HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Maroon Creek Ped.A5295
-.
e 1
-k,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 04/17/95
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2735-111 A52-95
STAFF MEMBER: ML
Pedestrian Bridqe Stream Marqin Review
PROJECT NAME: Maroon Creek
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Pitkin County & citv of Aspen. Tom Newland
Applicant Address: 530 E. Main st. 3rd Floor 920-5209
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen. CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2040
$ 100
$
$ 62
$ 2202
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
16
16
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF
P&Z Meeting Date-.l!J(J..Y 2.
CC Meeting Date
APPROVAL: 1 STEP: -L 2 STEP:
PUBLIC HEARING: YES ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
===============================================================
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
v City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
It' Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
yI'
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board .
Other !JoIN - M41\ CUl\evlsl1
Other
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
0/
;~;~~~;;~;~;~~==============:~;~;;~;~~~;~7~~~=5=~~~~~~~~~~
--- city Atty ___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ___ Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
~
. !
. ~"";;',".'.,,;;;:~i~:t';:,:'_:i"".';~'~ .~.
"\"'."
<:',-..'......._...m' 'c-" -.c..-....,~""':...<.,'.:....o:.:;..;.::;;::..:.."'="~... .-'''', ....~:;.;;!'~............_~
~
Ii
i)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
RE:
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge stream Margin Review
FROM:
Mary Lackner, Planner
DATE:
May 2, 1995
=================================================================
APPLICANT:
Newland.
City of Aspen and Pitkin County, represented by Tom
LOCATION/ZONING: The Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge is proposed
to be constructed immediately north of the existing Highway 82
Maroon Creek Bridge within the highway right-of-way. The eastern
side of the bridge is zoned P (Park) PUD and the western side of
the bridge is in the os (Open Space) zone district.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is seeking stream margin review
to construct a year round pedestrian bridge that would permit
bicycles and pedestrians to avoid the existing Highway 82 Maroon
Creek bridge. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes the final
determination on stream margin reviews.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff has received referral comments from the
Parks Department, Historic Preservation Officer and Environmental
. Heath Department. Comments have not been received from the
Division of Wildlife or the City Engineer prior to completion of
this memorandum. These comments will be presented at the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant is proposing to construct a
"temporary" pedestrian bridge across Maroon Creek, adjacent to the
existing Highway alignment. The bridge will be located between 10
and 20 feet downstream from the existing Highway bridge and will
span the 648-foot canyon at about the same grade as the existing
bridge. The new bridge will stand on two piers or pillars on each
side of Maroon Creek. The existing overhead electric wires
spanning the Maroon Creek canyon will be removed and replaced with
wiring in conduit below the bridge deck.
The new bridge is considered temporary because it will be removed
when the new vehicle and pedestrian bridge and general improvements
to Highway 82 are made. These improvements have not been
identified either in design or in a timeline from the Colorado
Department of Transportation.
Construction is proposed to start in July and have the bridge
completed and operational by October 31, 1995. Construction
vehicle access to the valley floor will be taken along the
primitive road cut to the west of the golf course driving range.
A pile-driving rig or backhoe will need to cross the Creek and the
applicant has proposed to use an existing creek crossing adjacent
j
'-
. ..-'.,'-'-"'"'"'==....'''',_.,'-~..,'''';.,._.;.c.;...~... '...,> .....0< .- ,~,~,;"",,","'_" ..".,.... .~_,
..""' '~... -~-'-',. ,..,. ...."~".'--,....',_.__.-,,,,"-- ",,","---"--'.. ,...._.,._._..~"-."."..
,~'-_..--..-.. -~-" . ~- .--.-.---.-,.-.----....
t""'J
(j
to Helm Bridge. The applicant will flag this crossing in the field
prior to use and will revegetate it to its pre-existing condition.
Tentatively, the piers will be constructed on the valley floor and
hoisted into position with cranes. The bridge deck will then be
placed on the piers using two cranes, one positioned on the valley
floor and another positioned near the abutments or on the existing
Maroon Creek Bridge.
Section 24-7-504(Cl stream MarqinReview
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not
increase the base flood elevation on the parcel
proposed for development.
Response: Two piers will support the bridge from the canyon floor.
The drawings submitted in the application materials do not
delineate the 100-year floodplain in relationship to the proposed
piers. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate a 100-year flood
elevation of 7777 feet at the location of the proposed pedestrian
bridge. It is possible that the bridge piers are located within
this area. The applicant will be bringing more detailed
information to the Planning and Zoning commission meeting to
resolve this issue.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/open
Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The AACP does not discuss the Maroon Creek Bridge,
however the proposed pedestrian bridge completes a critical link
in the AABC trail. The AABC Trail and the proposed bridge are
dedicated for public use.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
development, to the greatest extent possible.
Response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for protecting the
natural river corridor. The natural character of the area should
be maintained for the benefit of those who see the area from both
the highway and pedestrian bridges and from the public open space
on the valley floor. .
Following a site inspection by staff, it appears that the location
of the stream crossing is relatively sparse of vegetation. In the
vicinity of the piers, a constraint of construction will be to
minimize disturbance of riparian vegetation. The applicant will
be working with the Parks Department and the Division of Wildlife
to limit disturbance to riparian and wetland areas.
2
.~. -...~-;';~"..'';;;''';;''''':.;::~',,~.~~.-
f1
n
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream
bank.
Response: Construction of bridge will require localized excavation
around each of the four "feet" of each pier. A pile driver or
backhoe will be needed to preform this excavation and set the
caissons for each pier. The applicant has indicated that only one
vehicle will need to access the western pier location and this
vehicle will cross the river once, preform the work, and return to
the east side of the river, thereby limiting disturbance to the
creek.
The applicant has also proposed construction fencing and sediment
dams (hay bales) to be placed around the pier foundations. The
Parks Department has requested silt fencing to be placed along the
riverbank during construction.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with
the natural changes of the river, stream or other
tributary.
Response: The location of the bridge piers should not interfere
with the natural changes of the creek. Some construction
mitigation has been proposed to limit potential pollution of the
creek.
6. Wri tten notice is given to the Colorado Wa ter
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or
relocation of a watercourse, and a copy of said
notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Response: No alteration of the water course is taking place.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course
is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that
ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the
parcel is not diminished.
Response: The applicant will be required to obtain a new stream
margin review if the watercourse is being altered or relocated.
Should such a request be made, this requirement will be applied at
that time.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one-
hundred-year floodplain.
Response:
Drawing submitted to the Planning Office are not
3
,-.._~,..:c.~_...~'_~..., \'-;;::,.:'~,.;..~-'.
~- - --,.-:.-:. ~_: --~,..,-,'" ..,.~...,,-.
I""'i
()
detailed enough to determine whether the proposed development is
within the 100-year floodplain. The applicant will provide
information prior to the meeting so that this determination can be
made. The applicant will be receiving an Army corps of Engineers
404 permit prior to commencement of any work.
ISSUES:
Nordic Access: The proposed bridge has not been designed to
accommodate nordic skiers due to the increased cost of the bridge
to hold a piston bully, maintaining a good snow cover for nordic
use would be problematic due to the close proximity to the Highway
bridge, and other alternatives are being explored to provide a
permanent pedestrian/nordic bridge across Maroon Creek at Iselin
park.
The Nordic Council has been contacted regarding this and they have
agreed that the temporary bridge does not need to provide access
for the piston bully. They have been working with the County to
improve the existing trail from Helm Bridge south to Tiehack so
that it can accommodate a piston bully.
visual ImDact: There is some concern that the height and location
of the pedestrian bridge will cause a negative visual impact for
travelers on the Maroon Creek Highway 82 bridge. The proposed
pedestrian bridge has structural members that will vary from nine
feet to twelve feet in height above the deck of the highway bridge.
There is ongoing discussion as to the materials and color that will
be placed on the pedestrian bridge to shield the pedestrians from
vehicle splash from the Highway. Color illustrations of the
proposed bridge will be presented at the meeting to better
facilitate this discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Maroon
Creek Pedestrian Bridge if it can be found that the piers are not
located within the 100-year floodplain of Maroon Creek. Should
this finding be made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
staff recommends that the Commission approve the project subject
to the following conditions:
Planning staff recommends approval of the Maroon Creek Pedestrian
Bridge Stream Margin Review, subject to the following conditions:
(City Engineer conditions will be presented at the meeting.)
1. Only active construction equipment is permitted on the valley
floor. No personal or contractor vehicles are permitted to
drive or park in the Maroon Creek valley.
2. The applicant shall delineate the areas proposed for
construction and construction related disturbance, including
4
:,,,>;",'~'..,;;::;" ".~, ':..-',,~;'-' ;';;~~'::'::2:'
,.
,....,
n
parking areas, bridge piers,
assembly location, prior to the
construction.
abutments, and the bridge
issuance of any permits for
3. The bridge abutments shall be constructed using small scale
construction machinery, similar to that which was used to redo
the abutments on the Highway bridge.
4. Erosion/silt fencing and sediment dams shall be erected
immediately adjacent to the construction areas for both piers
during all phases of pier construction.
5. construction equipment crossing Maroon Creek shall be
minimized as much as possible in order to reduce construction
debris, soil, rock or loss of vegetation from impacting the
stream bank and river.
6. Prior to removal of any trees, the applicant shall obtain a
tree removal permit from the Parks Department.
7. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Maroon Creek Pedestrian
Bridge stream Margin Review, subject to the conditions recommended
in the Planning Office memo dated May 2, 1995."
ExhiJ:li ts :
Application Packet
"A" -
"B" -
"e" -
"On -
Parks Department referral memo
Environmental Health Department referral memo
Historic Preservation Officer referral
Golf referral comments
5
.,...=._"....:.o:."....:....."."..'-,_~.,.:..__'''"._~..''-.o~, '.
"'.~..~..;..'-~,.,._':c_..,~^.""\,,o...._"',,,,..."'~... .
