The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20100224ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2010 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 130 S. GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO SITE VISITS: None I. Roll call I. Approval of minutes - II. Public Comments III. Commission member comments IV. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent) V. Project Monitoring: VI. Staff comments: Certificate of No Negative Effect issued (Next resolution will be #3) VIL OLD BUSINESS A. NONE VIII. NEW BUSINESS -PUBLIC HEARING A. 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery, Major Development (Final) Public Hearing (i hr. 15 min.) IX. WORK SESSIONS A. Design Guidelines -Building alterations and new construction X. OTHER A. XI. 7:30 p.m. Adjourn 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) Motion 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. - hh P1 K` MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 808 Cemetery Lane, Red Butte Cemetery- Major Development (Final), Public Hearing DATE: February 24, 2010 SUMMARY: Red Butte Cemetery is one of three cemeteries established in the 19`h century and located within the City of Aspen. Both Red Butte and Aspen Grove aze 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 proposed facilities aze needed to manage the 2,800 graves, 17 acres of land, and over two hundred lazge cottonwoods trees to be cared for on this site. The cemetery serves a critical community need and appeazs to be ]azge enough to continue to be active long into the future. In December 2008, HPC granted Conceptual approval for the proposed building, with conditions. The applicant proceeded through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council reviews in order to establish their allowable FAR and to receive exemptions from affordable housing mitigation. Pending HPC's final design approval, the project will be allowed five yeazs vested rights (per City Council) to provide enough time for the Association to fundraise or otherwise prepaze for construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Final approval for the project with the condition that, to better comply with the design guidelines, the siding and roofing material on the maintenance building be wood or asphalt, rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. In addition, some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave mazkers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. Staff recommends that aspen trees not be planted azound the maintenance building.. 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 pazcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6`h P.M., City and Townsite.of Aspen. ZONING: P, Pazk. 1 P2 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) The procedure for a Major Development Review, at the Final 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 Development Plan. Approval of a Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the Location and form of the envelope ojthe 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 ojtheir review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant Staff Response: Final review deals with details such as the landscape plan, lighting, fenestration and selection of new materials. A list of the relevant design guidelines is attached as "Exhibit A." Only those guidelines where discussion is needed aze included in the memo. The proposed project is unique in the sense that the primary significance of the site is as a historic landscape. Only minor accessory buildings from the 19`s century aze present. While there are relatively few designed historic landscapes in Aspen, 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 landmazk property. This site was once ranch lands, assembled to form a cemetery at the end of the 19`h century. The property is large (almost 17 acres). Annexed into the 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 yazd towazds the north. There aze 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. Conceptual review required three meetings, and some new members have subsequently joined the boazd. Staff has attached the minutes of the previous hearings for everyone's reference. . 2 P3 Maintenance building Staff finds that the need for a permanent maintenance structwe at Red Butte Cemetery is entirely valid. 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. The new building also includes a warm room and bathroom. HPC accepted the size, form, and location of the. maintenance building at conceptual. Approval was granted with the following conditions: 1. The building is to be set at natural grade, or slightly. below grade, to avoid any berming or anomalous forms in the landscape. Depressing the workyazd slightly below grade is acceptable. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonal to the gridded plots of the cemetery, to be evaluated with HPC at Final approval. 3. Develop a comprehensive plan for management of the cemetery landscape, including the open meadow. The applicant has provided detailed responses to these conditions in the application. In summary, the building itself is set at grade, however there is some sitework and re-grading proposed in order to shield the work yazd from view. The ground will be feathered out azound the construction area in order to avoid any obvious alterations. Staff believes this satisfies HPC's concern. The applicant proposes that the orientation of the new building, slightly skewed from the- grid created by the streets and plots, is appropriate, consistent with the placement of the Victorian era buildings on the bite, and the best solution for limiting the footprint of the work azea. Staff accepts their position. The applicant has provided a plan for management of the landscape. This was an important ' element of the Conceptual review discussion; due to concems about the long-term strategy for replacement of aging cottonwoods and weed management. The plan. has been written in cooperation with some neighbors of the site (and the City Forester) and attempts to address the criticisms and concems raised dwing the review process. The application notes that fact that, since the review began, neighbors have volunteered time to help caze for the property. The City has offered a number of services in the futwe as well. It is very important that the Association receive support and assistance like this. The City has recently sponsored the creation of preservation plans for Ute Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery. Both of those docwnents `include suggestions about preferred landscape maintenance practices that will best avoid damage to gravemazkers. For instance, it is important to be swe that irrigation heads aze directed away from mazkers, that mowers, grass trimmers, or other tools don't gouge grave stones, etc. Trees and shrubs within 2 feet of of gravemazkers or fence encloswes should be removed. We recommend that the adopted landscape management plan include some similaz guidance. 3 P4 One other topic previously brought up is the importance of re-establishing ditches to provide irrigation water and protect historic water rights. Plans for completing, or not completing this work should be discussed. New landscaping is proposed azound the maintenance building. The plan calls for serviceberry, gambel oak, and aspen trees. The Cemetery Association does not appear to prefer installing aspen trees, but they aze included in the plan as a means to address neighbor concerns with screening. Staff does not support aspen trees. Page 2 of the landscape management plan notes that "cottonwood trees aze the dominant form of vegetation in the Cemetery and establish a visual rhythm and canopy for the property. These trees aze considered to be the preferred vegetative form in the Cemetery." Other types of trees which have sprung up or been planted over the years aze called out to be removed. Planting 25 aspens azound the new maintenance building is contrary to the plan and the following guideline: 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 azeas for accent. ^ Do not cover grassy azeas with gravel, rock or paving materials. To the right is a sketch produced by Scott Chism of the Pazks Department, during Conceptual review. Although the cottonwood trees depicted in this drawing will not be planted for some time, the drawing illustrates the strength of the cottonwood rows, and the inconsistency that would be created by a grove of aspen on the north and west sides of the new building. c~ ~-,-, ` I .,~~ i ~l~ `~~~ ~~ 71~ ~~~ fi°~'t ~7U~n TYv~Ef~s C'V's. With regazd to the azchitectural design of the maintenance building, HPC must make findings on the proposed lighting, fenestration, and materials. Staff recommends that the rusted corrugated 4 P5 material be discussed. The small historic buildings on the site aze painted clapboard and likely had wood shingle roofs originally. Vdhile the new building need not match the. Victorian structures, .staff finds the rusted metal to be too informal for this cemetery. In addition, we believe that the coloring (possibly more orange than brown) may be a bit too bold and call more attention to the structure than desired. The following guidelines aze relevant: 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those used traditionally. ^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appeaz similaz in scale and finish to those used historically on the site aze encouraged: ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. We recommend a wood siding, natural or stained, is more appropriate, as would be a neutral color roof, either wood or asphalt shingle. Historic buildines The applicant proposes restoration work on the historic cabin and outhouse, as represented in the attached drawings. Staff supports this aspect. of the application. As clarification, any new framing added to the cabin and outhouse should supplement, not replace the existing structure. The HPC may: • approve the application, • approve the application with conditions, • disapprove the application, or • continue 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 Final approval, with the following conditions (along with standazd conditions of approval listed in the resolution):. 1. The siding and roofing material on the maintenance building aze to be wood or asphalt, rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. 2. Some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. 3. Aspen trees should not be planted azound the maintenance building. Exhibits: Resolution # ,Series of 2010 A. Relevant HPC Design Guidelines B. HPC Minutes of January 9, 2008, June 11, 2008, and December 10, 2008 C. Application 5 P6 "Exhibit A: Relevant Design Guidelines for Red Butte Cemetery, Final 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 yeazs 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. 1.15 Minimize the visual impacts of site lighting. ^ Site lighting should be shielded to avoid glaze onto adjacent properties. Focus lighting on walks and entries, rather than up into trees and onto facade planes. 11.8 Use building materials that contribute to a traditional sense of human scale. ^ Materials that appear similaz in scale and finish to those used historically on the site aze encouraged. ^ Use of highly reflective materials is discouraged. 11.7 Roof materials should appear similar in scale and texture to those.used traditionally. ^ Roof materials should have a matte, non-reflective finish. 11.9 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those of .the historic property. ^ These include windows, doors and porches. ^ Overall, details should be modest in character. 