HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.1000 N 3rd St.0014.2008.ASLUOO44.2008.ASLU 1000 N. THIRD STREET
2735 12 1 29 008 APPEAL OF CODE INPT
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
\z
c_ I
I1
THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ID NUMBER
PROJECTS ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
0014.2008.ASLU
273512029008
1000 N. THIRD ST
CHRIS BENDON
APPEAL OF CODE INTERPRETATION
JIM CURTIS
4.1.10
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 4.1.10
0
2ci- —00`E�
rEile Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help
_J J A
-'a-' Clgar RV
Fr Main Routing Status Fee Summary Actions Routing History
M - --
t16A
4) a
g
Permit Type aslu Aspen Land Use
Permit # 10014.2008.ASLU
N
Address
Z' Apt/Suite
J
c
v
I _
ASPEN
State FCO - Ztp 81611 J
Permit Information
Master Permit I ZJ
Routing Queue aslu07
Applied 103104/2008
zz
Project �—
Z! Status pending
Approved J
N
Description
PPEALOF CODE INTERPRETATION
Issued
r
Final �— J
Submitted JJiM CURTIS 920.1395
Clock Running Days F 0
Expires 0212712009 J
0 wner
Last Name ,ASPEN INSTITUTE INC
ZI
First Name ( —
Phone
Owner Is Applicant?
Applicant
Last Name JASPEN INSTITUTE INC J
First Name
Phone
Cust # 25646
Lender
Last Name
ZI
r
First Name ( —
Phone
PO BOX 222
QUEENTOWN MD 21658
JP0 BOX 222 ZI QUEENTOWN MD 21658
AspenGold(b) Edit Record: 4 of 78
Amy Guthrie
k11 rewL4
From: Chris Bendon
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:08 PM
To: Jim Curtis
Cc: John Worcester; Steve Barwick; Amy Margerum; Amy Guthrie
Subject: RE: Aspen Institute Ord. #48 Appeal
Jim: Right. The way I read the 90-day provision (26.415.025.E), is that it is a discussion regarding the merits of the
resource and the effects of the "building permit" upon the resource. In this case the "building permit" would be the
proposed changes in your application. I think this allows for a pretty broad discussion of the proposal, not limited to the
criteria for appeal.
Cheers,
Chris Bendon, AICP
From: Jim Curtis [mailto:jcurtis@sopris.net]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:50 PM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: John Worcester; Steve Barwick; Amy Margerum; Amy Guthrie
Subject: Re: Aspen Institute Ord. #48 Appeal
I agree w/ your points below, plus not having to attend Tues's City Council meeting is an additional benefit!
Just to be clear on Point #1, under either the Paepcke or Greenwald applications, if the Institute elects to enact
the "90 day negotiation period" this will not be considered an "Appeal Hearing" as defined under Section
26.310.030, & the Institute & City Council will be procedurally able to discuss the merits of the application --
that's all the Institute has ever wanted is the ability to discuss the merits of the application with Council.
Have a good long week -end! Thanks.
Jim Curtis
On May 23, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Chris Bendon wrote:
Jim: We're good with your suggestion and we'll pull the agenda item and put it "on -hold" for the time being. A few notes
on our discussion —
On point #1 — If HPC does not support the land use applications that you have pending, we're okay with going forward
with the SPA review. There's no jurisdiction questions on that matter and P&Z's review would likely bring more clarity to
the discussion with Council. Internally, we had some discussion here about the awkwardness of going forward in either
scenario. If HPC "denies" the application, are we wasting P&Z's time with doing an SPA review prior to going to Council?
At the same time, if HPC "denies" the application and we go straight to Council would Council not be fully briefed on the
merits of the project without P&Z's input? So, it's a little weird either way, but we agree with you that if HPC does weigh-in
against the project that there should be no harm in proceeding through P&Z to get to Council — either way Council will
need to decide on the meaning on the HPC "denial" as well as all the SPA issues. With respect to the 90-day requirement,
if P&Z gets bogged -down in their review staff will probably need to expedite the negotiation with Council - potentially prior
to P&Z completing its review. But we can talk about that if and when we need to.
On point #2 — We understand your desire to present to the HP TF and we don't havPan issue with that premise. We
can't, however, promise that they'll take up the request. As you know, they've been tasked with quite a bit and may
choose to not hear you — we just don't have any control over that. In speaking with you the other day, it sounded like you
were fine with that. Also, the HP task force also doesn't have any formal jurisdiction on the matter of designation. So,
while they may weigh-in on whether the institute should be designated, I'm not sure what we do (in a formal sense) with
that opinion.