.'. ..~'::..: .._._..,_."....""'~.,......~:'. '.' ,":''-'.0'''' "__ _,~~"'-~o..;..-.:-'..::......::,';,..;".~~."'""."'-."'" .__'-',;...,,"""-I:.,.'~,~'"""''-''''''''''..~..i=,;:~~~=~'''''''''"'''''..;.(~
r"1
(~
Exhibit A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DAlE:
RE:
Mary Lackner, Planner
George Robinson, Parks Director
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
April 21, 1995
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review
We have reviewed the application submitted by Pitkin County for the Maroon Creek Pedestrian
Bridge Stream Margin Review. Per our site visit with Tom Newland on Apri124 and our meeting
with the County staff on Apri125, we have no objections to the proposed development plan. We
have worked closely with the County to ensure that the design and impacts to the City are met to
the greatest extent possible. The memo from Tom Newland, dated Apr. 25, further defines some
of the initial concerns we had regarding this project We still need to decide on a few specifics
with regards to items #3 and 5 of the memo that discusses the problems with debris and water from
the highway bridge spraying onto the pedestrian bridge and actual deck and railing design, but
again, we are working closely enough with the County that this is not an issue at this time. The
. only other requirement we would require during a stream margin review is the placement of silt
fencing along the river bank during construction. The County has stated they will include this in
their construction bid and agreements.
The construction access will be via Chatfield Dr. and the trail and not across the golf course or
park. We will need to meet with the County and construction crews to review this access when a
contractor is hired to reduce trail impacts and discuss user safety.
.':..H..__.C..,.io:....;...o.,..--:~ ...._'"'-...'-"'......'e.__.
r"'l
~
'. . :if
Exhibit. B
MEMORANDUM
From:
Chris Chiola, Environment.al Health Department
--
To:
Mary Lackner, Planning Office
Through:
Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer ASPEN. PItKIN
.; . ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Date:.
April 19, 1995
Re:
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream' Margin Review
===============================================
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health' Departmenf has reviewed the Maro~n Creek
Pedestrian Bridge land use submittal .under authority of the Municipal Code of the City.
. of Aspen.' and has the following comments: .
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7
.ft shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for re&idenco or bJslnBss purposes WIthin the city to constJuct or tQCOIJStruCt an on-sfte sewage disposal
_.'
There are no sewage treatment and collection concerns with this application.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55
wi buildings. structures, facilities,' parle. or the Ilks within the city limits Which use Water sh8Jt be OOnriei::tedto the trIlnlcipai water utility .$ystam. .
There are no water provision needs for this application. .
WATER QUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3
"For the Purpose of.ma1rtaJning and prOtectIng its trJJfIIc/p8J wafs/SUPPly from Injuryaild pollution, the city sh8J1 exeroise mgulatoly and supervisoly jurisdiction within the
Incorporated limits of the Citj 01 Aspen and over ail streams and sources contributing to rrvniclpaJ water supplies for a distance 01 five (5) miles Qbove the poim from which
tnJniaipaJ water supplIeS are divfHled." .
This application is not 'expected to impact down stream water quality, given the.
applicant's commitment to construction methods that will minimize impacts on the river,
The applicant has applied for the required 404 permits.
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1
'It is the purpose of {the sir qualfly sec1lon of the MUnICipal COd6J to aChIeve the maxllTXJITt pr&ctJcaJ d6gi&e of air purltf possible by requiring the /JMI 01 all available practJcaf
. mathods and fechhJques to control. prevent and reduce aIr pollution throughout the city...". The Land Use RsgufaIions seek to "lessen eongestiorf and "aKJid transpOrtat/on
demands that cannot be mer as well as to 'provide clean air by ptotect/ng the natural air sheds and reducing pofiutart!;". .
F.UGITIVE DUST: A fugitive dust control plan is required which is. sufficient to prevent
windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance. . . .
1
130 SOUT.H GALENA STREET' ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHOM 3,o3.920.507~ . FAX 303.920.5197
Printed on n...:yded P^p<"
;':'~-;'.. ,-~ ~:.:,~:' .'':'" .,.:~;:,.,''':::::'''', .
1""\
-1
n
,CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1
"The cJly counoII fInd8 and dec:IatfJ# that noise is a Mgn/ficatt $OU((;IfI 01 environmental pollution fhat t8pt8SlW1ts a ~ and IIlCf88s1ng thteat 10 the public peace and 10
!he health. safety and W8ifal8 of the I9$idedS 01 the Cily 01 Asp6n and It It8 ~sIftJts. M'..AccMJIngfy, It is lho polICy of council to prrw1de st.anda1d3 ffJ! pBlTtJisaible mise, levels
In \/fIIkJua aMu and tnlII'lI'I8I3 and at'\IlIriou3,t/qJfJS and to pmNblt rroIseln exces.s d thotJelewii8.o
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards,
and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
...LAND _ USE:2735111.mc.ped.bridge
. \
'r'- ------.-.'..
,
k
2
r"I
.-..
\.. :3
Exhibit c
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Lackner, city Planner
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic preservation Officer
RE:
Maroon creek pedestrian Bridge, stream Margin Review
DATE:
April 27. 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Historic Preservation commission reviewed the proposed
bike/pedestrian path at Maroon Creek Bridge on February 8, 1995
(minutes attached). At that time, two options were presented; a
path that was placed on the Maroon Creek Bridge, below the road
deck, and a separate bridge. The commission voted unanimously in
favor of the separate bridge solution, citing it as preferable in
terms of preservation of the historic bridge, for safety,
accessibility, and cost.
The design of the separate bridge is not being formally reviewed
by HPC. Staff's concerns are with the visual impact of the bridge,
as it will be viewed from the Maroon Creek Bridge and adjacent
properties. If feasible, the designer should explore placing the
superstructure below the road deck, so that only a safety railing
will be necessary above the deck. Painting railings or any safety
mesh required will help to reduce the apparent bulk of the new
structure.
..~___.__._~__._,___.w_m"_"_'_'_
. . _.. .._._._._-_.__.._-----_..-.._~.~_. ._~----_._....._--_.._.__..._-~--_..._.__.__.__._._--_._~
f""",.
i')
~
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
Meeting was called to order by Jake Vickery with Roger Moyer, Les
Holst, Tom Williams, Linda Smisek and Martha Madsen present.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Caroline McDonald: I have passed out a letter regarding a change
in the code that has to initiated by the HPC. I would appreciate
a worksession to discuss the issues. (see records for letter)
420 E. MAIN
Amy: This is an infill structure that is to be built next to the
bank and HPC approved this project unanimously in August of 1993,
gave a one year extension of conceptual and how the applicqnts are
requesting an additional six months extension in order to do their
drawings for final. I recommend approving the extension.
Les: You reviewed all he drawings and have no problem with it and
nothing has changed.
Amy: Everything is in order.
MOTION: Les made the motion to grant an extension approval for 420
E. Main for a period of six months; second by Roger. All in favor,
motion carries.
Jake abstained as he was not present at the project presentation
meeting.
MAROON CREEK BRIDGE - PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPTUAL
Amy: The bridge was built in 1887 as part of the Colorado Midland
Railroad and it was used as a railroad bridge until 1919 and after
that for the next ten years people drove across the bridge and in
1929 it was conv~rted into an actual roadway. It is listed on the
national register of historical places. For some time now the city
and county have jointly been proposing a bike path. An Engineering
firm from Denver was hired to do proposal. One is a path that is
on the bridge that is within the truss system and the other is a
separate bridge. We reviewed these as a worksession two weeks ago.
Because the bridge is on the national register for historic places
there are reviews at the state level and at this point the Colo.
Historical Society has been urging that we consider the separate
path as it does not alter the historic resource .and has less
impacts in their mind. In addition CDOT who own the bridge are not
in support of an on bridge path. The bridge was annexed into the
city of Aspen this past fall so it falls under the purview of the
HPC and in applying the review standards I find that the on bridge
pathway is not the preferable solution for a number of reasons one
of which it does alter the historic bridge and the other is that
the long switchback that will be required to get a person from
grade to 30 below the bridge deck. There are also concerns about
..__._.-'-+-_."""~...-
,'__ .,~~,~,~,"","'~C'.'~'--"~_.J'" ",.-...._.,,_"""...~,..'<.~. ,._.~"~~""""'"--"........,,"..... ___._,"__.....__..k'."..
I"""'l
n
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8, 1995
safety being under a bridge. I am recommending that the separate
. bridge be the preferred solution and does need redesign on it. It
is very industrial looking structure and we need to consider the
lighting. I think the HPC should consider the proposal and make
a recommendation to the Decision Markers regarding the separate
bridge. This would be presented to them at a worksession on
February 16th.
Bud Eylar, county engineer: There was a resolution passed by
Snowmass, Aspen and Pitkin County supporting a pedestrian, bike
alternative on Maroon Creek Bridge because of the safety issues.
We were directed to pursue and involved in the process are ADA
requirements which require switchbacks at either end of the
existing bridge if that were the choice as opposed to a separate
bridge. We will take back the recommendation from the HPC to the
worksession next week.
Les: We didn't mind using the existing bridge because it would be
less of a visual impact.
County: Originally the cost would have been less if we used the
existing bridge but because of the ADA requirements it went up
considerably and those costs are not totally configured. Both the
costs are now around the same range of $700,000.
Roger: If you used the structure on the existing bridge could you
put a roof over it.
County: No, that was not the plan, just side protection.
Roger: What is the cost with the roof on the existing bridge and
what is the cost of the separate bridge?
County: Around $50,000. for the roof.
Bud Eylar: separate bridge is around $50,000 less and with a roof
on the historic the difference would be $100,000.
Jake: Is this part of the Nordic ski trail.
Bud Eylar: It touches ground down under the existing bridge and
you catch the Helm Bridge and then a trail would take you to Thiack
and you get on the Government Trail system.