11.10 The 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: 14.6 Exterior lights should be simple in character and similar in color and intensity to that used traditionally. ^ The design of a fixture should be simple in form and detail. Exterior lighting must be approved by the HPC. ^ All exterior light sources should have a low level of luminescence. 14.7 Minimize the visual impacts of site and architectural lighting. ^ Unshielded, high intensity light sources and those which direct light upwazd will not be permitted. ^ Shield lighting associated with service aeeas, pazking lots and pazking structures. ^ Timers or activity switches may be required to prevent unnecessary sources of light by controlling the length of time that exterior lights aze in use late at night. ^ Do not wash an entire building facade in light. 6 P7 ^ Avoid placing exposed light fixtures in highly visible locations, such as on the upper walls of buildings. ^ Avoid duplicating fixtures. For example, do not use two fixtures that light the same area. 14.8 Minimize the visual impact of light spill from a building. ^ Prevent glaze onto adjacent properties by using shielded and focused light sowces that direct light onto the ground. The use of downlights, with the bulb fully enclosed within the shade, or step lights which direct light only on to walkways, is strongly encouraged. ^ Lighting shall be cazefully']ocated so as not to shine into residential living space, on or off the property or into public rights-of--way. 14.23 Parking areas should not be visually obtrusive. ^ Large pazking azeas should be screened from view from the street. ^ Divide lazge parking lots with planting azeas. (Lazge pazking azeas aze those with more than five cars.) ' ^ Consider using a fence, hedge or other appropriate landscape feature. ^ Automobile headlight illumination from parking azeas should be screened from adjacent lots and the street. P9 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR RED BUTTE CEMETERY, SOS CEMETERY LANE, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M., CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CITY AND TOWNSITE ASPEN. RESOLUTION NO. _, SERIES OF 2010 PARCEL ID: 2735-122-00-851 WHEREAS, 'the applicant, Red Butte Cemetery Association, represented by Alan Richman Planning Services and Graeme Means, Architect, has requested Major Development (Final) for the construction of a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, located at 808 Cemetery Lane, a pazcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6'h P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlazged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for. Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of-the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated February 24, 2010, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standazds and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines were met and recommended the application be approved with conditions; and WHEREAS; at their regular meeting on February 24, 2010, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standazds and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application with conditions by a vote of - to _. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development (Final) approval for a new maintenance building at Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane, a pazcel of land located in Sections 1 and 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6`h P.M., City and Townsite of Aspen, with the following conditions: 1. The siding and roofing material on the maintenance building aze to be wood or asphalt, rather than the proposed rusted corrugated metal. P10 2. Some guidance on landscape practices that avoid damage to grave markers should be added to the landscape management plan, along with a strategy for ditches. 3. Aspen trees should not be planted azound the maintenance building. 4. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full boazd. 5. The development approvals granted herein shalt constitute asite-specific development plan vested for a period of five (5) yeazs from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any Failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of five (5) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals aze not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. P11 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 24`n day of February, 2010. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy C-erk . -Pfi3 ~~t Affidavit of posting -Exhibit III A]an.Richmond stated that the hearing tonight is focused on the compliance of this project with the Historic Preservation Guidelines. We have not submitted an application for rezoning which is handled by Planning & Zoning. John Tharp said the cemetery was incorporated in the late 1800's and is governed by a volunteer board. The intent is to create and preserve a service in Aspen for a cemetery. We have a need for a maintenance facility. At this point we are operating out of a temporary tent that doesn't have power, light or water of a restroom. It is inadequate to maintain our equipment and to provide a place for the maintenance of the cemetery to take place. The second issue is housing for the cemetery manager. The manager needs to understand the mapping and plotting of the cemetery and manage that in terms of record keeping and deal with the public in terms of plot sales and mortuary services. He also handles the excavation when necessary and the monument companies. The City forester mapped and inventoried and.. devised a program to monitor the 200 plus mature cotton wood trees with the manager. This has to be done twice a year. The manager has been with us for over 20 years. Even with all there is to do it doesn't comprise a full time job in terms of income for the manager. He is available at all hours but in the winter he gets a second job. We fell it is instrumental for us to have a housing unit to raintain continuity with our management. Grame Means, architect explained that the site is 17 acres. Most of the cemetery proper is not seen from the road: Most of the site is R-1Sa or b. There are residential lots on the south, west and north... There is a bank on the east that goes to Castle Creek. The cemetery is somewhat divided into two different parts, the southern part that is developed with burial plots and there are a distinctive row mature cottonwood trees that run along and a system of ditches. It is the most distinctive aspect of the cemetery.. On the northern portion there is a temporary maintenance structure and it is largely not maintained. In the southern portion there is a cabin 12 x 17 in good shape. Our intention is to restore that in place. There is also a 5x10 out house that sits to the north. We also intend to restore the out house and move it ten feet and reorient it away from the burial plots. 5 P14 _...._ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 In the northern portion we are proposing to put a maintenance facility/caretaker unit located approximately in the center. The site selected lets the existing historical part of the cemetery to remain relatively un- impacted by the development and it also gives a buffer from the residential lots on the north and west. There is a three caz maintenance facility, small office and then a residential unit. All three components comprise less than 3,000 square feet. The access comes along an existing dirt road. There is a sage meadow to the north. There is approximately 200 feet from the property line to the building. The building is as low as possible and broken up into three pieces. Alan Richmond said Aspen is very fortunate to have a cemetery established on a site that is 17 acres within the City limits that has considerable capacity remaining. The upper valley is very unlikely to create a site for a cemetery in the future. Aspen needs to make the best effective use of the cemetery that it has so that we remain a real community, a place where you are born and a place where you can rest at the end of your days. Despite the designation on the city zoning map the cemetery is not a city owned park it is owned by the cemetery association for more than 100 years. The association needs a place for maintenance equipment and for the caretaker who maintains the site. Having a maintenance facility is fundamental to maintaining the historic character of this site that we all treasure. We have contacted the streets and parks department to see if there was any room in those facilities. There is no room for our equipment so we feel it is an absolute necessity for this facility to be placed on the site for the future needs of the cemetery. Having housing for a caretaker is critical to the association to retain a trained employee for the cemetery. It was nice for the neighbors to suggest that the association ought to get the use of one of the city's housing units but we don't have priority in the lottery system and frankly we do not want to compete with any other employees in this community who are in desperate need of housing. We can provide housing for our own employee. The site plan minimizes the impacts of the new building on the historic character of the cemetery. We have had several meetings with the neighbors to come to a meeting of the minds. We will create distance and separation from the neighboring houses to the north and the facility will not be in their back yard. In staff's memo it was suggested that we move the facility up to the northwest comer of.the property. We feel that is inappropriate and in conflict with the conversations that we had with the neighbors and we would like to be consistent with the representations that we made about minimizing our impacts with the neighbors. The 6 building is one story with very simple forms. The equipment stored outside is a visual eye sore and the facility will eliminate storing equipment outside. When we reviewed the project in August with the HPC the board was highly supportive of the location and design of the building. Amy stated that there are. three cemeteries in town, the Ute Cemetery that is owned by the city and hasn't been active since the 1930's. About three or four years ago the City received grant funds and we used some of our own funds to do a substantial project and every stone on the site was restored.. It costs $100,000 for the 75 stones and they were carefully put back to their original condition. The second cemetery was Aspen Grove and it is similar in size to Red Butte and actively used now. It is managed by a non-profit board and recently the City has done an outreach to that group. They have trees that are falling over that have hit the grave markers. They have an aging group of people sitting on the board and they are trying to do the best they can with-the site and the City has gotten involved by sponsoring grant applications. We will do a planning effort for how the site can be managed and restored and. the Parks Department will be involved in some level. In terms of the Red Butte the City has not been asked for a significant amount of help but the City Forester has been on the site inventorying the trees. Part of staff's approach to this entire. application is that we want to help. There are approximately 2800 grave sites with markers and 2001arge trees. This project will serve as an ongoing need for the community for years and years. When I first met with the applicants on this topic the caretaker unit was mentioned and at the staff meeting we talked about transfer development rights. Selling TDR's could build and endowment to deal with the long term costs. This might come up down the road when rezoning is pursued. Getting specifically to the application we are not here to discuss whether there should be a residential use, that is for City Council to determine. If HPC has ideas