If the appeal needs to be revived, we will need a new fee. I you want, we
can put the entire thing on hold (appeal proceedings and fee) until further notice. This may be easier paperworkwise.
Again, I have no issues with returning the fee in whole if the appeal is withdrawn.
Cheers,
Chris Bendon, AICP
From: Jim Curtis [mailto:jcurtisC>sopris.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:16 AM
To: Chris Bendon
Cc: John Worcester; Steve Barwick; Amy Margerum
Subject: Fwd: Aspen Institute Ord. #48 Appeal
Dear Chris & John,
This email is to follow-up on our May 7th discussion concerning the Aspen Institute Appeal of
Ord. #48. The appeal consist of two questions as follows:
1. What is the Role & Authority of HPC in reviewing the Paepcke & Greenwald SPA
applications? Pursuant to our discussion, the Aspen Institute is willing to drop this part of its
appeal based on the following understanding. The Paepcke & Greenwald SPA applications are
scheduled before HPC for a May 28 hearing. BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN GETTING IN
FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL, AND THE FACT THAT WE ENDED UP NOT BEING ABLE
TO EVEN DISCUSS THE MERITS OF OUR ISSUES WITH THE CITY COUNCIL IT IS
NOW APPARENT THAT-- the HPC will be able to review & approve, approved with
conditions or disapprove the applications. Based on the actions of the HPC, the Institute can
either accept the HPC actions or evoke the "ninety -day negotiation period " under Section
26.415,025 (E) of the Code. During the "ninety day negotiation period" the Institute will 1 st
proceed to City P & Z to discuss the merits of the application & thereafter proceed to City
Council to discuss the merits of the project under the SPA procedures of the Code & as agendas
can be scheduled. The City Council will be the final authority acting on the applications. The
hearing(s) before City Council shall not be considered an "appeal" of an HPC approval, approval
with conditions or disapproval as an "Appeal Hearing" is defined under Section 26.310.030 of
the Code with its limitations on discussing the merits of the project, but rather the hearing(s)
before City Council shall be procedurally open to discussing the merits of the application &
having City Council take final action to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove the
applications.
2. What Aspen Institute "facilities" are encumbered under Ord. #48, Exhibit "A"? Again,
pursuant to our discussion, the Aspen Institute is willing to drop this part of its appeal based on
the Aspen Institute being able to make a presentation before the Historic Preservation Task Force
on this question. The Institute made a formal request to make a presentation before the Task
Force via an April 23 email to Amy Guthrie & as of today, no confirmation or date has been set
for the presentation. I will continue to follow-up with Amy Guthrie & Bill Stirling, Chairperson
of the Task Force, & see if a presentation date can be set. If the Task Force is unwilling to hear a
presentation from the Institute ( which I do not envision) and Aspen Center for Physics and
Music Associates of Aspen, then the Aspen Institute reserves the ability to make a presentation
before City Council on this question.
In summary, the Aspen Institute is willing to drop its appeal & not proceed with the City Council
meeting on May 27 as presently scheduled based on the above understanding. As part of
dropping its appeal, the Institute respectfully request its $ 735.00 appeal fee be reimbursed.
As always, please feel free to email or call if we need to clarify any of the above points based on
our May 7 discussion. If you disagreed with any of the above points, the Aspen Institute would
like to proceed with the May 27 meeting before City Council.
Thanks,
Jim Curtis
Amy L. Margerum
970-544-7905 (w)
970-404-4269 (c)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 9M
COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretations — Section 26.415.025
(Ordinance #48, Series of 2007)
DATE: May 27, 2008
SUMMARY:
One of the jobs assigned to the Community Development Director is to provide
interpretations of the text of the City's Land Use Code. This is a formal process in which an
applicant requests a written interpretation and, if they don't agree with the interpretation,
affords the applicant the right to appeal the decision to the City Council.
There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of a code
interpretation. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the City
Council shall consider whether:
1) There was a denial of due process;
2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or,
3) The administrative body abused its discretion.
These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that
the decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or
modified unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria. (Please see Exhibit A for
the entire code section.)
In this case, the Community Development Director rendered interpretations to address two
distinct issues raised by the Aspen Institute related to the applicability and operation of
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 (Please see Exhibit B for the full ordinance.)
First, The Institute asked whether Ordinance #48 was applicable to their entire property.