Roger: If you had a bridge under the existing could it be used for
skiing?
county: The Nordic council said they could not run a snow cat
across it.
2
."'.'-..,.. '.;.'.,..,'--;.."'->.".^,....-;.~, .:."-,_.....,,>._--:~-','":,......,.......~.'-
._'.,._~_',,_,,_, .... ,.,,~._;'~,-""'"'-""'..>;,......__..-'.k
~
I')
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
Bud Eylar: Yes but you would have to carry it.
Rebecca Baker, Assistant Parks Director: The grooming would be
difficult as well because of the fact that we are going to have
right turns under the bridge which is more difficult for
bicyclists.
Bud Eylar: The ramps are designed at the most reasonable cost that
we have. We have been told that a piston-bully could not get down
to set tracks even if you could get snow down there.
Amy: This is presumed to be a temporary solution and at some point
in the future whatever the solution to the Entrance of Aspen is
there may be a totally new highway bridge and the Maroon Creek
Bridge will be a pedestrian only bridge. Either solution will be
removed in the future.
Roger: Will the ramps allow two cyclists mounted on the bikes to
pass or will they have to dismount and walk their bikes through?
county: with the grades I assume you would have to dismount.
Roger: If the bicycles were pulling a burley would they be able
to negotiate the ramp?
Bud: I am not sure how the ramps turn. This meets an ADA standard
and I do not know if it meets the city's bikeway standards as far
as curvatures.
Roger: If the bridge were built underneath the historical
structure would it be welded or bolted? What would the impact be
to the existing historical structure.
county: We are looking at bolting but holes would be left in the
bridge.
Roger: Would that have a structural integrity problem?
county: No, not from what our engineers tell us.
separate bridge you could sell it or use it.
with the
Jake vickery opened the public hearing.
Raphee Bass: Does the city intend to continue cleaning the snow
off the entire structure along highway 82 and possible go to the
intercept lot which would encourage people to cycle.
Rebecca Baker: That is a possibility but our department has not
discussed it at length. There is the possibility for a separate
nordic bridge to connect from Iselin Park over to the base of
3
,.".,.'"'-,.................._"'--~..-..+._-"-''''....'" -
n
n
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
Thiack. So there might be four bridges going across ~aroon Creek.
Connie Harvey: On the separate structure how far away is it from
the existing bridge>
Bud Eylar: It is about ten feet but could be build adjacent to as
far away as 50 to 60 feet downstream.
connie Harvey: How wide is the separate structure?
Bud: It shows twelve feet wide to match the pedestrian bridge at
the Marolt Thomas property.
Connie Harvey: Does it have a single span of supporting members?
Bud: It is supposed to have two support structures at
approximately 165 feet out from either bank and a center span of
240 feet. It is proposed to be a trestle type structure that would
match the existing bridge somewhat in style.
Connie Harvey: Would the surface be at the same elevation?
Bud: It shows approximately the same location. At the highway
to is four our five feet lower. You could have a number of things
directly the same height or even at a slope to match the end.
Those are design features that we would talk about. It is proposed
to be metal.
Connie Harvey: It would be easier on the separate bridge to get
on instead of the switchbacks. Is it for sure that the bridge
would be taken down if a new bridge is built?
Bud: I feel it is highly likely.
Connie Harvey: I would look at it differently whether it has to
say to go when a new bridge is built.
Bud: It can be erected somewhere else.
Connie Harvey: When are you proposing to build this and where is
the money coming from?
Stan Berryman: The Decision Makers wanted it done two years ago
but we are hoping this summer to address the safety issue. It is
a possibility that the money will come from 1/2 cent transportation
tax and funding from pitkin, Aspen and Snowmass. It is not yet
determined.
Don Davidson: One primary consideration is the safety issue and
we have been lucky and I feel the bridge that could be done the
soonest has a lot of merit in my mind. It seems that the separate
4
,,:,'.,',....
,. _~._..~""....:~~.,M "W' ~'_
,..",=",~~_"'C',,","_':'~ ,,' ',"':_'_"'X~'
t""'\
~
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
structure fits that. Also from a monitory concern the separate
structure can be salvaged and sold to someone else.
cindy Metzel: I use the bridge everyday in the summertime going
to and coming from work and if it makes a difference I would not
use the switchbacks, I would use the bridge. As a matter of safety
I would not use the switchbacks.
Erin Fernandez: I am here for Joe Zoline and he is effected
specifically from his house. He lives east of the Maroon Creek
Bridge. He feels that the bridge underneath makes more sense
because the other one will visually impact him more. He feels
instrumental in making this possible that he donated an easement
on the other side of the Maroon Creek bridge that was sought by he
county and the city. He feels he is now going to be penalized
because he make it possible.
Gavin Seedorf: I am a board member of the Aspen Cycling Club and
I am also a mountain bike racer. I ride to high school from the
ABC every single day of the year. I feel strongly about the safety
issues that arise. When you are riding a mountain bike with two
foot handle bars next to cars going 60 plus miles an hour it is
really scary. In the winter you have ice, gravel, PM10, danger and
people yelling at you and cars honking. Something really has to be
done. Personally I would like to get as far away from that bridge
as possible. If there was any other route that I could get to
school by I would go out of my way to take it. But as you pointed
out the switchbacks are very inconvenient. I could easily walk my
bike across the bridge but for transportation purposes. and for
practicality sake it is not practical. If you use your bike for
transportation just like many of you use your cars you want to get
there fast, you don't want to have to sit in traffic jams and wait
at stop lights or spent 20 minutes looking for a parking space.
Same thing with a bike, you don't want to get off your bike walk
around three corners, hop on it under the bridge and walk it again.
From a cyclist point of view the separate bridge look like the way
to go because for one you will be away from the cars and you will
have possibly 15 seconds where you are not having cars whizzing by
you. You are also going to be able to have a little fun going
across the bridge by yourself and you could keep up your speed and
would not have to slow down as much. Also with the switchbacks
the safety of going around those blind corners on a bike is an
issue. What if someone is rollerblading around those corners and
even going three miles an hour that would be a six mile an hour
wreck. I don't. what you think of a kid saying this I don't think
the switchback idea is very useful at all for a cyclist, maybe for
a walker but the safety issue would still be there for a walker and
if we want to alleviate that problem I would say we go to the
separate bridge.
5
u__.......__.......,...,_..__._.. . ,--",.~,-,-~_.'-"-
. .' ...... .-...-- . -.. -"..---,. ..'" - "..'~--' -.-
r'J
()
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8, 1995
Lance Luckett: I have been here 15 years and ridden across that
bridge for 15 years and am happy to say that I am still alive. I
made an emotional plea to city council and county commissioners two
years go and I am happy to see that it is this far. I know it
takes time in the city and county government. I am strongly in
favor of staff's recommendation .of a new bridge if it can be far
enough away to where we don't get a spray of the gravel from the
state trucks but close enough away to make sure connie Harvey is
happy. That is a design issue that is very important. Most
cyclists are not going to go down the curves, once they are on the
highway they are going to take it. And now that they would have
a better way they will be on the bike path. I have seen so many
family visitors with the dad on one side and the kids on the other
and they couldn't get across and they didn't know what to do. They
were scared to death and this was this summer. ! agree with the
expeditiousness of something quick and temporary is great and
sooner or later there is going to be a big bridge there, an 80
footer. I strongly recommend that HPC approve the separate bridge.
Jake: What about the spray.
Bud Eyler: There is a piece of rail that is so far up off the curb
and it actually keeps most of the spray fairly close to the bridge.
That has always been a concern about a separate bridge and what do
you do in the winter. You. don't want people getting knocked off
their bicycles from a snow plow coming along spraying stuff.
Lance Luckett: The reason they don't track that bike path is
because it is too close to the highway and the spray comes over.
I would just as soon see them plow the whole way to the business
center and have more people riding their bikes than driving their
cars.
Bud Eylar: I feel that can be handled.
Amy: One quick comment on wh~re this is going to be placed. It
~s my understanding that it needs to be far enough away from the
Maroon Creek Bridge so that the new bridge can be built and you
don't have to take the temporary bridge down.
stan Berryman:. And there is no guarantee for that with the
Entrance to Aspen committee.
Public: I live across the stream from Connie and I have the same
considerations she does. It is certainly needed for safety
reasons. Lets not have it too far away from the main bridge and
we need to establish some way that it will come down so that we do
not have three bridges.
Bud:
If we get to the point where we start talking about a
6
'~__"_'"__U__''_'__''~''_''' .______.__...__._.________
(""';,
n
[
~-
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
separate bridge we will have numerous design meetings and they will
probably say that taking down the bridge will be a condition.
Scott Ryder: I live right next to the bridge and tried to cross
it with a stroller and found myself sprinting. One concern that
I have is that the temporary bridge will drive the decision of the
new bridge as to where it will be located potentially. I would
suggest a separate structure and require that it be taken down and
put it as close to the existing bridge since it is a temporary
bridge and somehow the spray has to be mitigated.
Andy DisSabatino: I have an alternative program and I do live down
in that area and I see more mountain bikes in that area than road
bikes. I also snow shoe that area.. Stagecoach road serves the
Grand Champions. There is a bike path on one side of the bridge
and this year they cut a new path to the Bob Helm Bridge and that
could be easily asphalted with the 1/2 penny tax. You take the
existing path and go across Bob Helms bridge and then the far side
of the bridge area where the slop is you go on the flat plane
against the slope which will never have a home built there and go
parallel to the bank on that far side and it is far enough away
from the creek and you have no impact of water and you tie into
stagecoach Road and go up that road away from the Harvey's and the
Claudhill 's and you have two choices either go straight down
Stagecoach and then tie into the existing bike path going to the
airport business center or back to town along the bike path that
takes you to the bridge or get a variance and go along the border
of the Zoline property and border the Maroon Creek existing golf
course where the golf course is going to be on one side of it and
go back along that ridge and tie into the existing bike path.