how impacts could be mitigated that is specifically HPC's job. Staff brought up a few things. Placing the building as they have does put it in a rather exposed location. Staff is not sure if it is appropriate to change the planting pattern. Perhaps as the cemetery grows we should continue to have the rows of cottonwoods.. If the building where put in the northwest comer of the site where the backdrop is existing residential development, it would lessen some of the concerns. Access to the building wherever it is is important.. There is no intention to pave the gravel roadways which is great because that would be a negative impact on the landscape. One of the other comments at the work session ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 was whether the building could be broken up into pieces instead of being one structure. If it were broken up iY would fit into the cemetery context better. To the extent that there are parking areas those would need to be screened and sensitively placed that they weren't any more visible from the users of the cemetery than necessary. Architecture of the new building. Staff made a suggestion that something more of a vemaculaz forth with a gable roof would be more appropriate on the site. The cabin that exists does have a gable form and a shed form. In terms of being in context with the period of significance the 19`h century and eazly 20"' century it might be a good idea to reflect back on what forms of the building would be appropriate. Staff certainly supports the restoration work proposed for the cabin and out house. Regarding the relocation of the out house we normally do not like to move buildings when there is no pressing reason to but the out house is close to some graves and that should be taken into consideration. Staff still feels that the out house should not be relocated. Someone made the decision earlier on that it would be an inappropriate relationship, but it is part of the history. Staff is recommending continuation. Questions and clarifications: Sarah asked if the proposed development impact the future plots. Grame said they think the out house was built around 1920. The northern part of the property will have the same pattern as the southern in future years. It is plotted out on paper. There is an existing road and the proposed development will be on one side of the road. We intend to maintain the sage brush and we will get a landscape architect on board. Alan pointed out that a Parks Zone district allows a park maintenance facility. Sarah inquired about the height of the proposed building. Graeme said it is a little less than 17 feet at the peak. Most of it is lower than that. Alison asked where the closest grave site is to the out house. Grame said around 2 'h feet away but-the sites are not occupied. John Tharp said occupied sites are around 15 feet away. Alison said with the existing zoning only the maintenance facility can be approved. Amy said it is important for the HPC to be evaluating how and where any new structures can be 8 accommodated on the site. An office facility could be an accessory use. The only thing not completely locked in is the residential component. Alison asked if there was additional room on the south end by the shed and out house for another building. Grame said the shed is within ten feet of the property line. If we added. a building we would be impacting the historic structures. Ann asked what kind of approval process occurred with the existing maintenance facility. John Tharp said they had no approval process. A slab was poured and the shed was temporary and the Building Dept. said OK. That is as far as it went and that was about six years ago. 'I`he intent was always to put something permanent on the site. Brian asked staff what HPC's role is regarding the site. Amy said HPC needs to confirm that the project is in conformance with the guidelines and if not what can be done to get it in compliance. For example if a road was to be paved that would. impact the site etc. Another example would be the. residential component and possibly it would need to be broken down into smaller pieces. Jay asked if the roads are cleared during the winter. If someone lives there how will that impact the site? John Tharp said,the perimeter road is kept open. John said there would not be additional plowing due to the residential unit. Michael asked when the property was landmarked. Amy said around 1995. Michael also asked if there were any documents specific to the designation. Amy said there is an inventory form and ten years ago the city did a study on all three of the cemeteries regarding maintenance issues and identified all the grave stones. Michael asked staff why this property is designated. Amy said it is one of the three cemeteries in town and it has an important native landscape and is much more formal than the other two cemeteries. It is an outdoor museum and there are beautiful sculptures on the site documenting the history of the community. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Letters not in support -Exhibit II Howie Malory, resident on Snowbunny Lane. ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 Howie said Red Butte Cemetery was zoned park approximately 30 years ago when the city did a major rezoning. At the same time the City created a conservation zone and specifically excluded the Red Butte Cemetery. The conservation zone was created largely with the intent to allow open spaces that had development potential to still be protected as open space but without creating the issue of takings that certain development potential was allow in the conservation zone properties, namely a single family residence. It is important to remember the history that the cemetery 30 years ago was designated park and not conservation. It was not the intent at that time to create any development activity in the cemetery beyond the maintenance facilities. HPC has an implicit responsibility over any historically designated property in the city to maintain the historic condition. HPC has to be able to say how this property is going to be maintained and retain the historic values of the property. This application effort has shown that the HPC probably doesn't have a strong set of guidelines as you might need to have to deal with historic grounds cape changes. There aze guidelines that nationally exist and have been developed as the result of other communities that had historic cemeteries. The activity level in the cemetery is rather low. There are approximately 12 burials a year. The cemetery has huge operational problems, The request for housing on this property is inappropriate. The housing authority should be approached to establish a priority for housing for an employee who handles the operation of the cemetery. HPC could support the housing authority. HPC needs to establish a series of guidelines that deal with historic landscapes and until HPC is comfortable with the potential zoning change when this property becomes delisted as an historic park that you table this item. Jesse Boyce said he is on both city and county open space boards. Every day we are under pressure of a wonderful idea that would nibble away at our open space and we have to defend ourselves against that. Employee housing should be sought elsewhere for the cemetery. It is crucial that we do not loose sight that the site is a park. What would happen if we put a maintenance shed or housing in Wagner Park? The cemetery has been there for 100 years and we have gotten this far without needing this elaborate structure. I understand the need for a maintenance shed but the residential unit is really pushing the envelope. t0 ____ va-,.mrnxne~.aa+aw ti,. ~ _. . ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 John Callahan, said he lives near the cemetery. Right now there is a Quonset but with a piece of canvas hanging over it and people have to work there. There is nothing wrong with the building going up and giving the caretaker a better place to live. It is called for and we are helping the people that maintain the cemetery. Carolyn Cerise said she has lived in her house for over 50 years. She is in support of the housing and it is situated in a place that does not impact many people. It is certainly something that is needed and they do a great job taking care of the cemetery. Keith Gazdner said he has lived here for 30 years. The whole thing is a cemetery and it is one parcel. The idea of putting a caretaker unit in is egregious because there is no access to this building. Access would have to be made through the cemetery adjacent to graves. This would occur for all domestic purposes, daily trips to and from the house. There would also be normal social activities and kids playing. Margo Gubser Gardner pointed out one aspect and that is many people come to the cemetery to visit graves and meditate and they appreciate the quiet sanctuary. Jamie Stake said he lives on Cemetery lane and his back parcel comes to within 120 feet of the cemetery. Jamie said he is for the proposal and it is important that they have enough storage to keep the maintenance going on in the cemetery. Stony. Davis said he is on the board and this cemetery is operating and functional. Even though it is zoned pazk it is not a park. If you want the cemetery to remain as is, it needs maintenance and has to have someone to look over it. Shane Evan said the HPC needs to think long and hard about the precedence you are setting by allowing employee housing on the site. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Sarah asked where the maintenance vehicles come from. John said some are on the property but when excavation is needed we contract that out and they 11 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9.2008 store the equipment on the property until after the service is over then come back and fill and take their equipment away. Jay asked how long the cazetaker takes care of the property. John said it is mostly seasonal. Spring, summer and fall he is on the property daily. In the winter he answers daily requests on the phone. He identifies the plot and oversees the excavation. He is on-call everyday. Ann commented that HPC really lacks guidelines for historical and cultural sites. On the list there are only 9 out of 300 on the inventory. In the meantime we need to go with our experience and knowledge on the importance of a cemetery to a community and apply that to the goal of protecting the historic resource. Michael said the discussion should be "is the proposal consistent with what is historic". Jay said the question to him is the new use of the historic site and if it is appropriate. Is it appropriate to put a dwelling on it for a family to live in? The big concern is the effect of having someone living on that property 24/7 and how that will affect the historical integrity of the cemetery itself. The public is also concerned. There is a need for the maintenance facility. Over 100 years the cemetery has been kept up very well and over the next 100 years how much more maintenance is actually going to be necessary to continue to keep it in the state that it is currently. The use of the land and preserving what we have now and how the use will change, and how that will effect preservation should be addressed. Ann pointed out that cemeteries become an important resource for communities. They reflect the cultural value and artistic talents and ethnic groups in the community. Red Butte seems unchanged for the last 100 years. It is important to keep that intact. In the west cemeteries, are disappearing rapidly. This cemetery has a definite pattern of landscape. Widdling away of parks is occumng in this valley and across the US. That is another threat to the historic use. The landscape has the beautiful cotton trees and sage meadows which would be impacted dramatically by building a large structure. We have this treasure in town and why not keep it as is, not modify it with this new development. 