HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20081210ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
December 10, 2008
5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISITS: on your own
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes -Oct. 22, and Nov. 12th 2008 minutes.
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
334 W. Hallam -fence and landscape (20 min.)
VII. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #30)
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Red Butte Cemetery -Conceptual and On-site relocation,
continued Public Hearing (lhour, 15 min.)
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. None
X. WORK SESSION
A. 601 W. Hallam Street (30 min.)
XI. Adjourn 7:20 p.m.
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
1V~otion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Conceptual),
Public Hearing
DATE: December 10, 2008
SUMMARY: Red Butte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 19~' century and
located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte' and Aspen Grove are in active use and
privately owned and maintained. Ute Cemetery, Aspen's first, is owned by the City and has not
had burials since approximately the 1930's.
HPC is asked to consider the Red Butte Cemetery Association's proposal to construct a new
maintenance shop and to rehab an existing historic cabin for visitor information. The caretaker
unit that was previously proposed in this project has been eliminated. In addition, the
applicant no longer seeks to relocate a historic outhouse in the southeast corner of the site.
HPC was given an introduction to the project in the summer of 2007 and held a public hearing on
January 9, 2008. A second meeting and site visit-were planned for February 27~', 2008, but
cancelled since the site was inundated with snow.
Lengthy discussion took place in January 2008, ending with the majority of the board concluding
that the proposed maintenance structure and caretaker unit should be physically separated.
Additional discussion and a site visit occurred on June 11, 2008. At that time the board appeared
to find that residential use of the nature that was proposed was incompatible with the site. The
applicant has responded to HPC input with a revised,plan.
~~=
Staff is sympathetic to the high level of maintenanc'c`required to care for the collection of grave
markers, historic structures and landscape features on this site. It appears that the Association
has very inadequate operational facilities at this time. Aside from the infrastructure needs, the
costs to properly preserve this site are likely very high. As a comparison, to repair and reset
approximately 75 markers at Ute Cemetery in 2005 was $100,000 and those markers are, for the
most part, smaller and less decorative than what exists at Red Butte. The application submitted
for this project indicates that there are currently 2,800 graves and over two hundred large
cottonwoods trees to be cared for. The cemetery serves a critical community need and appears to
be large enough to continue to be active long into the future thanks to the efforts of the non-profit
association and the many volunteers who've served on its board over the years. They deserve
community support for their mission and stewardship responsibilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff. supportSConceptual approval of the redesigned
,,
maintenance building, with conditions. We recommend that the building and work yard be set
at natural grade, without berms or excavation to hide the building in a manner that is
inconsistent with the historic character and topography of the site. We recommend that further
consideration be given to placing the structure orthogonal to the grid established by the roads
and grave plots on the site. And we recommend that the Cemetery, in consultation with the City
Forester, begin extending the cottonwoods established in the historic cemetery into the north
meadow in order to screen the new building and help tie it into the site.
At Final review, site management planning should be discussed, as detailed in the following
memo.
APPLICANT: Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning
Services and Graeme Means, Architect.
PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851.
ADDRESS: 808 Cemetery Lane, a parcel of land-located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10
South, Range 85 West of the 6~' P.M., City and: Tow~~site of Aspen.
ZONING: P, Park.
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Conceptual level, is as follows. Staff
reviews the submittal materials and prepares a report that analyzes the project's conformance
with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code Sections. This report is
transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of
Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve
with conditions, or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to
make a decision to approve or deny.
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a Conceptual
Development Plan, and then a Final , Develppr~ent Plan. Approval of a Conceptual
Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC. in regards to the location and form of the
envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the Conceptual Plan application
including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No changes will be made to this aspect of
the proposed development by the HPC as part of their review of the Final Development Plan
unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and proportions of a
proposal. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A."
2
Red Butte Cemetery was first identified as a historic resource during the City of Aspen's 1980
city-wide inventory. Although inclusion on the inventory offered some measure of protection, to
staff s knowledge the site was not formally designated until the adoption of Ordinance # 5, Series
of 1996.
The proposed project is unique in the sense that the primary significance of the site is as a
historic landscape. Only minor accessory buildings of the period are present. While there are
relatively few designed historic landscapes in Aspen, we have adopted relevant guidelines that
are cited throughout this memo. In addition, the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines" establish the policies enforced by HPC, including the following:
Historic landscapes and landscape elements that remain intact should be preserved. Additions to
the landscape should be compatible with the historic context of the district or landmark property.