Ordinance #48 applies to a specific list of properties, identified in the document. The Aspen
Institute property is described as follows:
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description:
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1A.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
Staff s interpretation, issued on February 20, 2008, was that Ordinance #48 does indeed
apply to development on the entirety of Lots IA and Lot1B. We explained that the
parenthetical comments, noting buildings in the vicinity, were simply meant to provide a
reference point. In addition, we named at least two instances during the development of
Ordinance #48 when it was clarified to the Institute that the regulations being established for
potential historic resources were intended to apply to their entire site. (Please refer to Exhibit
C for the interpretation request, and Exhibit D for the full interpretation prepared by
Community Development.)
During discussions of the interpretation described above, the Institute indicated their belief
that, to the extent Ordinance #48 would be applicable to their property, they expected to
proceed with planned work after volunteering to participate in a non -binding review by the
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff disagreed that a non -binding HPC review is a channel to proceed with work subject to
Ordinance #48, and felt that the best way to address the difference of opinion would be to
create a second code interpretation, issued on March 24, 2008. Staff s interpretation was that
an owner who elects to proceed with planned work after a review by the Historic
Preservation Commission may only do so if the HPC approves the subject project. The
specific language of the code section in question reads:
"An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter
26.415 of the Municipal Code and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance
with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines," an application for building
permit shall be issued." (emphasis added)
Please refer to Exhibit E for the interpretation request, and Exhibit F for the full
interpretation prepared by Community Development. The Aspen Institute's request to appeal
the code interpretations is attached as Exhibit G.
CODE INTERPRETATIONS VS. CODE AMENDMENTS:
The question in a code interpretation is what does the code say? On occasion, applicants
seek a code interpretation because they believe the code should say something else. The
code amendment process is the proper venue for the question what should the code say?
STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
1. Due Process — With respect to due process, as required by the Land Use Code, a notice of
tonight's meeting was published in the newspaper. (Please see Exhibit H.) Staff was late in
providing the applicant with a copy of the notice by registered mail. The applicant waived
the mailed notice, preferring to proceed on April 28`h as planned, rather than asking staff to
re -notice. (Please see Exhibit I.) Staff believes therefore that proper due process has been
provided to the appellant.
2
• 0
Z Jurisdiction — The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in
Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction,
authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One of the
Director's duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the
boundaries of the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26.306. " Staff believes
this language is clear and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of
the code.
3. Discretion — With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to
use his discretion in rendering the interpretation. The question is whether the Director
abused that discretion or acted unethically.
In analyzing the code, it was clear to the Director that throughout the creation of Ordinance
#48, there was an intention to provide "protection" and to "prevent the loss (and) limit the
detrimental effect of development," on potential historic resources. There were several
lengthy and heavily covered public meetings during which the concept of a list, and the
implications of being on the list, were discussed. The Aspen Institute participated in that
process and presented their objections to City Council, who did not elect to amend the
ordinance in response.
The Director concluded that, with regard to the questions raised by The Aspen Institute, the
resources were clearly named, and mandatory processes were established to screen any work
that could have a negative result.
TWO RESOLUTIONS:
Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the
interpretation. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his
authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses the interpretation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff believes the Director's interpretation was rendered ethically and that no abuse of
authority or exceeding of jurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold
the Director's interpretation by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the
interpretation. If the City Council finds the Director did not act correctly, City Council will
need to render an interpretation of the land Use Code. This may be more or less restrictive
that the interpretation rendered by the Director.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive)
"I move to approve Resolution No.,,� , Series of 2008, [affirming or reversing] the
Community Development Director's inte etation of Land Use Code Section 26.415.025."
91
ATTACHMENTS:ADI
RESOLUTION # SERIES OF 2008 (AFFIRMING, OR REVERSING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENTECTOR'S INTERPRETATION)
Exhibit A — Land Use Code Section Regarding Appeals
Exhibit B — Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 (contains Section 26.415.025)
Exhibit C — Interpretation request from Jim Curtis, dated January 291h, 2008
Exhibit D- Interpretation dated February 201h, 2008
Exhibit E- Email from Jim Curtis (basis for second interpretation), dated March 51h, 2008
Exhibit F- Interpretation dated March 24th, 2008
Exhibit G- Appeal letter from Jim Curtis, dated March 3`d, 2008
Exhibit H — Affidavit of notice
Exhibit I- Applicant's waiver of mailed notice requirement
Exhibit X Council minutes of November 12, 2007
0 t�� � �0 � -� Z6�'�
Chapter 26.316
APPEALS
Sections:
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
26.316.020 Authority.
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth
Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide
certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002)
26.316.020 Authority.
A. Board ofAdjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the
following appeals:
1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission
or Historic Preservation Commission.