12 ~.._,~ H:.. _ ...~ ,.___ ._..,~~~ P21 Sarah said this is very difficult. In the pattern of development how is it foreseen to grow and how does the structure affect the historic nature of the property as a cemetery. If it is seen that the structure does not historically affect this as a cemetery then is the proposed structure in the appropriate location. There aze two different issues, maintenance and housing and they should be separated, In the work session possibly the zoning wasn't picked up. Typically you have maintenance facilities in cemeteries; it is part of the function of the cemetery. Jay said the current zoning allows for a maintenance facility to be put on the property. Where it goes should be addressed and we also need to consider the residential component. Michael said the first question iswhether amaintenance/residential structure appropriate for this particular parcel of land. Jay said they should be separated according to the zoning regulations. Michael asked what was considered when the property was designated and what is in the records. Sarah said we are being asked to accept change and to look into the future and this is a difficult position to be in. Ann said she sees this as the HPC is here to protect the historic resource and this development is inappropriate and detrimental to the cemetery. Michael also said he hears the City telling us that we need to help these people because the cemetery could fall into disrepair and would need further financial assistance. Those are values that should be considered as well. Conclusion: The board felt that the maintenance facility and the residence should be separated out. Alison said we can clearly see the necessity for the maintenance facility. They need the storage to keep the cemetery at the level of maintenance where it is at right now. We need to be im-agin'~tttve~d-hip find-the best location for that portion of the program. It is interesting that the residential component would increase traffic. Brian agreed that the maintenance and housing component should be separated. The board needs more information in order to make a decision. 13 P22 ._ ............._.... ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9 2008 Michael suggested that staff come back with the materials requested and that the board looks at the National Park Service criteria for historic landscapes and that we get good examples of other municipalities that have adopted guidelines and the board will meld everything together. Amy brought up the idea of adding onto the cabin to make a studio or one bedroom. Is that a direction that HPC is willing to look at? Alison said if you are going to restore the cabin then it seems that you could do more and add a bathroom and help alleviate having such a large structure on the north end. Jay said they are restoring the structure and it would make sense to give it a use. When you say caretaker unit I think of something very different than a two bedroom home. Graeme said that site is extremely constricted. The cabin is about 12 feet from the property line. There is a road right there and burial plots and a bank. It is so small that it wouldn't even work for an office. If you added a bathroom and bedroom you would overwhelm the historic cabin. You would also have setback issues. Amy said the inventory form will be brief and it was designated with a lump of other properties and there was no lengthy discussion. Council just accepted staffs recommendation that there was historic value. We can provide you with the Secretary of Interior's standards. Amy said she can research how other conununities have dealt with something like this. Sarah suggested that the applicant show the proposed structure on the overall site plan. Sarah also asked the applicant to look at reducing the size of the residential unit and address the issue of traffic. Possibly look at the residential unit being at the entrance. Sarah also said she feels the proposed site is appropriate. In addition it was recommended that the applicant look at other historic cemeteries and how they deal with these issues. Amy reminded the board that this is the typical chain of events when you have a larger project that is multiple steps. Landmark sites always start at HPC. It doesn't make sense for the applicant to go to council to see if they can have a residential site when HPC and the guidelines might not tolerate a building of that size. 14 _..~..-~ ... ,_ . _ ....,. ,._, ., .; -~:., Wiz.-- d ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2008 Alan said the zoning for this property has been in place for 33 years and it was done in 1975. A ]ot of the zoning that was implemented in 1975 has been found to be faulty and has been changed. All the lodges up and down Main Street were zoned non-conforming and that was a mistake. It was rectified by the City in the 1980's and 90's. The Ute Cemetery is zoned public and Aspen Grove Cemetery is zoned R-15. John Tharp said Aspen is truly unique in our employee base problem. Because of the cost of real estate and housing it is a powerful incentive to keep a long term employee. MOTION: Brian moved to continue the public hearing on the Red Butte Cemetery until February 27`"; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk 15 Chairperson, Michael Hoffman called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Alison Agley, Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin and Nora Berko and Sarah Broughton. Brian McNellis was excused. Staff present: John Worcester, City Attorney Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann made the motion to approve the minutes of May 14' 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carved. Chairperson Michael Hoffinan read a poem in memory of David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney who recently passed away. Disclosure: Nora will recuse herself on the Red Butte Cemetery Michael will recuse himself on 300 S. Spring and the Red Onion Sarah will recuse herself the Red Onion John Worcester asked the board members to state their reasons for recusing themselves. The board has an obligation to vote on every matter that comes before them. Michael said on 300 S. Spring he did work on that particular project with the currenYowner. The Red Onion is being represented by his current employer. Nora said she received a public notice on the Red Butte Cemetery case. Red Butte Cemetery - 808 Cemetery Lane Nora recused herself. Exhibit I -letters and a-mails Amy stated that a site visit was conducted at NOON to look at the. stakes for the proposed building and look at the historic cottage on the site. The project for review is conceptual review and on-site relocation for asmall Victorian outhouse on the site. As background information this property is zoned park which allows for a maintenance accessory building... A residential building. is not an allowed use. As the application goes forward 2 P26 the association could go forward with some kind of rezoning that encompasses all of their program on the property. Transfer development rights might be something that could happen in the future. There are 2,800 grave markers as opposed to Ute Cemetery which has about 100. The maintenance and caretaking of this property is extensive. HPC's role is to make sure the project complies with the guidelines. At the last meeting HPC recommended that the maintenance facility and caretaker unit be physically separated.. A single 3,000 square foot building in the meadow is perhaps too large as there is nothing else In the meadow, From the site visit staff still feels there could be a small unit in the miners cabin with some kind of addition but that is something that the association does not want to entertain. The applicant would like to focus on what is the best site plan and best location for the facility on the property. In the staff memo we talked about two ways that this could be accommodated; one, build a structure with a vernacular out building barn type style perhaps that feels like a natural fit on the property. Another would be to conceal the new building by lowering it in the grade and use vegetation. Staff feels the building should be built to scale. We are still of the opinion that the building needs to be a smaller size and the architecture needs further refinement to be appropriate under the historic guidelines. Staff recommends continuation of the hearing. Alan Richmond, planner for the project. Alan pointed out that five members of the association are here tonight. Grame Means is the project architect. Alan said once the applicant gets through conceptual development they will prepare a land use application for Planning & Zoning and Council and we will address the zoning issues. The cemetery is designated historic because it is an historic landscape. The question first is should any development be allowed in the cemetery and if so where on the property should it occur. The cemetery is green and the water is flowing in the ditches and the sites are well manicured. All of that requires on-going maintenance. In the last several years the association has increased its focus on taking care of the cemetery and they have acquired additional equipment. The equipment is stored in the depilated shed which has no heat. The association prepared the application because it needs a modem facility to keep the cemetery maintained in a healthy status and maintain the historic landscape. The association needs housing to maintain an employee long term. The position requires knowledge and experience of where the plots are etc. It was suggested that equipment be stored at the Parks Department and that we 3 ASPEN HI5TORIC.PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 go to the housing authority to house the employee. The Parks Department has no space for the equipment and Tom McCabe from the Housing Department said there would be no priority for. the association in the housing lottery system. If the HPC agrees with the proposal then we need to decide whether the placement is appropriate on the property. Alan explained that the cemetery is more than 1200 feet in length and it is about 6 or 700 feet in width. The entire site is 17 acres. The building is proposed to be located about 1000 feet from the front entrance. It is rather hard to see the proposed site from the front of the property. There are very few places within the cemetery that you would see the building. We feel the site chosen is the preferred location that respects the historic landscape. The facilities were intended to be temporary and they need to be replaced. The rear portion of the property is about half the property and it is over 8 acres in size which translates to 360 thousand square feet. We are talking about a . building that would be less than 3,000 square feet. 3,000 square feet on 360 thousand square feet is a floor area ratio less than 0.01. The last statement that supports this location is that the location is already disturbed. It is not pristine. Graeme Means, architect pointed out that the property is rectangulaz and it is approximately 18 acres and the entrance is off Cemetery Lane. The southern portion of the site is occupied by burial sites and the northern portion is undeveloped and does not have significant vegetation on it. On the north is where the temporary piles of dirt are located. That area has been disturbed. In determining the facility we wanted the development in the disturbed part and we desire to keep it as faz from the. neighbors. The building is over 200 feet from the northern neighbors and over 300 feet from the western neighbors. The same landscape of cottonwoods and grave sites would;move north over time. The shop facility is 45 feet wide and 28 feet deep. The caretaker unit has a-very small office inside. There are two shed roof shaped structures with a flat roof on the living unit. There is also a spoils pile and we will save the sage meadow as it provides a buffer. When the site issue is figured out we will get a landscape architect. The proposal for screening is to use the native materials that are present; cotton woods, sage and service berry bushes. By using the natural vegetation we can screen parts of the building. We are trying to keep the building as low as possible. On the southeast comer there is an existing cabin. We will restore the cabin and keep it in the same location. There is also an existing out house that sits within six feet of plotted grave sites that is proposed to be move slightly. 