Charles Collins: The noise under the bridge is unbelievable from
the buses and it bounces off the wood deck. My initial thought was
the utilizing the exiting bridge but now you tell me it is not
strong enough so I would support a new bridge.
Rick Schultz: If two people said they won't go around switchbacks
and will continue to use the bridge I would support the straight
separate bridge.
Scott Ryder: will the existing Maroon Creek bridge be dismantled
and reused?
Amy: No it is on the National Register.
Scott Ryder: The historic bridge really provides a link to the
past that we have so few of.
Erin Hernandez: What is the cost difference?
7
f""\
n
i
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
Roger: The separate bridge is a $100,000 less.
stan Berryman: It is still too early to determine the exact cost.
Jake closed the public hearing and thanked the public for making
their comments.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Roger: The snow plow sprays snow 20 feet away from the existing
bridge so the adjacent bridge would be built the closest it could
be built would be 25 to 30 feel away. If we passed a
recommendation to the elected officials part of the recommendation
could be that the bridge should be dismantled as soon as it is
necessary and sold. In regards to Charles Collins comments it was
stated that the CDOT did not want to build an attachment to the
existing bridge. Charles Collins ideas w.ere excellent but the CDOT
does not agree.
Martha: My comments would be that the separate bridge is in many
reasons the better choice and I would recommend that also and I
hear the cyclists state that the switchbacks are not a real
solution for them. I see the underuse of the Castle Creek
switchbacks although I use them.
Linda: The consensus would be a separate bridge not only for the
ease of use but for the cost and that it can be dismantled and
reused some place else in the valley. Jerryrigging the old
structure seems to have too many problems, noise, altering the
structure etc.
Les: We have heard alternative but ultimately what is going to
happen is a separate bridge. I would like to see the neighbors
form a small advisory board to work with whomever builds the bridge
and sometimes minor variables come out that are wonderful.
Roger: Connie, how would Andy's suggestion effect you.
Connie Harvey: Are you talking about the west and would it come
from the Bob Helm bridge?
Bud: Yes.
connie:
private
Zolines
That would be going through some private property
road. The stagecoach road corner is our drive.
property and we have the easement.
and a
It is
Roger: Does it seem like something that could be entertained?
Connie: You need to talk to the Claudill's. I might say something
8
..... _.~._.,_.._.._..' ~,_.,,-..~,'_._'-., ".- -_..~...... ~-,.--'"' ..."-_..,,_.~........~-~,_...,',"-"-~,"~~'~~~-
f"1
n
i
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8, 1995
about using the road but I do not have anything to say about using
their property. I also feel the ride would be more of a tourist
ride rather than a transportation ride.
Roger: Have the engineers looked at using the Bob Helm bridge?
Bud: Yes but the grade is too steep so we found none to make any
sense.
Roger: I find that a bridge attached to an historic structure
would meet none of our guidelines or standards and I find that an
adjacent bridge would meet all of our standards. It seems that an
adjacent bridge would be much cheaper and it would be used for
transportation.
Tom: From the last meeting I was supporting the bridge within the
structure of the existing historic bridge simply because it avoids
another object in that space. I just sort of think both these
proposals do is functional and are inconsiderate of aesthetics and
feelings and I like Andy's idea of doing something creative. Why
does it have to be connected to a bridge. with regard to a
pedestrian bridge under the bridge there is a solution that could
be reached with the cyclists and the switchbacks do not work.
Possibly pull it up to the next horizontal level and not another
object out into space.
Connie: I also. want to make sure the lighting is addressed.
Jake: I find that the independent bridge is less obtrusive to the
historic bridge.
Amy: The SHPO, state historical preservation officers are not in
support of the on bridge.
MOTION: Roger made the motion to recommend to the Decision Makers
that a separate bridge for the path is the most appropriate
solution in terms of accessibility, safety, cost and preservation
concerns. We also wish to see any design that is put forth and
it's compatibility to the historic structure for further review;
second by Les.
DISCUSSION
Amy: Some 20 people at this meeting were in support of a separate
path and the Board finds that the cost factor of a separate path
is less and it would be used for transportation rather than
recreation.
Bud: Should you mention that the bridge needs to be removed?
9
_.'_, " ". ~,,,,-,,_,,_,.,",.,,_,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~"""""-'."~""._--~'. ",.~,,... .."=.....,.......-",, _ O'.~-__...,....'.."-'.-"'-_ _" _ .....,,_v~_. .,.._~,~__.., _,"_" .._. '" .____. .<;,.,.".......-""".-_ .''-__. .,',"".,.""_,.....=:...,....,"'-"-....."..'.,...-"'_..-,..."'-'...~...~'.c=.,......,..._"""'........""-'",-..-.~',........--.....
f""'1
()
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 8. 1995
Roger: In the recommendation memo we should encourage that the
bridge be removed once it was no longer needed and recommend that
that be part of the agreement.
Les: The Board also recommends that the bridge be completed this
summer and that the HPC will work in special meetings if need be.
I also feel a citizens group should be involved.
AMENDED KOTION:
Roger amended his motion that HPC would encourage the Decision
Makers that whatever it takes we would like to see the bridge built
this summer and that HPC will be more than willing to dedicate
their time to special meetings to implement that in response to
their overwhelming input. Also that conceptual is tabled until
February 22nd; second by Les. All in favor, motion carries.
10
.
if""",
,
o
Exhibit 0
~^\..
~~~)S\
i-I';
'caul'S.
v
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Lackner, Planner
FROM:
Steve Aitken, Director of Golf
RE:
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review
DATE:
April 20, 1995
It's good to see this bridge going in. The only point I need to make is
concerning the Proposed Construction Access Route. The route that is
currently planned runs across the golf course. This can not be allowed
because of the great deal of damage to the course that this would produce.
Please call my office, so that we may discuss a alternate route (920-
5122).
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 920-5122
r,
en en
c:
0 c:
~ 0
"0 :!:::
c: "0
0 c:
() 0
()
Ol "0
c: <1>
'';:::::;
en en
.x 0
Q.
W 0
....
a..
,,-.,
f"'"
r-
-
~~
----_...,.....-'...-..,.~-"'-..._--
Existing Conditions
L
i
,
~
ii
I,
c
h.'
,
Proposed Conditions
rJ
t"""I
" /
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department G:-R--
Date: April 28, 1995
Re: Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review
(Lot I, Aspen Golf Course Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Department has the following
comments:
I. Development in the Floodplain - As stated in the application, there will be no development
within the floodplain. The plans submitted with the application are not comprehensive in detail. In
a phone conversation, the applicant stated that disturbances of existing vegetation during
construction was also anticipated to be outside of the 100-year floodplain. It should be a condition
of approval that construction activity, including staging, be outside of the 100-year floodplain and
that construction fencing be installed at the perimeter of the permitted construction zone. The fence
will limit the damage by construction equipment and retain any materials and debris within the site.
2. Storm Runoff - The application discusses the use of hay bales during construction. The
purpose and placement of the hay bales is to prevent storm runoff from soils exposed by excavation
from entering the creek.
3. Work Permits - As stated in the application, the proposed work is located within the Highway
82 right-of-way and within City limits. The applicant has agreed to obtain an excavation permit
from the City for work in the public right-of-way.
4. Traffic Control- The application makes reference to traffic control and to night work to reduce
impacts on the Highway 82 traffic. The final development plan must include a traffic control plan
prepared by a state certified traffic control supervisor.
5. Final Development Plan - Prior to the issuance ofthe City right-of-way excavation permit, the
applicant shall provide a development plan that clearly shows the proposed development plan,
including but not limited to the 100-year floodplain, the limits of construction activity and location
of construction fencing and hay bales. With that plan shall be submitted copies of the Army Corps
of Engineers 404 Permit and the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way work permit.
cc: Cris Caruso, George Robinson
M95.103
1
~
t"")
Pitkin County
April 25, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO
RE: MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Dear Mary;
Please accept this letter and attachments as additional information requested concerning the
above referenced project. Thank you for attending the site visit yesterday morning. Based
on our discussions at the site, the following issues need further clarification:
1) A more specific construction schedule needs to be submitted that discusses
the erection of the piers, proposed methods to insure that this construction
activity does not impact wetland vegetation and the removal of the
overhead power lines.
Construction schedules can not be finalized until a contractor is selected. However, we do
have a preliminary construction schedule that will ask the winning contractor to abide by.
Upon gaining local approvals, the county shall secure approva.ls from the Colorado
Department of Transportation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the month of May.
Bid documents for the project should be ready by June 1 st. The bid period will last most
of the month of June, with contractor selection by July 1 st. Notice to Proceed on the project
should be issued between July 1 st and July 15th;.'
Construction should begin no later than July 15th. It is anticipated that the contractor will
probably begin the work by driving the pylons for the piers and constructing the abutments.
The piers will then be constructed and lifted into place on the pylons. At the site visit, there
appeared to be potential problems with constructing the west pier on the valley floor. This
is because of the dense willows and other wetland shrubs apparent at the site. The county
will condition the bid documents so that contractors are required to recognize the wetland
vegetation and design their construction process so that this habitat is not impacted. This
may require the contractor to propose other methods of constructing the west pier, such as
construction in-place, or off-site construction. After the piers are constructed and put into
place, the contractor will start constructing the bridge deck in sections on either side of the
Maroon Creek canyon. Once constructed, the overhead powerlines will be de-
commissioned and removed by Holy Cross. The bridge deck will then be hoisted into place
Administration County Commissioners County Attorney Personnel and Finance Transportation
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suite I' Suite F Facilities
Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Str.eet" 530 E. Main Street 76 Service Center Road
(303) 920-5200 Aspen, CO 81511 Aspen, CO 81511 Aspen, CO 81511 Aspen, CO 81511
FAX 920-5198 (303) 920-5150 (303) 920-5190 (303) 920-5220 (303)920-5390
@ printed on recycled paper
1""\
'>1(, l
o
and connected. After the deck is complete, Holy Cross shall run the new electric wires
through the conduits placed under the bridge deck for this purpose. Upon placement of the
lines, Holy Cross will re-activate power. Power should be inactive for no more than 4 or
5 days. No impact to electric power service will be realized because of this construction.