B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals:
1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the
Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature
shall be a public meeting.
2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions,
or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay
District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter
26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as
established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the
authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development
Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in
accordance with Section 26.470.060(D).
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007.
Part 300, Page 35
D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority
to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless
otherwise specifically stated in this title.
(Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12-2007; 2002)
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The
notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or
department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision
or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall
constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination.
B. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in
furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in
writing to the chairperson of the decision -making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses
an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The
chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such
certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings.
C. Timing of appeal. The decision -making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the
appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is
practical under the circumstances.
D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by
publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26.304.060(E)).
E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision -making body
authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the
body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified
unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded
its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
F. Action by the decision -making hody hearing the appeal. The decision -making body hearing the
appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision
is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the
appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the
appellant. The decision -making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally
heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if
any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals
shall be public meetings.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12-2007, 2002)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 300, Page 36
ORDINANCE NO.48
(Series of 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26.415 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN
AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in light of the on -going demolition of buildings, structures or objects that
may have historical significance for the City of Aspen, the City Council adopted an Emergency
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007, on July 10, 2007. The Ordinance amended Title
26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H"
Historic Overlay District and established a new process for the identification and protection of
potential historic resources. The Ordinance was adopted to address the negative impacts that
the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general
well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique
architectural character, livability and attractiveness as a destination; and
WHEREAS, City Council subsequently directed the Community Development De-
partment to prepare further amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, including limit-
ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which are at least 30
years old and which, in staff s opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical
trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most particularly Aspen's
development since World War II. Said list is attached to this Ordinance as "Exhibit A;" and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of the pro-
posed additions and amendments to Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as described
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 2, 2007, took
and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Di-
rector and recommended, by a 3-1 vote, City Council adopt proposed amendments to the land
use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the geographical area of the City of Aspen east of Castle Creek and
south of the Roaring Fork River substantially defines the perceived character of Aspen's built
environment and the buildings in this area are visibly accessible and can be appreciated by the
general public; and,
WHEREAS, multi -family buildings are typically owned by multiple parties and are
subject to heightened development exactions upon demolition and are, therefore, less likely
than other types of buildings to be demolished in the near future; and,
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 1
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby de-
letes in its entirety Section 26.415.035, Designation of Historic Properties. (Note to codifier
— this Section has been amended and recodified as Section 26.415.025.)
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
amends Chapter 26.415 by adding Section 26.415.025, Identification of Potential Historic
Resources, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential
Historic Resources to read as follows:
26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section and identifying a List of Potential Historic Re-
sources (alternatively, the "List") is to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structures or objects,
or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural,
archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of de-
velopment or demolition of these potential resources on the character of the town during the
time period that the City is undertaking revisions to the Historic Preservation Program. Pre-
serving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more
attractive and desirable place in which to live, work, or visit.
B. List of Potential Historic Resources. There is hereby identified a List of Potential His-
toric Resources. The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007,
shall constitute this List. The List shall be maintained and made available to the general pub-
lic by the Community Development Department.
C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. No properties shall be added
to the List of Potential Historic Resources by the City of Aspen for the effective period of Or-
dinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evaluation of the historic
preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making recommendations is in
operation. Properties may be removed from the List pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E. If the
primary structure(s) on any property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources have
been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by
the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the List.
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property owner and no building
permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition or other similar development activ-
ity that substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community
Development Department except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
26.415.025.E.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 2
Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits
limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar
to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, or re-
pair of window glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exte-
rior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be mini-
mally intrusive or reversible work that does not diminish the historic character of the property.
Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact
the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section.
An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal
Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Guidelines," an application for building permit shall be issued. Work undertaken
in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assum-
ing that the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent prac-
ticable, shall be exempt from this Section.
E. Ninety -Day Negotiation Period. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, re-
development, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the Potential His-
toric Resource shall be accepted by the Community Development Department. Only complete
Land Use applications, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be ac-
cepted. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day nego-
tiation period shall accompany the building permit or land use application. Upon acceptance,
the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not be issued, for a pe-
riod of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regarding the preservation of the Re-
source. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted
by a majority of the Council.