4 P28 ASPEN 13ISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11.2008 Jay asked if the people who purchased the plots around the proposed area where notified. John Thorp said the plots are reserved but they are not purchased. They purchase them as they can afford it. Alison asked if the original maps show the continuation of the cemetery. John Thorp said the northern portion does not show the continuation of the plots. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman opened the public hearing. Michael pointed out to the public that the HPC is not involved with the rezoning issues of the property. Joe Porter, 1270 Snowbunny Lane. Joe said he is a landscape architect and owned Design Workshop then sold it. I have worked on these kinds of issues in the community for a long time. We appreciate the stewardship of the cemetery and they have done a wonderful job in maintaining the cemetery. The proposed solution is out of scale with the problem. Having a single family residence in a cemetery is not consistent with the historic character of the cemetery. The next issue is what is historic. The entire cemetery property is designated an historic landmark site. City staff is in the process of writing landscape guidelines. In our cultural landscape it is very difficult to identify guidelines that cover a particular area because they are all different azeas. In the proposed guidelines they have an area called cultural landscapes. The meadow is very important as it is the connection to the Aspen Meadows and Castle Creek. HPC should take the time and have the area inventoried and develop appropriate standards for the management of that area. The maintenance facility is a need. The issue is location, size and the design. I would suggest that it not be any larger than it has to be. Putting the facility in the corner would keep it from sprawling. Whatever is here needs to be approved in the overall context of a plan that recognized cultural landscape resources. The package should include a landscape, restoration management plan. This is a community resource and the community should help and participate with the association. Don Erdman, architect said he has•two issues. I need to know what the cemetery is going to look like in the future. The vehicular tracks in the Red - =, ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11.2008.. Butte Cemetery are basically vegetated and not hard cape. I am worried about any kind of structure involving housing in the interior of the cemetery. Eventually it will require hard cape and that is not appropriate. I think further exploration of the southeast comer should happen. If it becomes inevitable that a dwelling has to be built this cemetery has a lot of land that is on a slope. Aspen is building structures every day on deep slopes: If something has to be built in a smaller footprint it should occur at the edge of the bank. If you dropped five feet in an area one would only see a small portion of the roof. Exhibit F Tara's summary was attached to Amy Guthrie's memo. Tara Shaw, architect presented an ecological summary on behalf of the neighbors detailing the cultural ecological characteristics that distinguish the Red Butte Cemetery as an historic landscape. Tara said she is concerned about the lack of care on the north portion, the meadows. The size proposed for the maintenance facility needs to be reduced. It is highly recommended that a land management plan for the north meadow be implemented prior to making any decisions for the location of a maintenance facility. Tony Vagneur, member of the cemetery board. Tony pointed out that four generations are buried at that cemetery. The cemetery is a living breathing place. It provides historical and cultural perspectives and: a quiet. atmosphere. The main purpose is to house deceased people. Full time care is necessary and proper in order to take care of the cemetery and the 2,800 markers. A maintenance facility and caretaker unit is necessary to continue to take care of this property for the next 100 years. Maryann Altfeld said she lives on the boarder of the cemetery and has a direct view. The shed has a pickup truck in it, noYcemetery equipment and two pieces of equipment parked outside: I have seen no more than two pieces of equipment. I have doubts about the amount of storage that is needed at the cemetery. Jane Harris said she is a native aspenite and went to school with Shay Stutzman who came back to Aspen to help run his father's company. I am curious to see if anyone has asked if they are going to continue servicing the cemetery. Pip Porter who also resides at 1270 Snowbunny Lane said she has two issues; one, the necessity of the impact of the housing and the disconnect 6 P30 ___ ____: ASPEN ffiSTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11.2008 between the north and south portion of the cemetery. The northern part of the cemetery is a decimation. It was a beautiful meadow with sage and now it is a junk pile. The northern meadow deserves as much recognition as the southern meadow. They are both historic and they are only different in how they have been developed. Pip also pointed out that those who live in the proposed housing will have BBQ's, and children's playground equipment etc. Housing on the site is not appropriate. Leo Baraby, neighbor. Leo pointed out that the association has been great neighbors over the years and we want to stand behind the proposal 100%. If the employee has a party some time I hope they invite me to it. Stony Davis pointed out that the natives who built near the cemetery tore up the native sage brush which is just as historic as the cemetery grounds. John Thorp explained what entails with regard to the maintenance of the cemetery. He also said their employee is emotionally involved with the cemetery and this application is predicated on the housing component. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed ,the public hearing. Alison said as a suggestion we might want to require a management plan for the cemetery that outlines circulation and future vegetation. Sarah said we need to apply our guidelines as best we can, Michael said the first question is do we want any development on this site. Ann said the property is historic because of the age of the property but it also moves into the cultural aspect. Historically cemeteries have been used or designed as public open spaces. I see Red Butte as a community asset. Building any kind of structure other than a maintenance facility would have enormous impacts such as traffic and the uses associated with a residence. The fact that the location is at the end of the cemetery any deliveries or services would have to drive through the cemetery to get there. The landscape plan around the residence would be an impact. Alison said the community around the cemetery has changed and therefore the issue of maintenance has changed. Alison said she does not support the 3,000 square foot structure as proposed. If the association board where _ ~~` willing to look at putting a structure at the south east comer she could support that. A small caretaker unit could be put at that south east corner as there was activity there before. Sarah concurred with-Alison's comments. The issue comes down to the ' access and how that relates back to our guidelines. As the access is pushed back and there are daily trips to the development it would be hard to tie that into our guidelines. Sarah said she could support development in the south east comer. Historically that is where the activity was. Other cemeteries do not have access to their housing through the main cemetery. If we could come to some sort of solution in the south east comer and keep the development tied in with the already established neighborhood where historically there has been that type of development it would be more appropriate. Jay pointed out that the residence in that part of the cemetery will deteriorate the cemetery at the proposed location. Michael said he agrees that the applicant doesn't address the basic issues. The HPC might approve development but clearly not in the proposed location. Alan asked for clarification on the maintenance building and residence. Alison said she does not support a 3,000 square foot footprint in that area. She is not certain about the maintenance facility. If it could be a lot let obtrusive in the proposed area she might be in favor but then there are the traffic issues. If the caretaker unit was part of the front that would be where the auto traffic was coming in and out. Alan asked for clarification if all the development should go to the south east comer. Michael said the HPC will address the maintenance facility. Jay said if it was just the maintenance facility the HPC could hash it out but since there is a residential component into this location it has created a lot of issues. P32 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2008 Sarah said in terms of the maintenance facility being located to the north of the site I would be open to a revised application as it pertains to Chapter 11 in terms of the architectural character particularly guideline 11.3 and 11.5. Michael said the access issues are a big concern as it relates to the proposed housing unit and a large number of individuals in the community have the same concerns. The board is prepared to deny the application with the proposed affordable housing unit. Alan said he heard that some of the commissioners are interested in moving the housing unit to the front corner in which we have said we have no interest. We need to talk as a team and determine whether it is appropriate to go forward with the maintenance facility or have the commission deny the application etc. . Ann said if they build a residential unit then the property does need to be rezoned to conservation which will allow more adaptive uses in the zoning. That is another reason why I feel there should be no residential unit because the zoning should not be changed. MOTION: Sarah moved to continue the public hearing and conceptual development on the Red Butte Cemetery, 808 Cemetery Lane until August 27`h; second by Alison. All in favor, motion tamed 5-0. 