Once the power has been restored, work on the project will be completed by the
contractor. This final work will include pouring the concrete deck slab, constructing the
railings for the deck, constructing the trail connections on either side, and revegetating all
areas disturbed by construction. The project should be completed by no later than October
31st.
2) What will the abutments look like and where will they be placed?
Included as ATTACHMENT A of this letter please find a preliminary drawing of the
abutments. The abutments will consist of conchite foundations and a concrete slab on
which the bridge deck will be affixed. All areas;rrbund the abutments will be revegetated
after construction..'''..
3) There seems to be a potential problem with water and other debris being
deflected at the pedestrian bridge from the adjacent highway bridge as
vehicles drive by. What can be done to' reduce this problem?
.,;,
At least two options can be considered to al.leviate this problem. At the site visit, the
possibility of raising the bridge deck so that it is even with the Highway bridge deck was
mentioned. The current design has the bridge deck even with the highway bridge deck on
the west side of Maroon Creek canyon. The deck then slopes downward and ends up about
3-feet below the highway bridge deck on the east side. This was done to assure proper
drainage off of the bridge deck. Without this .sltipe; water will tend to pond on the deck
creating safety and maintenance problems. '.),(
After discussing this issue with the project team, the applicants will commit to raising the
bridge deck so that it is at grade with the existing-Vehicle bridge. The deck will be sloped
to the south to allow for drainage and maximum solar exposure. Another option would be
to place a wall or barrier between the two bridge decks that would be high enough to
prevent the water and debris from being splashed off the driving surface by vehicles. It is
preferable to place such a barrier on the south side of the vehicle bridge, primarily because
placement of such a barrier on the north side of the pedestrian bridge would impede snow
removal by blocking solar exposure on the deck.:The applicants will work with the City of
Aspen trails maintenance personnel to develop-and place improvements which will prevent
flying water and mud from impacting the use of.the pedestrian bridge.
\"~;~'\'i
4) It appears that three mature cottonwoodswm be removed under the current
bridge design. These trees are located adjacent to the existing highway
bridge on the west edge of the Maroon Creek Canyon.
'''. ~J
Yes, three cottonwoods will need to be removed to make room for the bridge. The only
alternative to removing these trees requires an e;rsement for the bridge from the adjacent
,',.,i}'tJ.,,
r"j
(")
landowner on the west side of Maroon Creek canyon. This landowner was approached for
an easement, but he refused to grant one. Therefore, the appl icants have no choice but to
keep the bridge within the Highway 82 right-of-way, where the cottonwoods are located.
Based on the site visit, no other vegetation needs to be removed other than the
cottonwoods. The applicants commit to replacing the cottonwoods anywhere in the area
of the project site.
.! d<i:.
5) It appears that the bridge will have truss ~ic:lings that will be between 9-feet and 12-
feet above the deck of the highway bridge. Are these sidings necessary? If so,
what could be done to lessen their visualJmpact?
Unfortunately, the sidings are structurally necessary to the bridge design. In addition, some
sort of mesh or screen material will need to placecJ along the siding to prevent bridge users
from climbing over the sides of bridge deck. At the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, a detailed rendering of the bridge will be presented that will allow you to better
visualize the bridge sidings and the fencing materials used to protect bridge users from the
edges of the deck. The applicants would also like to explore the feasibility of re-designing
the bridge deck so that the trusses are below the: deck or that the deck is at a mid-point
between the top and bottom of the trusses. The information gathered on these alternatives
will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
6) A revegetation plan must be submitted.
It is impossible to submit a detailed revegetation plan for the project at this time, primarily
because detailed construction plans have not beeocompleted by the applicants's engineer.
The appl icants wi II provide a detai led revegetation plan as soon as possible. After reviewing
the project in the field, it appears that scaring ofthe land will be minimal for this project.
Areas around the two abutments and the associated trail connections will require
revegetating with native, dryland grasses. Adequate amounts of topsoil (4 to 6-inches) will
be placed prior to reseeding. In addition, a temporary irrigation system will be devised and
placed to insure successful growth of the planted materials. Minimal scaring is also
anticipated as a result of the work on the vaHey floor. Once the piers have been
constructed and placed, any damage to the areas .outside of the access road will be graded
and covered with an appropriate level of topsoil. (4 to 6-inches). Native wetland grass
species will be planted on all areas disturbed. The applicants will make every effort to
avoid damage to, or removal of, the wetland. shrubs present on the project site. If any
shrubs are damaged or removed, similar specieS"will be placed upon completion of the
project. Because of the riparian nature of thepf6jectsite on the valley floor, temporary
irrigation of the new plantings in this area will not be required.
.\~c
Thank you for accepting this additional information for our land use application. As per
your suggestion, I will bring to the Planning;'and Zoning meeting additional color
photographs of the project site showing views of the new bridge location from the existing
vehicle bridge and pictures of the area around the pier foundation locations. Once again,
the applicants will have detailed designs and site renderings on hand at the meeting for
further presentation. If you have any questions tOri'cerning this application, or require more
.
I)
n
information concerning the proposed improvements, please contact me at 920-5209.
,.'r. ~
Sincerely,
PITK
cc: Missing Link Project Team
8311 West Carder Court
Littleton, CO 80125
303-791-1600
FAX 303-791~jiid .
1-800-365-3096
'_~_..v.,..n~ e,-^"_.,_.".__..__,.
ATTAt'AMr=NTA
'.ICWlOEiI
COIlCiIEtE nIC'.JUCO
,
t
--:- .- --, .: -- :: , "" ,') .' , '. ~ I ! .. I.~. , . . ' i 1 ;
, . TIneAl LlI<IJrMPilr .L:zr/J1 I NT';)') .
-- -.. ; , .' -'. : c; ..!. C>" .; . .! .'" ,
';-- ..; ., ,.. . i ' 1 : . '
',,--' i . I~P i-i',';>! I" ',.;.
, " " ''''. '__... ,;,,..J f.p '::'
, ,'---', ;,_:," />~~:;'J., .z,:~'c' 'i-;-1; z-",.' .
. ," t.~.. ~-~. ~,Q/. r ,'i, "1, . .
'.'. ' " ';A~ ., -. / "'. 1--.-'-- " " ; :
. , ,. : -.l- I .. ' .; ,.: .!',.
! " , .', :... I .' ,: i., : .
, : '". ; , i .. : i ':. .
-. I- , " 'I : :
: I, ! --- : "".:. ,. . :
'.--/ T -,' ~ .- -----, , " ' ",.. ," ,
. ,-- - '.' '-?~ '" . -: '; '! . , , .
~. , '. ,_:.... .' , : , . !
',' i ,i ,. I ';i':::6 I ' :
. , ;': '. .-. J . "i I l' I ' .,
'; --, I' --;-. " , .
-- - I -:- t-... I . , :":
-_,1.. :..:._ (. . !,. ,.,!, i,. .. '..
,. \ I' I '. : i : ,: "
-; -'-. '1.__'.. I ' --,- '.' ,. : I '
- I I:
' 1 : .. ,i: 1 "':
.- I I ' ' I. -": ::: .,.. ,. :
, .. 1--; __..__ I I '
. Ii: , " "
-.- -: , 1 -- . I : i.,., lif'-/) ,l
;t::\:;:; j'U ' -- I ,. 'f; " ,., ..' . . ,
;. , ,
,.-' ,.. -"..
F:.. 0-0 -: -- I- I ,; < ',_~-'-: . '
. .. I ' -- ~- · -'. i ,_ --.- _:__ .
i ....1_ I. : . .
- 1- -.- .
,I .
. - ':'1, I
-----1\ .
-, ,..,. .
. ,.
, .-
!r
,
,.
, - I
t
: ,"!-
'. : .
,
,
'--
l
. l
. '
, :
-.
Nonreinforced Concrete Sewer, Culvert & Irrigation Pipe (12" thru 24")
Reinforced Concrete Sewer, Culvert & Irrigation Pipe (12" thru144")
Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Pipe (18" thru 144")
Precast Concrete Box Culverts
Precast Three Sided Box Bridges
~n"'~Q-=T':;1=OR, P~qMANa;:NCE
Precast Concrete Manholes
Precast Inlets and Vaults
Precast Retaining Wall
Precast Sound Barrier
Specialty Precast Items
t}
o
..".."
, .
Stream Margin Review
r'Y
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Pitkin County and the City of Aspen
.r-;
I'"'\,
()
.c,,;.;
Pitkin County
April 14, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
1 30 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO
RE: MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
Dear Mary;
Please accept this letter and attached information as Pitkin Cqunty and the City of Aspen's
formal land use application for the above referenced project.
The joint applicants propose to construct a non-vehicular bridge across the Maroon Creek
canyon immediately downstream from the existing Highway 82 vehicle bridge. This will be
a temporary bridge that, after constructed, can be utilized by pedestrians, bicyclists and
other users of the Airport Business Center Trail to cross the Maroon Creek Canyon without
having to use the existing vehicular bridge. The new bridge will therefore significantly
increase the safety and ease of travel for users of this popular commuter trail. The new
bridge will be located between 10- and 20-feet downstream from the existing Maroon Creek
Highway 82 bridge (a historically designated structure) and will be placed entirely within
the Highway 82 right-of-way owned by the State of Colorado. The new bridge will span
the 648-foot canyon at about the same grade as the existing vehicle bridge and will stand
on two piers or pillars located on either side of Maroon Creek. The existing overhead
electric wires spanning the Maroon Creek canyon will be removed and replaced with wiring
in conduit below the bridge deck, thereby improving the viewplane in this area. The design
of the bridge was developed with the following goals in mind:
to be as least impactive to Maroon Creek and the associated floodplain and wetlands
as possible;
to be sensitive to the historic nature of the existing Maroon Creek vehicle bridge;
to be readily placed and easily removed once a new vehicle bridge is placed as a
part of the proposed but as yet undetermined improvements to Highway 82.