Within the ninety -day negotiation period, the following shall occur:
l . The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the
nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided no-
tice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission.
3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding
the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the
staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the ef-
fects of building permit upon the Resource. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting with the City Council.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 3
i 0
4. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to di-
rect the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negoti-
ate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preserva-
tion of the Resource. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Execu-
tive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement,
the City Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark,
pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of His-
toric Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may
choose to require the affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by
the property owner.
5. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property
owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected building permits
shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building
codes. Affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Devel-
opment Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate ne-
gotiations at any time and allow the permit or land use application to be reviewed.
Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing building permits or land use applications
during the ninety -day period.
If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building per-
mit issued pursuant to this Section, the Potential Historic Resource has been demolished or so
altered as to render the property no longer a Potential Historic Resource, the Community De-
velopment Director shall remove the property from the List of Potential Historic Resources.
F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not included on the List of Potential Historic
Resources. To request confirmation that a property is not included on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, a property owner may submit a request to the Community Development
Department. The request shall include the name and address of the property owner and any
authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner. The confirmation letter shall be in a record-
able format and indicate whether the subject property is on the List of Potential Historic Re-
sources, shall include a current copy of the List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall con-
firm that the property is exempt from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for the
effective period of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evalua-
tion of the historic preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making rec-
ommendations is in operation. For structures between thirty (30) and forty (40) old, the con-
firmation letter shall also exempt the property from the procedures and limitations of this
Chapter for a period of one (1) year after the date of amendments to Chapter 26.415 adopted in
response to the Citizen Task Force recommendations. The confirmation letter shall not create
or constitute a vested right. Confirmation requests may be assessed an administrative review
fee. An owner of the subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Director's
determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Ap-
peals.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 4
G. Voluntary Designation. The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission
and the Community Development Director may not initiate an application for designation
unless the property owner consents to designation for the effective period of Ordinance 48,
Series of 2007. An owner of a property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources
who consents to Historic Designation may request the Community Development Director ini-
tiate an application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic
Properties. An owner of the subject property who consents to designation may concurrently
submit any proposed redevelopment plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415.
H. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified
on the List of Potential Historic Resources, including purposeful removal, change or damage
to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building
shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community
Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs,
that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in
order to apply penalties.
In addition, properties on the List of Potential Historic Resources are required to receive rea-
sonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Ne-
glect.
Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.13 or completed ac-
cording to a Development Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development
Department, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties.
Section 3. Notice to Property Owners.
All owners of properties identified on the List of Potentially Historic Resources, as provided in
Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall be mailed a copy of this Ordinance by registered mail, within 10
days of the final City Council approval of this Ordinance. Property owners may submit to the
Community Development Department alternate or additional addresses for this information to be
mailed. (As opposed to or in addition to the address on file with the Pitkin County Assessor's
Office.)
Section 4. Effect on Existing Ordinance No. 30 Determinations.
This Ordinance shall not affect any Determination of No Historic Significance approved by the
Community Development Director pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. These
determinations issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 30 shall continue to be valid for a five-year
period from their issuance date.
Section 5. Policy Task Force.
A Historic Preservation Policy Task Force shall be established in order to provide guidance on
additional changes to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program. Membership of the Task
Force shall be by appointment by City Council. Duties of the Task Force shall be determined by
City Council, but shall include a review of the following as a minimum:
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 5
• The criteria upon which designation applications are judged, including whether additional
or different criteria should apply when the property owner objects to the designation and
for 20`s century properties.
• Changes to the Integrity Scoring System used to evaluate properties, including to the
process by which the Scoring System is adopted.
• Existing and additional benefits for owners of historic properties.
• Strategic policy level review of the historic preservation program objectives and benefits
and congruence with community goals as outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The City shall not proceed with property designations without owner consent until the Policy
Task Force has made their recommendations and the City Council has considered proposed code
changes.
Section 6. Availability of Documents.
The Community Development Department shall make available to the public all documents
related to the List of Potential Historic Resources, criteria upon which properties shall be
evaluated, research papers, scoring sheets, development and other benefits, and copies of this
ordinance and shall diligently pursue timely inclusion of this information on the City of Aspen
website.
Section 7. Effect on Existing Applications.
This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing Development Order, or
Building Permit, as such terms are used in the Land Use Code, submitted and determined
complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Pre -Application Conferences, Pre -Application Conference Sun -unary reports, or formal or informal
discussions with Community Development staff or review Boards shall not constitute a complete
application or any other official status. Applications submitted after the effective date of this
ordinance shall comply with the terms of this ordinance and of the Land Use Code, as amended.