300 South Spring Street -Minor Development Michael recused himself. Sarah Broughton chaired. Nora was seated. Exhibit I -public notice Sara said the request is to rotate the existing stairway 90 degrees and reconstruct the stairway. They want to re-orient the stairs. Staffis opposed to the application because it will compromise a potential landmark. The proposal obscures significant architectural features. This building has a spacial relationship. When you walk into the building right now you are forced to interact with the architecture. You also have repeated architectural elements. They are shifting the stairway to the south and you start to loose a lot of the original building. The proposal to shorten the walkways obscures the original features. Guideline 10.10 is not met. In the application the 9 P33 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10.2008 Chairperson, Michael Hoffrnan called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Ann Mullins, Jay Maytin, Brian McNellis, Sarah Broughton and Nora Berko. Staff present: Jim True, Special Counsel Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Ann moved to approve the minutes of Oct. 22"~ and Nov.12, 2008; second by Jay. All in favor, motion carried. RED BUTTE CEMETERY -CONCEPTUAL AND ON-SITE . RELOCATION - CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING Nora recused herself. Letter from Howie Malory -Exhibit l E-mail from Philip Altfeld -Exhibit II 2"a letter from Howie Malory -Exhibit III Alan Richmond, planning consultant for the Red Butte Cemetery. Four board members were present and introduced: John Thorp, president Tony Vagneur, Stony Davis, Terry Collins. Alan said the original application was submitted Nov. 2007. Since that time two hearings were held. We also had two neighborhood discussions. As a result of the meeting we have made significant progress. The design being presented achieves some of the associations basic functional needs in order to operate the cemetery and at the same time we have been respectful of our neighbors and sensitive to the natural manmade characteristics of the cemetery. The staff conditions are acceptable. We feel we have made significant concessions to make this a project that works for everyone. The greatest resistance was a dwelling unit within the maintenance facility and the resulting scale that would hold those two uses. Therefore we have deleted the dwelling unit from the submission and have scaled back the size of the building. The building proposed is 1200 square feet compared to our original proposal which was 2800 square feet. It has been reduced by more than half of the original proposal. It does mean that a fundamental part of P34 ASPEN I3ISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10.2008 ~~ our program needs will not be met onsite, but the applicant understands the need for that concession. The size and location of the spoils yard was another concern. Those comments and concerns were understandable because on the site the spoils yard that exists today is not a very well managed area and we recognize that. It creates a negative impression of what the future spoils yard might look like. We feel the new design will create a less visible spoils area. Originally the spoils yard was back behind the building. The back of the spoils yard would only be 125 feet from the property line and visible to the neighbors. What we have done in the current application is flip the spoils yard to the front of the building. With that change we are internalizing the impacts of this facility. It doesn't face the neighbors and essentially it all occurs within our work area in front of the building facing the cemetery. We have the opportunity to sink the spoils yard and keep the building at natural grade. The truck turning would occur within the work area and the back of the building is now 175 feet from the property line and neighbors. We feel conceptual should be granted as staff has recommended. The project maintenance facility is an allowed use in this zone district. It is .. ~ essential to have the facility in order to maintain the burial markers, keep the irrigation system running and to preserve the trees. We would ask HI'C and our neighbors to think about how much this applicant has compromised during this process. In the beginning it would have been cheaper to propose the building in the very back comer of the cemetery. That is where the utilities are to serve the building, instead we set it back from the neighbors both on the side and from the back. Now we have eliminated the dwelling unit and cut the size in half and we have moved the spoils yard. Several letters sent indicate that the size should be reduced further. The bathroom and warm room in the maintenance facility is a place for the cemetery employee to get out of the cold and use the bathroom instead of running to the end of the property. The two maintenance bays do not have standard heating facilities. We are planning over head space heaters which is less costly. The warm room is an area where liquids will be kept for operations. The landscape plan and management plan can be addressed at final. Graeme Means, architect: Graeme went over the proposal. There are residences along the northern and western boundary. There are platted burial plots. The site is not flat and it ~,,,, slopes from the south to the north. It slopes a little over four feet within 130 2 P35 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2008 ,,._, feet. The access is from the southern part of the cemetery. The entrance of the building faces south. The building is at existing grade. The land slopes up and we are proposing to lower the southem end of the work yard so that there is a four foot cut and a level work yard. This would also buffer any noise. The dump truck comes in and backs up and dumps and goes back out. We have combined the spoils yard and parking. There is also washing of equipment, repairs, back hoes etc. that will be in the yard. It is our intent to internalize all the functions. The Victorian cabin remains the same as a visitor center and used quite infrequently, It will be restored orr the exterior and remodeled on the interior. We have decided not to move the outhouse. On the architecture we have made the building more of a vernacular architecture. On the materials we have talked about the wall sheathing and roof in a corrugated rusted panel and doing the trim in a dark green. Some of the material taken out we will use to buffer the area. The circulation works better if the building is not set on the grid but Amy is suggesting aligning the building with the grid. There are two work bays with garage doors. The warm room is 9 x 18 feet and there is an ADA compliant bathroom. Sarah asked what the height of the ridge line was. Graeme said he thinks it is 17 to 18 feet. Sarah also asked about the surface of the yazd. Graeme said it is probably going to be dirt. When we get into the site engineering that might change. Amy said the applicant has already explained some of the needs of the cemetery. The city dealt with the Ute Cemetery and probably 113 of the grave stones had to be taken off the site to be repaired. It would be nice if they had a shop area where stones could be repaired onsite. Possibly there could be some cooperation where other cemeteries can use or share their equipment. Amy said there is justification for the kind of facility they are proposing. A family who is grieving might need to use the proposed facility. A site management should be a requirement for final and the Parks Department has offered assistant in terms of assessing trees and weed ~, , management. There is a cemetery expert who the City worked with on Ute ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10.2008 ~... Cemetery who has visited numerous sites. How do you excavate for a grave that has the least impact and what should you communicate to visitors of the site. All these are things that the City can continue to work on with the association. Staff wants to support this project as they are a volunteer association. In terms of the architecture and the placement of the building staff recommends the building is set on natural grade which is the plan and that fill dirt not be brought around the building. We shouldn't be trying to hide the building because then it doesn't look in context with the rest of the property. It has been mentioned that this is a cultural landscape and in a sense it is because it reflects the history of Aspen and the families and professions and fraternal orders. It is also a design landscape and someone was very careful inlaying out the grid of the side and the establishment of the cottonwood rows. The suggestion that the cottonwoods be extended is to provide some of the screening that people are interested in and also to encourage that the planting happen now. In one of the letters Joe Porter suggested that there be one pathway leading toward the maintenance .., building with trees. Maybe that is not the solution but there might be ~..,, another solution to bring the extension of three across. The history of the site is very grid like and the cottonwoods are an important part of the character of the property. Amy said she noticed on the site plan that the little Victorian buildings are a little askew at the top of the slope and that was probably because they wanted to leave as much space for the grave sites. It would be more in character if it was a little bit oriented to the grid. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman went over the letters and e-mails. Michael said Howie Malory asked for confirmation about rehabilitation'of the north of the parcel. John Thorp said they will remove the berms and are moving the spoils piles and at that time would extend the irrigation and do re-vegetation. Michael said Howie Malory's letter talks about a ten year commitment with the City to help fund the meadow restoration and tree management replacement plan. ~_ 4 ~,,,. John said we have not explored anything with the city except working with the city forester: Allen Richmond said these are points that could be raised in front of city council and the council would have to weigh in they choose to do so. Michael also said in the letter there is a concern from the neighbors that the warm room could be used for some form of housing. John Thorp said that is not our intention. It is not going to be used for housing. Michael said there is also a letter from Joe Porter. He is concerned about the size of the building and the maintenance yard. Alan Richmond said the purpose of the meeting is to demonstrate the need for the building in the size that has been designed. It is down to 1200 square feet on a 17 acre pazcel of land. We have brought the building as far south as we can to pot impact the neighbors. It is not in our interest to impact the cemetery. ,,, . Michael said inane-mail from Philip Altfeld it suggests that maybe there is a revenue source for the cemetery by leasing the maintenance facility. Is there such a plan: Alan said that is preposterous. You don't build a facility to respond to yesterdays needs. We aze not coming back to the City to ask for facility after facility. You build a facility to meet today's needs and the realistic needs that the association will need in the near future. They do not want to go through this process again. It is agonizing and expensive for an association that does not have money to spend. We are looking at the needs of the association. for the future. Michael said the Altfeld's also talked about a broken irrigation ditch. John Thorp said they had a water leak in our line that comes from the Marolt property, through Cemetery lane and goes on Castle Creek drive and we fixed it. If they are referring to the far north end of the property our property originally had drainage at the end and it was an irrigated pasture. We have tried to stop the irrigation because as the construction and development goes on the east portion of the north end it blocks off the ability of runoff to go out there. We are not intentionally irrigating the north end of the cemetery. ~... P37 5 P38 i..