I
The bridge will be used to carry trail traffic over the Maroon Creek canyon. The bridge will
not be constructed to provide access for nordic skiers. The reasons behind not providing
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
@printedonrecVcledpaper
County Commissioners
SuiteS
506 E. Main Street
Aspen. CO 8161 I
(303) 920-5150
County Attorney
Suite I
530 E. Main Street
Aspen,C081611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
SuiteF
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 8161 I
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81 61 I
(303) 920-5390
t""\
f""",.
t""';
n
nordic access with the new bridge are as follows:
The additional costs involved with providing for nordic use did not warrant the
temporary benefits received. Providing the added reinforcement required to support
up to 2-feet of packed snow and the piston bully snowcat used to pack trails would
increase the cost of the bridge by about 20%. Because the bridge as seen as a
temporary improvement, these added costs are hard to justify;
The federal funding to be used for a significant portion of the project does not allow
for enhancements. Providing for nordic use is considered an enhancement because
the existing bridge does not allow for this use;
Maintaining the new bridge for nordic purposes is problematic because of it's close
proximity to the highway;
Other alternatives exist to provide nordic access to the new golf course. The Elected
Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) has recently committed to pursue placing
a pedestrian/nordic bridge across the Maroon Creek Canyon near Iselin Park. In
addition, a nordic trail and bridge already exists on the valley floor near the project
site which could be upgraded to provide access to the new golf course.
Attached to this letter for your review please find the following:
ATTACHMENT 1: A vicinity map showing the location of the project;
ATTACHMENT 2: Preliminary designs of the bridge, showing location, type of
construction, elevations of the structure and details of piers and pier
foundations;
ATTACHMENT 3: Maroon Creek Floodplain information at and near the bridge location;
ATTACHMENT 4: A memorandum addressing the bridge's conformance with Stream
Margin Review Standards;
ATTACHMENT 5: A memorandum discussing construction access impacts to the trail and
to the existing Maroon Creek vehicle bridge during construction;
ATTACHMENT 6: Color photographs of existing conditions,at the proposed location of
the bridge;
ATTACHMENT 7: A fully executed fee agreement;
ATTACHMENT 8: Letters from the applicants granting permission for this land use
application to be submitted and a letter from the State of Colorado
~ assuring proof of ownership of the property.
(""\
(""\
i""-,
t '
f""',
n
ThaJ1k you for accepting this land use application. Because of the fast-paced nature of this
project, only the preliminary designs for the bridge are being submitted to you at this time.
The applicants will have detailed designs and site renderings on hand at the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting for presentation. If you have any questions concerning this
application, or require more information concerning the proposed improvements, please
contact me at 920-5209.
Sincerely,
PITKIN COUNTY PUBl
cc: Missing Link Project Team members
i
,
~~~~?~tt;
.,-,'. '.'~';
;~~~;ii~z::~~"""- ._.~.~'" . ."'""'''''.>'~
... . . ;;t;;::."'Sc:~~ ~TTACHMENT 3: r....:..>=..~'......>'..
'. .c' . .,. ,..~.""'~':_ .. . ,,,,,.,,.,, aroon Creek Floodplain .' ....
,\-.,;.,
----. --' ~
J
/. -..:::-
) ...
. -:1'-
?~
. '~\,
- .
\ \ '" '
'. , .,' 1
" \ j.~\
\ -/t ."
? )
-~
~
\.. +-
\. "
...~
.... '
,,\ ,..
."~ [
,.. ~\ >
. ~~ '.
/---" ~ \
l ~ \
~.
~,
."
.'''.}.
----'-,', ~
_.- /" ,.
.'
.. ~"
-"
.~
-'
~
--
v
-
-
,
\.
~.
'- ~
CI:TY
-
'"
..
, '\>
0-
o
"'-
,
"-
" ...
'-.
->-
-'~
..'~~
~,~-
.. ....... ......
-"" -
- '. ....
I;
!
. ,
! / ..
. II ' --
~ ....
,..J '..
c'
)\-z
.'
,
...
,
/
_.
~
\. -
\ .
\ I , ,.-
,--
"
I
:
,
!
-
,
-
,
- ,
" ~
~-,
'-'
i
,. .
.
I ~
I-
I
J
I
I
I
I
r
r-:
1
1
1
1
I
I
'I .
i. i
-oJ. i
'-1
1
J,
.. '<~~"9/:;,1,';.-
r'....,
," .'~o. rlT~!'1:T't "'~r)l
I I ! I I Ii!
I I ! -I! I I
I . I I I,
~"~~~t-~~NOO~OO~ O~ I
~~f;~3iJf~~tij~ .~~f'~~: i
~~~~~~~~h~~ ~oo 00001 I
~~t~~t~ht~~t~~ ~~I I
~;('~~~u;~~~r~~('~~t<;~ .~o: I I 1
O"~q~)~_~~~~,.~~ ~~I I'
~ ~ f; ] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.! ~ ~ g I ~ ~ il I' I
~~~~~t~~~~~ ~~ ~~ I
I ., I
'~ Ct; J~ ~ (.: +. ~ ~ ,t .~ ;.~~ +. ~ \~ . ~ ~ ! I i
~~~~~~'~.: ~~~:q::;~f~l~ If:1~~. I I
~~p~~~~~~~~ ~oo 0000,
~~T~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~f I
~~~~~k~~1.~~~.~~+.~~1 II
OOO~M~~O~~~~ ~~f~~ I
NW.. ~O~.0~~.)~n 000 M~ . I
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ro 0000
~~!~~f~~~~~ ~~ ~~
i; r I ;
I () i I ~ i 9 ~ ' I I
I~~ ci~fci~r~~f~~t..~~lcici I I
i5. , . ! ! I
!M~~ MNloo~.IWN1Nwlww,loo~i Ii
0" .. f. . . f. . . ," . . j. . . . . .
~o o-~w~~_~~ro~~~~ ~~,
~~ ~$ ~R( ~~~RlQ~~~ 1b1~)
3~ ~~ ~~ ~~~.~~r~~ ~~i I,
I I 'cot I'
I I en '
~ I ! )~.,.) ;:
~i~I~~~~~~~~~I~~~~t~~1 '
~~o O"~q~~_~~ ~~~~~~~ I
~3 0) I ('l)OCI'~v'O(~H~('l)(I)l 1l1n-(D0 [I(l)U') I
~ -I~~ ~~~~~~~~~~oo~oooo I
f ~ ~~i~~i~~~~~j~~l~~~i
I Ii! I I I
I ;-IOO~~~~lb_~~mN~N~ 00_, I
C~ M"';~{;~o.:$o~~djN';ci)O:O .0": I
O~ --~ ______ , _ __I
- - II I j I !
: 5 Iii I I I i
L -,..;{d';":f.,.:...;J;o..~~",,""''': I' I
u ~lroO~M_ NOO~ro~~~_ NO
~:.I.N-NN N-~-N~NN\NN I '
~". i I I! ! I I
r<t ~ Ii! i i. i I I
i:II';o~~":1\o~~..'~oL~,; .o~II' I
~~ ~n ~~ ~~~M~*~~ ~~
i 3- ill , 1
II I I i I
;,.~ 0 O"~~08~ "!? 8,0 ,
.p... CT ~f" .'t + N. 4' I
~a :. ~Q'i:;;:;;~I:1l jF.~~ I
,.;,) 1 )
1- '. !
.~ <lua ~wtW h~!Z,
00 00 ~oooo 00 001.
N 00 00 oo~oo 00 00
~ sO:';''; ";J:~~ ~~. _~~' ..
~~
;;
1-;:
PI
~.~
".~
,,",
-
,
~:
'->
~I
fig
.J~
'"
b
~ .,
H
ilio1
k
l"~
~ .
:<>
16
:-
b
w
!3
S
f
I
\.;
.
--n
ATTACHMENT 3:
Floodplain Cross-section
I ,
I
I I
I
,
I
,
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
~--t.
......~..L....L-4
... ...---- ~.. ~
'-' ~ ... . ':" . -:'~:::~.....":.}...':.."'..; ."....,.. ~.....i,.. .~,:.},;.'el<~.._,r:;,._.:~:_....~~,.,.,.,.,~."':~.~_:....,".,:.II~,WN,:~;'~.,".""
-..,~ ,'.., ......-..n. ..... ""1i~'-'" ....~ .. - ."~'. .'... .-- ...-." ',.:~:...~y."_"~.:'::"-~"..-'-...'-.~"":."'~'.".;.,,~,:",-,k.:.:.....::~.;'~..::."~...d...."':""'.::_~;:~'-" "F'_'.""-
. ..'\-'~~'.,:,c.:'~i.;~.-.~.~::,~.~;._(~.?-.;".~.~.;~i~,.','~,!~~~,~;~~'\;J,r~.~;~"L >>~ '"f ~ '~,,_,~,_ :'_, _ .
- . ."""",,~~"....,. "d-<''''..,... , ,(" "....'.L,.,'.,.,':.,.. ..