Section 8. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 9. Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 10. Notice
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on November 12, 2007, continued to November 26,
2007, and continued to December 10, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 6
•
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22"d day of October, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Major
ATTEST:
Kathryn K , City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 14Kjlay of L)U.4, 2007.
chae C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn Ko , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, � f � �? r--�_
Jim True, Special Counsel
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007
114 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS.
118 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437012; 273512437011. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS.
408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Parcel Id: 2737-182-16-009, Legal Description: BLOCK
89, LOT PART OF L&M.
Cooper Avenue, Hyman Avenue and Mill Street Pedestrian Malls
333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Parcel Id: 273718245002, Legal Description:
BLOCK 84, MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD SUBDIVISION.
100 E. Francis St., Given Institute: Parcel Id: 273512419851, Legal Description: BLOCK
63, LOT A - LOT F, DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLK 63
PART OF FRANCIS ST PART OF CENTER ST & PART OF THE NW4 OF THE SW4 OF
SEC 7-10-84 & PART OF THE NE4 OF THE SE4 OF SEC 12-10-85 SAID PARCELS
DESC AS BGNNG AT A PT OF THE N LINE OF FRANCIS ST & 24.00 FT ELY OF THE
W LINE OF CENTER ST TH N 14 DEG 50'49" E 121.59 FT TH N 33 DEG 03'19"E 42.21
FT TH N 7 DEG 19'05 "E 112.35 FT TH S 70 DEG 18' 15"E 286.57 FT TH S 6 DEG 18'51 "W
103.11 FT TH 18 DEG 12'00"W 108.73 FT TH 9 DEG 25'21 "E 52.10 FT TH S 23 DEG
21'00"E 83.49 FT TO THE STHLY LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED ELY TH N 75
DEG 09' 11 "W 288.99 FT TO THE NW COR OF BLK 64 TH N 31 DEG 00'50"W 107.29 FT
TO THE POB.
210 W. Francis Ave: Parcel Id: 273512417005, Legal Description: BLOCK 48, LOT P & Q.
621 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2735142426011; 2735142426012, Legal Description: BLOCK
22, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUM.
624 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409012, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT B.
626 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409011, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT A.
215 N. Garmisch St., Yellow Brick: Parcel Id: 273512436850, Legal Description:
BLOCK57, LOT A - LOT S, PLUS VACATED ALLEY.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 8
233 Gilbert St., Skier Chalet Lodge: Parcel ld: 273513119002, Legal Description: BLOCK
9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THE W 22' EAMES ADDITION
SUBDIVISION.
700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physics: Parcel Id: 273512129803, Legal Descrip-
tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Parcel Id: 273707313801, Legal Description: BLOCK 71,
LOTS K,L,M & FRACTIONAL LOTS A, B, & C, BLOCK 64, LOTS A-1 & LOTS K-S
AND A STRIP OF LAND.
327 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512434001, Legal Description: BLOCK 43, LOTS A - C.
928 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512300015, Legal Description: BLOCK 4, LOTS PART K,
L & M SECT,TWN,RNG:12-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO SOMETIMES
KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY M/B BK 385 PG 357 & TRACT
FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF HERNDON SUB FIRST AMENDMENT.
122 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512455004, Legal Description: BLOCK 59, LOTS M &
N.
129 E. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512458004, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS G - I.
211 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512463003, Legal Description: BLOCK 53, LOTS F &
G.
100 E. Hyman Ave., Chalet Lis]: Parcel Id: 273512458005, Legal Description: BLOCK 68,
LOTS K - M.
322 W. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N &
O.
334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Parcel Id: 273512464004, Legal Description: ST MORITZ
LODGE MINOR PUD SUBDIVISION.
606 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212003, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT K & L.
610 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212004, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT M.
630 E. Hyman Ave., Patio Building: Parcel Id: 273718212007, Legal Description: BLOCK
99, LOTS R & S.
720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club: Parcel Id: 273718211008 THROUGH
273718211019; 273718211021 THROUGH 273718211031, Legal Description: BLOCK 104,
ALL UNITS, ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUMS.
301 Lake Ave., Parcel Id: 273512416003, Legal Description: HALLAM ADDITION
SUBDIVISION BLOCK 40, EAST 1/2 OF LOT 5 - LOT 7.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 9
120 E. Main St., Design Workshop: Parcel Id: 273512438002, Legal Description: ELY 20
FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N & O BLOCK 66 & SLY 10 FT OF VACATED ALLEY
ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION.