- Jay inquired about the bathroom and if there is a shower in it. John said there are a toilet and a basin. Brian said Amy mentioned a facility for people who are visiting [he cemetery. Is it the intent to have the bathroom multi use? John Thorp explained that we have not found a need for a public restroom out there. Brian asked for clarification about the trees and if the proposal is to extend them on the grid up to the maintenance building. Amy said the Parks Department suggested the cotton wood trees. Chairperson, Michael Hoffinan opened the public hearing. Howie Malory, 1220 Snowbunny lane: The meadow is in the north part of the parcel which includes the berm aqd rubble piles. The Quonset but is also located there. The neighborhood meetings have been very productive in this application. The City parks and .~ ., forester have also been involved particularly with the cottonwood trees. The cotton wood trees will come down within the next ten to twenty years. Howie pointed out the issues that need raised and clarified. The restoration of the meadow and cottonwood tree management plan was an attempt to separate the plan from the building itself. It will be difficult to raise money for the building and we don't know when it will be built. We need to know the restoration plan as it could take ten years until the building is built. Howie said he appreciates the applicant stating the warm room will not be used as a residential unit. The present caretaker lives in the southeastern Victorian bldg. summer and winter. He works for the Ski Co. in the winter. Joe Porter, Snowbuny Lane: Joe asked the applicant to take his comments as constructive criticism. Joe suggested that some of the human functions be moved to the Victorian building. It is time to move forward and a lot of these issues can be conditions of approval. There are two landscapes, one is the existing. I am unclear about what is planned for the north of the property. The restoration plan should include the north meadow. How the ~. P39 ,~_ facility fits the land and how it is landscaped will determine if the building is +,,,,, part of the meadow landscape. There is probably 150 years of inventory in the cemetery and having cottonwoods down to the facility in 100 years those will need to be taken down. The north meadow should be acknowledged that it will be a cemetery in the future. It should be re-vegetated and maybe the irrigation system should be restored. I disagree with the cottonwood landscape. There are neighbors that are landscape architects that have offered to help and there are HPC members who are landscape architects. Everyone should get together and determine the long term solution. The north meadow landscape is a very simple solution. Graeme should be left to handle the grading with a monitor. John Thorp stated that they have always said they are not ready to propose a landscaping plan until we got to final. The cottonwoods got discussed because of the City-Forester visiting the site. Michael asked the applicant if they could meet. with Sara Shaw on the landscaping before they go to city council. John Thorp said they already had a meeting with Sara and she has offered to do some landscape work with us. We can meet anytime.. We were not meeting with a landscape firm until the ~,_, proposal was approved. Chairperson, Michael Hoffman closed the public hearing. Jay asked if the Quonset but will go away. John said yes. Commissioner comments: Ann stated that the building is acceptable. If the building was placed on the grid it would work much better. The building should. be on the natural grade, no berming on the side and use native landscaping. Aesthetically a gravel surface would be much better than dirt. Sarah said she is tom on the orientation of the building on the grid. There could be a precedence not having it on the grid as the building would separate itself from the plots. On the landscaping it is kind of intriguing having the building nestled in that would visually have the cars less. obtrusive. Brian said he is not in favor of any berming. If it needs screened the ,~, building could be brought down. P40 - __ ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10.2008 `..r Jay said he is 100% for the facility and it serves a great purpose. There might be more community benefit if you choose to help out the other cemetery facilities in town. If you turn the building onto the grid the footprint of the building might have to be increased for the accessibility of turning trucks around. At an angle it might work better. Graeme said the footprint would have to increase somewhat. Jay pointed out that you wouldn't construct a building like this without a heated room and restroom for the workers. I am in full support of this project with Amy's conditions. Michael went over the conditions in the resolutions. 1. Place the maintenance building and work yard at natural grade of below grade. The grading should not create any anomalies in the landscaping. 2. Consider placing the building orthogonally to the historic grid. Brian said he needs to see more details of the entire building in order to determine how it will mesh with the landscape. #2 condition must be resolved at final. Ann pointed out that the overall landscape conservation plan for the cemetery would involve community input. Michael asked Jim True if we had authority to ad community input in the resolution. Jim said HPC does not have the authority to require community input but they could ask for volunteer input. Brian said we as board members can volunteer. Amy said you need to see a plan that meets the guidelines but how that plan is developed isn't normally something that we insist on seeing a format. John Thorp said they have talked to Sara Shaw about doing some work. Our idea about landscaping is to screen it for the neighbors and cemetery's benefit however that is best accomplished. ;,,,r Brian said a simple sketch is needed that shows what the orientation would look like from Snow bunny Lane and other visible areas where it can be seen. Graeme said we can do a proposal taking in all the comments. 3. Consider screening the building with cottonwood plantings as recommended by the Parks Department. Brian said he is not in favor of the cottonwoods but could defer his judgment until final. Ann also said she feels the cottonwoods aze sort of a band aid solution. Right now all the cottonwoods aze the same size. If you have the existing row then plant cottonwoods I S years later it breaks the design landscape of the southern part of the property. Amy said instead of having,one arm you could bring the grid across. Brian commented that this might not be the appropriate time to do that. Michael said on #3 ad make the development of a long term landscape plan as part of the final decision making of this application. ,,~, Jay said he doesn't feel conceptual approval should hinge on a landscaping plan at final for the entire parcel Michael said he doesn't see it that way. In the beginning we discussed how inappropriate any kind of development was within the park zone district. This is an opportunity to integrate the concerns of the community. Ann pointed out that we are talking about a landscape management plan where we look at the entire parcel to make it environmental healthy. A. Delete this condition. 5. For final application, Staff recommends the applicant meet again with the City. and other resource to provide HPC with an update on site management plans as described in this memo. Michael said #5 has been changed to: The applicant shall provide a comprehensive landscape management plan for the entire site as part of its final application. P42 y-. v Sarah said the board is undecided about the cottonwoods so that condition should be deleted. All agreed. Brian amended #5. Explore the orientation and screening possibilities of the maintenance facility. MOTION: Sarah moved to approve Resolution #30 for the Red Butte Cemetery as amended by the board; second by Ann. All in favor, motion carried. 334 W. Hallam -monitoring Amy said part of the approval of the fence was that it be completed by Dec.1. That has not happened, Mr. Conner has been pursuing this. The primary issue is the grade. The grade on the site has been altered. Fence permits are issued from natural grade and it is difficult to determine that. Several things have been recommended. ~... Monitor: Michael will be the monitor. 601 W. Hallam - work session - no minutes MOTION: Michael moved to adjourn; second 'by Brian. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk ...., to f P43 a. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE; Update to Design Guidelines- Chapters 8 and 9 DATE: February 24, 2010 SUMMARY: HPC's current design guidelines were adopted in 2000. Amendments were initiated in 2004, but not completed. The primary purpose of the 2004 amendments was to ensure that the guidelines were able to address both Victorian era and Postwar historic resources: In order to move the project forwazd to adoption, HPC has been in the process of re-visiting the work and, for this meeting, is asked to review Chapters 8 and 9. The chapters at hand deal with Secondary Structures and Building Relocation. Attached aze the 2004 amended versions of these chapters, with hand-written mark-ups indicating what is changed from the 2000 guidelines that aze in effect. We have not noted all simple changes, such as the relocation of a sentence within a pazagraph, a changed guideline number, etc. Staff asks that HPC verify that the content is appropriate, or indicate what should be re-written. Illustrations can be added or removed. The_ boazd should consider whether there are any additional guidelines that aze needed given experience in using the document. Overall, staff believes the proposed edits aze effective. HPC should discuss and verify its policies on these two topics, which can be challenging. Preservation of outbuildings is sometimes difficult to achieve or may take secondary importance to concerns over the size, chazactet and placement of proposed additions. However, some mountain communities, such as Crested Butte and Telluride, consider preserving these modest buildings to be critical to their town's character. Building relocation is typically frowned upon in historic preservation, butiven been a solution that azguably achieved better preservation in many cases in Aspen, g development pressure. HPC should read the guidelines to ensure that they are useful for a variety of building types (residential, commercial, and civic buildings) styles, and eras. P44 Secondary Structures Chapter 8 Secondary Structures F'oiicy Wtlen a secondary structure is determined to be historically significant, it should be preserved.. This may include'keeping the structufe in its present condition, rehabilitating it or adapting it to a new use so that the building cohtinues to serve a function. This chapter addresses the treatment of secondary structures. These guidelines apply in addition to the guidelines for treatment of doors, windows, dormers, materials, additions and other features presented in the other chapters. ............................. • NOTE: Outbuildings often encroach into alleys or at least into the setback, and the ; owner should be aware of variances or encroachment licenses that maybe required . to rehabilitate these buildings. ..........."".' ................. USeGt -~-o Ir'a/d~c~ Background li ~~©tAa'~ti Accessory structures include garages, carriage houses and, sheds. In the 19th centur these structures were important elements o residential sites. Because secondary structures h ]p interpret how an entire site was used histo tally, their Primary materials Many of the materials used traditionally in secondary structures are those employed in the construction of primary buildings. Simple board and batten siding or clapboards were typical. Treatment of siding is addressed in the preceding chapter and applies to secondary structures as well. In preserving or rehabilitating secondary structures, it is important that the character- defining materials be preserved. Roof forms and materials Traditionally most secondary structures had gabled or shed roofs. Roofing materials included metal, wood, asphalt and composition shingles. Property owners are encouraged to use traditional roof forms and materials if undertaking more extensive projects, such as converting a secondary structure to a new use. However, because accessory structures are often subordinate to the main house, greater flexibility in the treatment of accessory structures may be considered. preservation is stro ly encouraged.` Adaptive reuse of secondary structures w~~, ` The reuse of any secondary structure should be a y (}^~~ ~ planned realistically so that its character is not Key Features ofHistoflC v'Q~' lost. Maintaining the overall mass and scale is it p titularly important and therefore, raising the Secondary Structures -{v~~lti~la~~ oof-line of a structure to create a "pop-top" is Most secondary structures were simple in discouraged since it will alter the height of the character, reflecting their more utilitarian roof's ridgeline, and the structure will appear functions. Many were basic rectangular solids, much larger than it would have historically. with simple finishes and they typically had no ornamentation and few windows. add City uf3\sprbHLstorlc<Frecervation GuldeltnYS c~~'. IJ . _ -,; P~ gg- _ ~.. ,e P45 8 ~~ Commercial ~ __ ~~~ Y •••• r•, ~ K, e5 _ .:~ :. i I i 1 1 1 t~ 1' 1 1 i 1 ~i .I ~ ;I E.000PER~__s_-_=___ AV---a~ i I i V ~f ~~ W; • ao ~' M ~'+p • • • • ui '1I rc a e P. ~ ~ 5 ~~ i x~~M =~ e ,:, ~ ~ ~; ~ N~ ~Residen tial ~ m :. i ri CP ~ .a ~ ~ i~ ~ 9y ,a i 'z o ~ • ~FI • i I I, ~ I j n :.v rro - ~ !/IY l:D ' ~ W. Main Street -.-- I ~ I ~. • LE i I= ZI n' ~ ~ ~p ~,, 'x '. /Yb LSD, b h. i ~ I The historic maps above illustrate the large number of secondary structures used in both commercial and residential settings. ` 1 he map on the left provides a detail ofthe blocks a[ E. CooperAvenue and S. Hunter, which includes several commercial structures, whose primary facades al ign along the street. In the rear, setbacks variedandsecondarystruc[ures were sometimes 6uil t along the alleyedge. Themap detail on the right Illustrates a residential context. Here, secondary structures are even more numerous, and are also located along rear property lines. 'The map on the left is from 1893 and fhe one on the right is from 1909. a c ,..1 _at. r q~ ~ ~~ :Sq [ _ I a _ ih G~ l .. a' N • tj J' 8• > O ~ ~• : Q • • • • • • • • • ''' ppp ~~~ ,1 J,, ` ~ Iy1a¢Orl . ¢ ' ';~~ ' Y/ ~ ~) %r' ••~ • •. ~ Y •v ' _ e .n cS ~ ' .;"7;fiy ofA4Pen 7UStot7t Pr"rstrVB[loafr~ilrleHae3' ` , ~,x ;Page 9b - .. . , .. P46 Structures Secondary Structures 8.1 If an existing secondary structure is historically significant, then it must be preserved. • When treatingahistoricsecondarybuilding, respect its character-defining features. These include its primary and roof materials, roof form, windows, doors and architectural details. • If a secondary structure is not historically significant, then its preservation is optional. 8.2 If an existing secondary structure is beyond repair, then replacing it is encouraged. ~~~~~• The replacementshouldbecompatiblewith the overall character of the historic primary ~~~ ~ structure, while accommodating new uses. 8.3 Avoidatt chinganeworhistoricga;ag~r carport to the primary structure. ~ a • Traditionally, a garage was sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. Any proposal to attach an accessory structure is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 8.4 A garage door should be compatible with the character of the historic structure. • A wood-clad hinged door is preferred on a historic structure.~If the existing doors are hinged, they can be adaptedWith an automatic opener.) f`'~ uuy22,~G~II ~ ~+ ~?'~. • If an overhead door is us8d, the matenall`s shou Id match that of the secondarystructure. 8.5 Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location. • A secondary structure may on]y be repositioned on its original site if it is ^ 1~~ determined to be the best or most feasible dt~ way to preserve the building's historic integrity. See Chapter 9: Building Re]ocation and Foundations. CfSY~n/Jlsp4n~utor~S,PreserY„aHnn Guf~e13ne3 ~ ~, c~. '~ ! 8! While most secondary structures are modest In character, same exhibit more refined details. These features should 6e presen~ed. P47 ~e"' 8.6 Avoid adding detailing or features to a secondary structure that are conjectural and not in keeping with its original character as a utilitarian structure. • Most secondary structures are basic rectangular solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation. 8.7 Additions to a secondary structure should be subordinate in size and height, and in character with the materials and detailing of the historic building. , pa 92 , , , , , o . ..... .. .,..r ~~ .51 ,...~nk -.. ~~'?W~e+i'~t~StlH7E~~'~ e`txbA~1`~! ~?Y(nCS_ a,+ as ". A hisroric outbuilding adapted for use as an architect's ofTce. P48 Building Relocation Chapter 9 Building Relocation & Foundations Policyc Moving a historic structure is discouraged, hdweyer; in some instances this may be the only: viable option, and it may be considered in limited circumstances. to preserve the: structure's integrity. This chapter presents guidelines for relocating historic structures and for the reconstruction of building foundations. They apply to primary and secondary structures. Background A part of a historic building's integrity is derived from its placement on its site and therefore, its original position is important. Preserving the original foundation is always encouraged. Generally, removing a structure from the parcel with which it is historically recorded will compromise its integrity. However, there may be cases when relocation will not substantially affect the integrity of a property and its rehabilitation can be assured as a result. Early city maps suggest that some structures were shifted on their sites, and even relocated within a block to make room for more buildings. Therefore, some precedent exists. Today, however, such relocation must be considered very carefully and on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it may be possible to reposition a structure on its original site if doing so will accommodate other compatible improvements that will assure preservation. For example, if a house straddles two parcels, shifting it to one side may accommodate construction of a new, detached structure. Doing so may better preserve the scale of the original structure, as opposed to erecting a large addition. Proposals to relocate a building within its site boundaries will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ~ n. , A related concern is the character of the building's foundation. Traditionally, most buildings in Aspen had simple foundation designs. Many had a wooden sill that was clad with siding. A few of the grander structures had stone foundations. These features should be preserved. However, even when a building is preserved in place, it is often necessary to rebuild the foundation. When doing so, it is important to convey the character of the original foundation. At times, it may be necessary to "mothball" a building in order to keep it safe until it can be improved. Wood panels should be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and particularly historic glass. Special care should be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. •_ page93 P49 Preserving Building Locations and Foundations 9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. ~~ ~ ~ In general, relocation has less of an impact ~'} \ on individual landmark structures than ~ ~ /~`~v those in a historic district. Howeh= "' specific history and style of a given building. I-~ and thecharacteristicsofthestte,maycreate asituationwhererelocationisnotdesirable, even on a parcel that is not located in a historic~trict. • It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative. • Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements. • A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural details and materials. • Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the. structure and provide it ~ ~~ anew foundation, utilities, and to restore ~~~~~~ the house. In general, moving a building to an entirely ~~ Vt (~ ~ ~Q.ti/ different site or neighborhood is not v V.t? 0 ~ •-1""t" aPProved. S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 9.2 Moving an existing building that contributes to the character of a historic district ' ~~, c~~ ~ ~ should be avoided. tV1 °~~'~ v 1, .I ~~~• The significance of a building and the 1Ot(ii\ character of its setting will be considered. ~L~ ~ r~ Ingeneral,relocatingaconVibutingbuilding ~ i/LV~ ~ 1 _ v, in a district requires greater sensitivity than ~pv~s~'V o moving an individually-listed structure because the relative positioning of it reflects patterns of development, including spacing of side yards and front setbacks, that relate to other historic structures in the area. Aa8e:9# f~~n~', ,C3ty oCAapen }Lstor7c Praaerv8tton Gmdelides: P50 Building Relocation 9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain within the boundaries of its historic parcel. • Ifahistoricbuildingstraddlestwolots,then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties. 9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. • It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. • It may not, for example,. be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in front of it. 9.5 Anew foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a modest miner's cottage where there is no evidence that one existed v1~'~ ~ histoncallyis iscourage ecauseitwould be out of character. • Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. One should try to salvage and re-use the Vl~^-~ -7 stone from the original foundation. Locate the structure approximately at its historic elevation above 9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the grade. Liking It too. far up from ground level, such as In this structure at its approximate historic elevation example, is inappropriate. above grade. • Raising the building slightly above its original elevation may be acceptable when ~Py~ accommodating a new basement. However, lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate. For most• structures, the ~ p~,tJ maximum chan a in elevation that would ~ be acceptable is 18 inches. • Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it enhances the resource. Citybf~)?et~iltly{~•~ex~„!'~M~.r+~~l1a~s3k..,. g ., , c~Yw' r:5. .s ~ ~~ntiw:ar..~«~. ^^~et .~ _fii .. ='p~~$, Areplacementfoundationshouldbesimilartoanoriginal foundation such as [his one. P51 Protect historic windows and other features while a building is being relocated. ,, ]~ -~V ll~C~ ` p ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ .LJ , ~~ 9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space. • In general, a lightwell may not project out (i'Q~ ri from a street facing building wall per th~~t1pN~~ Residential Design Standards. • The sizeofalightwellshouldbeminimized. • A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and will be considered on a case-by-case basis • Lightwellsshallhavegrates,andnotrailing~ y~pi -- around them to minimize their visibility. wpv~X~ , vse-~ -b ~110~ 9.8 All relocations of designated structures 5t~ '.Q shallbeperformedbycontractorswhospecialize ~ V~t~ 1 in the moving of historic buildings, or can ~ document adequate experience in successfully ldi h b ngs. ui relocating suc d i l b f h d ~ e use n o ogy to • The speci ic met o relocating the structure must be approved J l ,Q,- by the HPC. ~ 1 ~ P • Aletterofcredittoensurethesaferelocation of the structure will also be required. I 7 _. .Aege'86'; ~- t'~~ ~ . `~IlyoP,ASpdi F~l3to{Jc PresBiYaPton Gtidedhe"e