';-",--~~ ~:jlIr-;- ,I .\; ~ 'J::t'l'I~'t'f1j ,.1Tlll I f ~ ~
' : + ;. ;- -c-" ',_ 'i- , : i - u: .~g')A1TAC'AME," 3, r ~
- -' ,-,-:!:: -.' ,-' == -j,-, ,~-'-., " r- , ~ :::::;
, ~ ,., il- " .-- ~ ", -;- -1- + .. j:i ,i, .' . Floodplain Profile ,- -l-
,-'-.';"~-j:T . -'- '- ~ -1- , I!\
~ - ."- -,- , A ' + j:' -.'0" -, 1+, m.__ .., _ -Sl I. \
' -. -T ,. , '... ._' __ r' ..L' -'- , +: c-., ~
. ,I, -;.,-" -t-!:i- .".T -+ H ,. ~
l". -'- "-'~1' +- -+- ,~ .,. ',_ rO'ti -t~ , i l1= , ..;. 'J
T ,t-:-~, -, r--' -, -:' .--+- -- ~"~--:' . ':' -f 'T ',_, d- -+-+T- -, +Tr+ ~ ~
i .~ " .-.. ,- '~-" " f..f- T"', I -:l ' , C:i
,.- -.,. ,;. --, -0- -r" L ! ..,! --.. -, ,: ~ , i.
t. , f".' -0".-'- T 1::+ :\ \ ._..; 1-.. : ,.., ',--1\; +. --, ~ k
-~ ,.+- ".'., -l,.--~. + -'\.-- ", .. : . . ,L._, .., j.,..I-1 ~ I. \
1'-:-1-'" -', --1., ,I - -.-, .:c\. ' ' - - -'i . - u:. T " ' '. ~ TO'; iH
I --I-; ~t':' -- .- + -:rc:t ,~-- -1- -,-'!.. .. ..., ~.; I~~ =ct=-=i:,. ::~' L'~: iI" =, ~ it
. -'-_i. ' + ,..;. -..- T -. I --'- , 'I
-- ...+-ri- -- , 0" '- .-,' Tn' ,-.::....- I _",._ __.--.. __ 'T'rT ___ ! . ~ '-,
--i -t,r- --jj: ~ Tt+t+- -,-- , .::t~ +t:' '.,.. -., ' ...;.. 1 '" 1 I T ~~
-- ,+ '" '+'- .~ _l_ + T" " r'~. _, ,,_ t .. __ ___ . ,- r+ T 1 IT ' +_ _
-- -.-.- ,.1- ,- '--', ..., - '-,' ::i ,f' , -L _, .__' .~. ,.i, __ ':.1-- 'I I t
II 1,_, --L ' . 'I.'..~ 0'..
--- , ,'. -',' -t.: -,- +tt - -- -, '., -..\\ ;'T --- --.\. _ ,., ; ,. _ _ I,' :,'1' __ '. _._
.\ . I.:. ..l
~. ~~ --~" -. t- -1__ ~t- -~ "to, -.... - -\, I .... +--1 ,
. ,'-,- .,'.: - '\:1: I . , r. ,; "1 1
1- r'+ +, - , 4- -j ,. j!~. .~, -----. "', ,_., , 1
'-:-_;" f' .i r-i- i --..:. d \ 1,1., , ,. I
.- "--L -. : I , ,,1\ ".~. . i.!' i-L.' I ':, >'1"'-'
1-1 1- =- -, ..., ,- - I ,w. --:-r' I j_ 'T1
T-r~-; - .. ;,- T .c.+:.. ... ',,' 1- ':'-t~, - I:: ,-, .~._, , ., J-T
1 li-, '! - !" -; J' , ; . '-1 ~\u. r_._'.I~ 1.:._rT_- ~J_L. r'T' : I: -1. :,t .4. !_~ ~
!...- .-, ", -t. -. '-- ..:lll\. n. , " . ',_' I, . I !.,. . ~
.J "j-;"., ..- ---, q~1 . '" ',L '; -- -- : , , . ,t- --VI
.- ',- 'J;' t -,--" -'.'. Li~ ;__1 '1~*t-T-4 -, 1;' ----T' '1"
.r,'q .., " ,I ' +. -'\ '-'t--I- ',: '_; 1 ::1' 'iJi~r~
ill' ,q" ,: tl "',..: 1I-1\+-t--~-'H'.---rT-T1J' 'I; C:i
;;: ,. I, - " ,+ H ,-. 1 "',-J__' i 1; , '-u "-+.C IJ,
' -",:,:, -- " 'T --- '.- .:. ...:.:! i '_ll I . I . 1 \ ' j .. " t ~
:~:~, '1, '- ,.---,::1:,--1_:... ~1\.'l-1-tl...'" ~L ., _:~. _ : :_I'I=lt;,>
.. --. Lt' =1 I: 'i:" .., -. - L\ ~\ " '1'1'
'!'. ',- 'I -\'t.t 1 tt. '.! ':..:. +-:-1-- I' '';:,
h .~} -, !la!::7' toM OJ}le '.2 -'- _1 ',(S
, .LL ILlJ' l-j-'r..\\\i --1.1,' ,". ~ if-' ct
Vi' . J. --:1. i \!\\\ I 1 I _
-r--r,'I""I"'" I ',r ' v. r-' !'" I '" 'i . I : . I ' I I 'l\
- ,- : ; . U-! ,Ii,. 1 'M --' __ , r--h" '.
.. ,I '-". __...'j..\.; ._' ., j-'..H, , ' \.,. ; il' ~~,
... -;.. +,+-,., .,' - J.: +t ' L. L2..LL , ,
'i! -r ., i i 'i i' -; .1 I';: _I: "', I \- _.;-.:;. i I _" _; _, ~
. i-. ,,+- '.1:':x : j i' lL ! IlJ ' , ,,;.. i ~
;:~ 7: ;j~ ' , '~'fl[;,: _~"
, ': ':,::::: IFFfl:-,.,. J;' '~, : ' ~ -'- 0
- ':,- :: ~ ,-, " ::, , ,- - ,;' 'I H, '. .11, \1.. " \ 1 . " :. -- " ~
' -=-- ..., i '., , '.', '1 i: i , _
-, -=- , ' t" . r. .-. -'- ,I -, " ':l I, i . i . .l. ' ;. _,' !:
,'""', -, 'IHI t" ,.' + ,- -.1-1 r .U ';- , _: : If ~ _I_ "
- , '..j~. "-'. +;., .1., : .,.. I., '__:c,_;. , c,
T '-.:t.., -- T.2, . , L- ;. "
=~~ ~ --~~ -T:~T -':i~ :.~L~ :H"J:: '::: ...:- ~-,~" ~~t -;1 "ji~! i
I + -'f-- I ".- -. .- .....- _.j tt'"" -.- r".c _ t
.:.:..rr "'h -" -T..:.u" +::: +jil'-"1... '~, ... . ....::......:
":,;'''.
.,,,,,,.:.:.i.iii.,,,. ~ '~i,;;'~1-i.,"'-~""""""~ :;r~, .........~.,
.:>t'~~'~-"\f:..,..,n:..,,:~~:t.'l~"rl'"'' .m...",... 1111"'- ...._
~..- ,~.....",i.""..,.......ii...
,:;;,;: 'rc', ::i;llb
'''! 'i1!If1-'~
1.D
~
<;:)~
';~
2~
I
I
I
,
)
(""'\
'"'
,-'
.~
ATTACHMENT 4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM:
Tom Newland
RE:
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge:
Conformance with Stream Margin Review Standards
DATE:
April 11, 1995
==========================-======='=~========
This purpose of this memorandum is to describe how the design of the Maroon Creek
Pedestrian Bridge conforms with applicable Stream Margin Review Standards.
Section 7-504(c) of the Aspen City Code describes the Stream Margin Review standards.
Any development proposed that is within 1 DO-feet from the high water mark, within the
floodplain where the floodplain extends beyond 1 DO-feet from the high water mark, or
within a flood hazard zone of a stream such as Maroon Creek shall not be permitted unless
the proposed development complies with all of the standards as highlighted below:
1.
It can be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base
flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
The two piers of the bridge are located approximately 1 DO-feet from the high water mark
of Maroon Creek. In addition, the piers are entirely removed from the 1 DO-year floodplain,
being at least 60-feet from the edge of the floodplain as determined within the 1985 Flood
Insurance Studv conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This
study is included in this land use application package as ATTACHMENT 3, and the
floodplain is delineated in detail on the bridge plans (ATTACHMENT 2). As the piers are
not situated in the floodplain, no increase in the base flood elevation will occur.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use.
The pedestrian bridge will be a part of the AABC Trail as defined within the comprehensive
plan. This trail is a dedicated public trail, currently owned by Pitkin County and maintained
by the City of Aspen.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent possible.
The trail will be within the designated greenway, but is an allowed use based upon the
f""". greenway plan.
.,-."
r)
~..
4.
No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and
sedimentation of the stream bank.
ATTACHMENT 2 illustrates the proposed placement of the piers on the valley floor.
Caissons have been used for foundations of the four legs on each pier, reducing the impact
of construction near the creek to a minimum. Only a small, localized excavation is required
to place each caisson, reducing the potential for sedimentation to reach the creek. In
addition, construction fencing and sediment dams (hay bales) will be placed around the
areas of pier foundation construction . When placing the piers, abutments and bridge,
measures will be taken by the contractor to insure that construction debris does not enter
the stream from above. Any excess excavated materials will be hauled away from the site.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development reduces pollution and
interference with the natural changes of the river, stream or tributary.
The proposed pedestrian bridge spans the Maroon Creek canyon at the level of the existing
vehicular bridge standing on only two piers. The piers are located on land that is removed
from the floodplain and about 100-feet away from the high water mark.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
.f'!""'\
No alteration of the water course will take place, either temporary or permanent, through
this proposed development.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered and relocated, that
applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
No alteration of the water course will take place, either temporary or permanent, through
this proposed development.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work
within the 100-year floodplain.
No work will be conducted within the 100-year floodplain. The applicants have applied
for a U.S. Army Corps 404 Nation-wide Permit for the work. Attached for your review is
a copy of correspondence between our hydrologist, Earth Resource Investigations, Inc., and
the local u.s. Army Corps of Engineers Office regarding the permit application. Work will
not commence on the project until the 404 Permit is secured.
r--,
In addition to the 404 Permit, the applicants will apply for and receive an Excavation Permit
from the City of Aspen and a Right-of-way Permit from the Department of Transportation
prior to initiating work on the project.