200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Parcel Id: 273512440010, Legal Description: BLOCK 51,
LOTS R & S.
220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73,
LOTS P&Q.
420 E. Main St: Parcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description:
BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS.
435 East Main St., Gas Station/local's corner: Parcel Id: 273707330005, Legal Description:
BLOCK 87, LOTS E -1.
630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Parcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK
24, LOT M.
730 W. Main St., Hickory House: Parcel Id: 273512445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18,
LOTS M - P.
745 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201003, Legal Description: BLOCK 1, LOT 3,
SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION.
765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE
SUBDIVISION.
119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Parcel Id: 273707329009, Legal Description: BLOCK
80, LOTS P - S.
307 S. Mill St., D-19 Restaurant: Parcel Id: 273718217004, Legal Description: ASPEN
COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, UNIT:B.
536 W. North St., Christ Episcopal Church: Parcel Id: 273512111808, Legal Description:
BLOCK 99, LOTS 11 - 15 HALLAM ADDITION.
411 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512110002, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 7 & 8 & A
STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN BLK 101 HALLAMS ADDITION BEING ONE HALF OF
THE ALLEY WIDTH ADJ TO THE SLY BORDER OF LOT 7 & 8 HALLAM ADDITION.
434 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512109002, Legal Description: BLOCK 100, SOUTH 1/2 OF
LOT 2 AND LOT 3, HALLAM ADDITION.
850 Roaring Fork Rd: Parcel Id: 273512126001, Legal Description: LOT 1, MERRIAM
SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 10
500 West Smuggler St: Parcel Id: 273512404006, Legal Description: LOTS Q, R &S,
BLOCK 26.
949 W. Smuggler Ave: Parcel Id: 273512212001, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT A — I.
300 S. Spring St., Hannah Dustin: Parcel Id: 273718227800; 273718227101, Legal Descrip-
tion: BLOCK 105, LOTS A - D, ALL UNITS, HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS.
219 S. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512465005, Legal Description: BLOCK 39, LOTS O — S.
407 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P — S.
615 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512110001, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 9 & 10.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Ho-
sier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description:
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel Id: 273718156001 thru-003; 273718156005 thru-
020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718156131;
273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL
UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS.
1005 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C,
EAST ASPEN ADDITION.
1102 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD
SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Margerum, Executive Vice -President, Operations, The Aspen Institute
DATE: January 29, 2008
RE: Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A Interpretation
The Aspen Institute Property
The Aspen Institute requests an interpretation/clarification of the recently adopted
Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A as it pertains to the Aspen Institute property. This request for
interpretation is made under Municipal Code Section 26.306.
Exhibit A of Ordinance #48 lists the Aspen Institute property as Lot 1 A & Lot 1 B,
Aspen Meadows. The total property is approximately 40 ac. & Exhibit A further
describes Lots 1 A & 1 B as follows:
• Lot IA as "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant,
Sculpture & Gardens."
• Lot 1 B as "area of seminar buildings."
The Community Development Office is interpreting Exhibit A of Ordinance #48
to be "all inclusive" encompassing the total 40 acres of Lots IA & 113, including all
buildings and grounds. As we have stated verbally and in writing prior to this, the Aspen
Institute feels this interpretation is overreaching and is not consistent with the written
language of Exhibit A, i.e. Lot IA is further described as "area of Trustee Townhomes,
Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture & Gardens" and Lot 1 B is further
described as "area of seminar buildings."
The Aspen Institute further feels that having Ordinance #48 apply to the total 40
acres and all buildings and grounds creates an hardship on the Institute's operations and
maintenance of the property. For example, over the past 2 years, the Institute has been
upgrading the grounds and buildings signage on the property to make it more attractive,
readable and uniform. The "all inclusive" interpretation of Ordinance #48 would require
that each new sign be approved by the Community Development Office. An even more
burdensome example is each spring the Institute typically reseeds areas that have been
damaged by winter plowing. Again, under the "all inclusive" and a strict interpretation of
AspCityCouncilMemoOrdinance#48
0
9
Ordinance #48 would require all reseeding be approved by the Community Development
Office.