Excerpts from the Secretary of the Interior's "Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes" are attached. While these guidelines have not been specifically adopted by the City,
and therefore cannot be requirements for the Red Butte project, they are the philosophical basis
for Aspen's regulations and are consistent with the analysis provided by staff in this memo.
This site was once ranch lands, assembled to form ~a'.cEmetery at the end of the 19th century. The
property is large (almost 17 acres). Annexed into'tkae .City of Aspen in 1968, it is now bordered
by the subdivisions of the Cemetery Lane neighborhood.
The existing infrastructure for the cemetery is limited to some visitor information available at the
southern end of the site, and a temporary structure and maintenance yard towards the north.
There are not proper utilities available to support maintenance needs, and neighbors have
indicated that the result is unsightly. The Association is attempting to improve this situation.
The project has changed substantially since first submitted for HPC review. A proposed
caretaker unit has been eliminated, the building has been cut to approximately half the original
size and restudied architecturally,. and the work yard has been reduced in size.
Staff finds that the need for a permanent maintenance structure at Red Butte Cemetery is entirely
valid. It is hard for us to fully assess the size of the facility needed, but the Association obviously
has first-hand knowledge and the property is large and contains more gravesites than the other
two cemeteries in Aspen. Typical equipment and resources that might be required include
mowers, tools, cement, block and tackle or other means of lifting heavy gravestones,
tractor/truck, and perhaps excavation equipment that would be permanently kept on site. This
building also includes a warm room and bathroom.: Public access to the bathroom could be a
great amenity on this property, if potential security issues could be solved.
Maintenance building
Staff supports the traditional form that has been used for the design of the building, finding that
the following guidelines are met:
3
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on
the parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs aze appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similaz to those seen traditionally in the
context. ~~
Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the
street aze discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
We do, however, recommend further consideration of placing the building orthogonal to the
historic grid on the site, rather than at an angle to it. The grid pattern is very important on this
site and the only historic structures to reference (the shed and outhouse) relate to the grid. While
the following guideline was written primarily to address new construction set within a
neighborhood, the concept of respecting the layout of the surrounding "development" is cleaz.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
It was staff who had suggested during the previous reviews that the applicant look at the pro's
and con's of setting the maintenance structure into .grade to reduce its profile. At that time we
were looking at a lazger structure of a more contempgrary form. Since that time the program has
been reduced and the building is more vernacular~n character. We have visited the site with
Scott Chism, Landscape Architect with the Pazk~ Department. Scott recommends as follows:
"After walking the cemetery property it was very obvious that the existing and historic
landscape of that cemetery is essentially flat with rows of cottonwood trees planted along the
lanes between plots. I believe that a significant constructed landform would appear different
and out of context from both the existing developed cemetery landscape and the existing
undeveloped property. Some very low (approximately 1'-0" to 1'-6") undulations exist on
the undeveloped property but when the site is viewed as a whole, it generally seems flat.
There is currently a small outbuilding located at the south-southeast corner that is both
handsome and simple in design. That building has no lazge land forms azound it so I'm not
convinced that land forms would be necessary or appropriate for the proposed small
building. Currently there is a rough land form approximately 5'-0" high on the north side of
the existing tent building to presumably screen the building and small amount of equipment
from view by neighbors to the west. Given that the proposal includes enclosed bins or cribs
for materials and that the proposed building is intended to house the equipment, I question
the need for lowering the pazking/work area and/or adding land forms. Both actions will
likely result in a higher cost to the property ,owner for earthwork operations and land
restoration. The proposed building massing 'shown on the drawings you provided looks
4
appropriate and it seems to me that the exterior materials could be selected such that the
building appearance would be attractive without land forms. As a result, I am suggesting the
simple implementation of tree plantings (and irrigation) that will both extend the existing tree
rows as well as provide visual screening of the azea as an added benefit. I do not suggest
significant earthwork other than that which is necessary to grade awork/turnaround area to
surface drain properly. Attached are two simple plan sketches that illustrate my site design
recommendation.
During our meeting, the City Forester, Chris Forman joined us. As a representative of the
city Parks Department, he stated a willingness to help the cemetery managers (at no cost)
with tree health assessment, disturbed landscape restoration suggestions, and weed control
suggestions."
°:r
HPC staff agrees that the building should be placed on natural grade, with no berms except
possibly the modest grading that Parks suggests could happen on the north side of the maintance
building (assuming no further encroachment into the sage.) Money that would have been spent
to set the maintenance building into grade would be better used to begin extending the rows of
cottonwoods as shown below.
.~ , ,
~--~' ~
~~~
~~
~~
~~
~. «~,,~~
~~~. ~ ~`;
b ~~~
1v GL~E~ ~
r~ ~~
~~~
~~ ~.
rrlr
!~''~'v.
i
5
L'~'' ~!N64l~, ,vl/c~Q•'t/ ; .97" /u{ j L3r~'`2,c;~'
~v- , .
C~ l.~/~' '~°
~~ ~"
,i~
~i~
.~
,~
1
~~
~1 t
. 1
o~
~`
~~
I
i
I
In the current site plan, the maintenance building is at the north end of the work yard, whereas in
earlier versions is was at the south end of this area. The architect should describe the rationale
for the siting, given the concerns to limit impacts on neighbors and protect the sage meadow.
Staff s understanding is that the applicant has worked to tighten the area for the spoils yard and
vehicle turnarounds.
Historic buildings
The applicant proposes restoration work on the historic cabin and shed, as represented in the
attached drawings. Staff supports this aspect of the application.
Site Management
In addition to the efforts related directly to the`'new structure, staff recommends that the
Cemetery Association create a site management plan that addresses the long-term strategy for
replacement of aging cottonwoods. The Parks Department has offered to help with this
assessment free of charge. In addition, Parks has offered assistance with weed management since
thistle and other nuisance plants have invaded the cemetery. Parks has recommended that
historic ditches on the property be re-established to provide irrigation water and protect historic
water rights. The City has a good track record in terms of cemetery preservation with our efforts
at Ute Cemetery and Aspen Grove. We can work with Red Butte Cemetery to suggest best
6
practices for general maintenance, grave work, restoration of markers, and recommendations for
visitors (such as discouraging grave rubbings, which can be destructive.) We appreciate the
significant needs of this important historic site and would like to be helpful.
The HPC may:
• approve the application,
• approve the application with conditions,'
• disapprove the application, or
• continae the application to a date certain to obtain additional information necessary
to make a decision to approve or deny.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the application be granted Conceptual approval.
Ideally, the applicant should bring revised drawings that resolve the following issues to the HPC
hearing; placement of the maintenance building and work yard at natural grade, placement of the
building orthogonal to the historic grid, screening of the building with cottonwood plantings as
recommended by the Pazks Department, and explanation of why the new structure should be on
the north, rather than south end of the work yard. If drawings cannot be prepared that quickly,
HPC may be comfortable granting Conceptual with conditions to be resolved at Final.
For Final application, Staff recommends the applicant meet again with the City and other
resources to provide HPC with an update on site management plans as described in this memo.
Exhibits:
Resolution #^, Series of 2008
A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines
B. Application
C. Minutes of June 11, 2008
D. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
7
"Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Red Butte Cemetery, Conceptual Review"
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
^ Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
^ If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species of a
large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
1.12 Preserve and maintain historically significant planting designs.
^ Retaining historic planting beds, landscape features and walkways is encouraged.
1.13 Revisions or additions to the landscape should be consistent with the historic context
of the site.
^ Select plant and tree material according to its mature size, to allow for the long-term
impact of mature growth.
^ Reserve the use of exotic plants to small areas for accent.
^ Do not cover grassy areas with gravel, rock or paving materials.
10.2 Amore recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
^ The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid
pattern of the site.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings on the
parcel.
^ Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
^ The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
^ The front should include aone-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
^ They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen~fraditionally in the block.
^ Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
^ Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it' is appropriate to the context.
^ On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in the
context.
^ Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the street
are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.lOThe imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
^ This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
^ Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's history
are especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.23Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive.
^ Large parking areas should be screened from view from the street.
^ Divide large parking lots with planting areas. (Large parking areas are those with more than
five cars.)
^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature.
^ Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas should be scleened from adjacent
lots and the street.
8' '-'~
. ,~ ,