I
,..c'."......, .j).....:....,...(-
^
^
^
-
^
,
n
ATTACHMENT 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM:
Tom Newland
RE:
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge:
Mitigation of Construction Access and Trail Use Impacts
DATE:
April 11, 1995
===========================================
This purpose of this memorandum is to describe how the construction plan for the Maroon
Creek Pedestrian Bridge will mitigate impacts of construction access and impacts to use the
of the AABC trail.
It is anticipated that construction on the project can begin in early July. The goal of the
project team is to have the bridge finished and operational by no later than October 31 sl.
During the construction of the bridge, every effort will be taken to prevent impacts to
Maroon Creek. The water course must be crossed with a pile-driving rig to place the
foundations for the bridge piers. This rig will most likely be mounted on a wheeled vehicle.
Access to the Maroon Creek Canyon Floor will be gained by the existing primitive road
located along the east side of the river downstream from the project site. Please see the
attached map for the exact location of the proposed access route. This road is on property
owned by the City of Aspen. If at all possible, the existing Helm Bridge, located
immediately upstream from the construction site on the valley floor, will be used to cross
the creek. . If it is not possible to use the Helm bridge, an existing creek crossing, used by
the nordic council piston bully snowcat, will be used for access to the west pier
construction site. If used, the crossing will be designated in the field prior to use and will
be revegetated and otherwise restored to it's pre-existing condition. The piers will be
constructed on the valley floor and hoisted into position with cranes. The bridge deck will
then be placed on the piers using two cranes, one positioned on the valley floor and other
positioned near the abutments or on the existing Maroon Creek bridge.
If a portion of the AABC trail needs to be closed during construction of the abutments,
adequate notice of such closure will be displayed in the local papers at least one week in
advance detailing the reasons for closure, the length of closure and the designated detour.
Closures of the down-valley lane of traffic on Highway 82 may occur during construction
but will not impact rush-hour traffic and will be adequately signed and flagged. The
applicants will try to have the bridge decking placed at night to further reduce impacts to
traffic on the Maroon Creek Bridge.
j
I
.
In addition to these mitigation measures, the applicants agree to place all conditions of
approval that may be forthcoming through the land use approval process on the construction
drawings and in the cOnstruction specifications.
,11".'.
,
,"-""
(""oPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS ROUTE 000000000 ~
~
(;
a
r==
I .,
I 17>>
I D
R
I
I
I
I
J
tf""'..
rJ
("l
""j!
ATTACHMENT 6
Site Photos
-.,
f )
Trail Alignment Looking West
!"')
Trail Alignment Looking West
,......,
t: j
1"'1
n
.,
Soccer Field Looking South
r,
.'
t""'"
Soccer Field Looking South
r-
I""'l
Soccer Field Looking South
West Abutment
i)
r\
f"'\
Soccer Field Looking South
East Abutment
f""'\
rj
{i
ATTACHMENT 7
t\
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Al:reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Pitkin County, Colorado
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
f"""'; 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
f"""';
r..
-
f"'\
1""'\
! .. ,..,
n
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 2202.00
which is for _ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
By:~m~
Diane Moore
City Planning Director
B. Newland, Applicant's Representative
ailing Address: 530 East Main St.
Suite 301, Aspen, CO 81611
Date: April 14, 1995
2
~
t-' ATTACHMENT 8:
Letters From the Applicants
Pitkin County
April 12, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT LAND USE APPLICATION
MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Dear Mary;
Please accept this letter as Pitkin County's intent to have a land use application for the
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Project submitted jointly with the City of Aspen and the
Colorado Department of Transportation. The co-applicants representative for this land use
application will be:
Tom Newland
Deputy Director of Public Works
Pitkin County Courthouse Plaza
530 East Main Street
Suite 301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5209
(970) 920-5198 (fax)
Please direct any questions or correspondence concerning the land use application to Tom
Newland.
Sincerely..
(Q~
Reid Haughey, County Manager
I
Administration
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor
Aspen. CO 81611
(303) 920-5200
FAX 920-5198
@PrintedonreCYCledPaper
County Commissioners
SuiteS
506 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5150
County Attomey
Suite I
530 E. Main Street
Aspen,C08l611
(303) 920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 920-5220
Transportation
Facilities
76 Service Center Road
Aspen,C08l611
(303)920-5390
.
r'\
t")
("",
April 12, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT LAND USE APPLICATION
MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
Dear Mary;
Please accept this letter as the City of Aspen's intent to have a land use application for the
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Project submitted jointly with Pitkin County and the
Colorado Department of Transportation. The co-appl icants representative for th is land use
~ application will be:
Tom Newland
Deputy Director of Public Works
Pitkin County Courthouse Plaza
530 East Main Street
Suite 301
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5209
(970) 920-5198 (fax)
Please direct any questions or correspondence concerning the land use application to Tom
Newland.
Sincerely,
1i3if ~
Bill Efting, Acting City Manager
r1
r,
r"\
.
r-.,
..- ~...~... ....-- . ........
.~-~, .. .... ---
.... ."........ .
/,.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Re&l0tl 3
Mount Soprl. T'anspot'~ll;OlI P,o;ect
0020 SurIool 001...., Unit /19
8osalt,o>Ior.81621
(303) 927-9852, 'ox, (303) 927.9280
STATE OF COLORADO
~
-
April 13, 1995
Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: SUPPORT FOR LAND USE APPLICATION
MAROON CREEK PEDeSTRIAN BRIDGE
Dear Mary,
Please accept this letter as the Colorado Department ot Transportation's support lor the
use application tor the Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Project submitted jointly by the
City of Aspen and the Pitkin County. The Department believes that constl'\Jcti(jn .01 this
bridge is critical for the safety of the traveling public and bike/pedestrian users.. .
The project will be constructed entirely within the State Highway 82 rlght-ot-way, which is
owned exclusively by the Colorado Department of Transportation. Attached is a copy of
the Highway 82 right-ot-way maps describing our ownership in this area.
Please direct any questions or correspondence concerning this letter to the Mount Sopris
Project Manager.
Sincerely,
R.P. Maston
Regional Transportation Director
by #lIA -
Ralph Trapani ~
f"""',. Mount Sopris Transportation Project Manager
Ij
~
ASPEN/PITKIN
COM~TYDEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
laM:
City Engineer
Environmental Health Department
Parks Department
Historic Preservation Officer
Alan Czenkusch, DOW -iI- 9 ~ <.) - 47 q 'i3
Mary Lackner, Planner
Maroon Creek Pedestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review
Parcel ID No. 2735-111
April 18, 1995
'.
.
for your review and comments is an application submitted by Pitkin County and the
~pen.
n your comments to me no later than APRIL 21.
~
MESSAGE DISPLAY
Reo t.
derl;;
TO
Mary Lackner
From: Stan Clauson
Postmark: Mar 07,95 11:50 AM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Reply to: Maroon Creek Bridge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Stan Clauson:
No code amendment required. The bridge is incidental and suppportive
to the path system.
Preceding message:
From Mary Lackner:
I was reviewing the permitted uses in the OS zone district of section
5-220.1 of the Muni Code. The only permitted use that I see comes
close to the pedestrian bridge is "paved and unpaved walkways."
There are no conditional uses in this zone. Do you believe they need
a code amendment to permit a pedestrian bridge as a conditional use?
or do you see the pedestrian bridge as a permitted "paved walkway"?
Please advise. Thanks
-------========x========-------
Project .. {ffflmll {/~/: h?/. I?ndf(1,
Applicant's Represen tive -roM NtlA/ /01'11 v
Representative's Phone 0- 5/10'1
Owner'sName Pil):/;' to{/;1~Y / C[)OT / City of ~
Type of Application ~/lLl!m M~ 1'rJ IZ e wd-v,
Description of the project/developmentgeing requested
/nJfdldltiYJ oj He:! bnf!p "- /0 /~,d (.,vl.;!t
" . -/s-
f1t +tf&~hiY /VI,,;m, f'rljj Im(/e
^
()
City of Aspen
Pre-Application Conference Summary
/14ft 0uJ/lt r '3 h / fS'
Planner Date
OFt f&
.ao,./I,
':/&01/1 1"1- olO; (Yo"", Tv
The applicant has been requested to respond to the following items and provide the following
reports: . .
Land Use Code Section
Comments
$'-"),)0, :J.
()
7 -5'01
"lll#t!I/'VI /LItf/4lh ytU//iU(/
v .e ,OJIV;1 C.t:J/llro I ~
71'tu.J'daJl/M.<! (i.<JI1WVt:!U" Mt'I/",,(u;:-,
,fJItMrp; '7/M/; .~
The review isCfr&Z Ol~ (CC only) (P&Z and CC)
Public Hearing: (yes) ~
Deposit for thc Application Review'
Referral agcncy flat fees: Z
TOTALDEI'OSIT $ .2010
(Additional hours are bill rate of /hr.)
1147
Referral Agelldes
?A1/tV/
fhv. I-/"dfh
tlow
(.001
HI'C--
hd:S
''''
To Apply Submit the Following Infonualion:
~
~
$
f91
(]).
ProoCof ownership.
Signcd fce agreement.
Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a leUer signed by the applicant
which also states the name, address and telephone number of the representative.
Tutal deposit for review of the applicatiun $J.RoQ. .
& copies of the complete application packet and maps.
Summary letter explaining thc requcst (existing cunditiuns and proposed uses), including
street address and legal description of the property.
An 8 1/2" by II" vicinity map localing the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site plan shall include properly boundaries, lot size, propused access, and physical
features (drainageways, ,streams, rivers, etc.)
odtlt1.t<M CtJdl AkftorcJ abo~
My"- 1M ,:;;~/J ~ /~,j{P
..e.u "M"", ...(. ~.~ J1 n.tY./jlaftu
. ." I
These itcms lie.ed to be submitted if circled:
cf>
@
List of adjacent properly owners within )00 feet of the subject property with addresses.
Site photos.
Proof of legal access tu the parcel.
Historic Preservation COlllmission review/approval.
l2~1\ - 00006,.. o~