The Aspen Institute is NOT OPPOSED to specific meritorious buildings and
grounds being designated Historic, but is strongly opposed to designating buildings and
grounds which are clearly not historic and which the City is not consistently applying to
other properties in town. Designating the total 40 acres Historic creates unnecessary
hardships on the operations and maintenance of the property. The Aspen Institute is
supportive of the following Historic designations:
Lot I — Reception Center/ Restaurant, Health Center, and Marble Garden
Grounds and Sculptures.
Lot I — Paepcke Building, Koch Building, Boettcher Building, and Anderson
Park Grounds.
Secondarily, the Institute would like to point -out the following additional
deficiencies/inaccuracies in Exhibit A, Ordinance #48.
1. Neither the Benedict Music Tent nor the Harris Concert Hall nor the MAA
property is designated in Exhibit A. This would be Lot 2, Aspen Meadows
Subdivision, while both the Aspen Institute and Aspen Center for Physics
properties are designated in Exhibit A. The Aspen Institute finds this to be
extremely inconsistent and in -explainable.
2. The Aspen Meadows Townhomes are described as being on Lot IA, Aspen
Meadows Subdivision, in Exhibit A. This is incorrect. The Aspen Meadows
Townhomes are located on Lot 5, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, and consists of 11
townhomes of which only 2 are owned by the Aspen Institute. The others are
owned by private individuals.
3. The lodging rooms were completely torn down and re -built and thus should not be
designated historic. This is also true with the brand new Doerr -Hosier Center.
Again, we fail to understand why you would designate these new building and not
the Music Tent facilities or Harris Hall.
In advance, the Aspen Institute looks forward to the City Council discussion on
this matter.
cc: Jim Curtis, Owner Representative — The Aspen Institute
AspCityCouncilMemoOrdinance#48 2
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION:
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY: P M, 0".",
Date: February 20, 2008
COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff
City of Aspen
26.415.025, Potential Historic
Resources
February 20, 2008
Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
Chris Bendon,.
Community Development Director
SUMMARY:
.This Land Use Code interpretation clarifies the meaning of Aspen Municipal Code
Section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. The interpretation request was filed by
Amy Margerum, Executive Vice President, Operations, The Aspen Institute. Ms.
Margerum references Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, which established the subject code
section, and included an exhibit identifying affected property by address and legal
description. Property owned by the Institute is identified in Ordinance #48 as follows:
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal
Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id:
273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
The Institute objects to Community Development Staffs interpretation that the entirety
of Lots IA and l.B are subject to Section 26.415.025.
BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption
of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance created new regulations to address
Aspen properties that do not currently have historic landmark protection, but are believed
to be "Potential Historic Resources." A list of affected properties, by address and legal
description, was made available to the public starting on September 26, 2067.
Ordinance #48 is expected,to terminate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy
recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with
• 0
alterations unless the work is approved by Staff or HPC, or the owner enters into a
negotiation process with City Council to discuss preservation options. The Aspen
Institute currently proposes alterations to Paepcke Auditorium and will volunteer for
designation and HPC review. They have expressed unwillingness to have HPC review an
adjacent project, installation of a permanent tent next to the Koch Seminar building. This
appears to be the impetus for the code interpretation request.
DISCUSSION
On Exhibit A to Ordinance #48, the property description provided for each Institute
parcel includes a parenthetical note. For Lot 1 A, the note states "area of Trustee
Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens" and for Lot
113 it reads "area of seminar buildings." This additional information was meant to serve
as a reference point, since few people would understand the distinction between Lot lA
and Lot 1B. It was not intended to narrow the affected area.
In all cases on Exhibit A (and in fact almost without exception in Aspen's historic
preservation program) the entire boundary of a property is used when applying
regulations. Staff was clear in stating this intention with regard to the Aspen Institute
property. Immediately after the research to develop "Exhibit A" was completed and the
document was distributed to the public, staff sent letters to all affected property owners.
Staff contacted Amy Margerum of the Aspen Institute on this topic via email on
September 27, 2007, because of the high historic value of the campus. Staff was clear
that the goal was to protect the entire campus, not just isolated areas of the property.
(Email attached.)
Ms. Margerum attended the November 12t' City Council hearing on Ordinance #48.
During comment, she asked staff directly if the intention was to designate the whole site.
The meeting minutes state:
Amy Margerum representing the Aspen Institute noted the Aspen Institute
is under an approved master plan which provides for historic review. Ms.
Margerum asked if the grounds as well as the buildings are under this
ordinance. (Note that this was confirmed at the hearing, acknowledged by
both Ms. Margerum and Mayor Ireland. Tape available from the City
Clerk's office.) 'