 39.8 ~-7 L! MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directer 1-y- L.. FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 935 E. Hyman Avenue- Conceptual review, PUBLIC HEARING and Final review DATE: August 14, 1996 SUMMARY: Following on the worksession held July 24, the applicant has scheduled a public hearing to formally request an FAR bonus of 250 sq.ft., to be split between the two units. If the variance is not granted, the applicant requests final approval for the design as approved conceptually on July 10. The proposal is to develop two units on a 6,000 sq.ft. parcel. The units are. completely detached from one another and are restricted to the FAR allowed for a duplex on this lot. The property is a designated historic landmark due to the presence of Ute No. 4 (the rock). APPLICANT: Kentco, represented by Ron Kanan and Kim Raymond. LOCATION: 935 E. Hyman Avenue, Lot 1 of the Kentco Lot Split, East Aspen Addition to the Townsite of Aspen. ZONING: RMF, historic landmark. Conceptual Development PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H," Historic Overlay District must meet all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the Aspen Land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval. 1. Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design, massing and volume, scale and site plan with designated historic structures 1 located on the parcel and with development on adjacent parceIs when the subject site is in a "H," Historic Overlay District or is adjacent to an Historic Landmark. For historic landmarks where proposed development would 0 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 five hundred (500) square feet or the allowed site coverage by up to five (5) percent, 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 26.40.090(B)(2). Response: The property is bordered on the west by a large condominium block. On the east is a property which is intended to be redeveloped in the near future. Three other inventoried properties exist in the neighborhood; two miner's cottages across the street and the pan abode cabins on the corner. The two structures proposed for this site are 1,600 sq.ft. above grade each. The applicant has been granted sideyard and distance between building setback variances. The ADU's are above grade, resulting in an FAR bonus of approximately 150 sq.ft. per unit. The applicant requests an additional FAR bonus of 250 sq.ft. A worksession on July 24, 1996 indicated that 0 HPC was not in favor of the bonus, in part because it was felt that a bonus would cause the building to exceed the site's development capacity. In HPC's previous discussions of potential development on this site it was , stated that the Commission wished to preserve a clear view of the rock from the street, as well as a radius of open space around the rock. Comments were also made that the designer should attempt to integrate the rock visually into the development, making it an asset on the site rather than an obstacle. On May 21, HPC reviewed the project and tabled. The HPC indicated a desire to see the units be more obviously detached from each other, or to be combined into one building. If the units were detached, there was discussion that they should not be identical to one another. On July 10, the applicant submitted a revised proposal which addressed this concern. Conceptual approval was awarded, without an FAR bonus. 0 2 Staff finds that the overall massing of the proposed units is acceptable. Two 0 items still need to be addressed in regard to Ordinance #30. There is still no "principal window" on either building and windows in the "no window zone" on the east side of building "A" and the north and east sides of building "B." In terms of the material palette, staff recommends some additional use of clapboard or stone to break up the wall surfaces on building 'A." A landscape plan was to be submitted for final. This must be provided at the August 14 meeting. 2. Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development. Response: The neighborhood has some single family, some duplex and some multi-family development. The two detached units crowd the site, but do create smaller structures which are compatible with the neighboring miner's cottages. 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. 0 Response: The survey rock is preserved for public view. 4. Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish from the architectural character or integrity of a designated historic structure or part thereof. Response: This standard is not applicable. ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives: 1) Approve the Development application as submitted. 2) Approve the Development application with conditions to be met prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (specific recommendations should be offered) 0 3 4) Deny Development approval finding that the application does not meet the Development Review Standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends HPC grant final approval with the condition that the primary window issue, "no window zone" issue, and materials for building "A" are resolved by staff and monitor. A landscape plan must be submitted for HPC review on August 14, 1996. Recommended motion: 9 move to grant final approval for 935 E. Hyman Avenue, with the conditions that the primary window issue, "no window zone" issue and materials for building "A" are resolved by staff and monitor." t 4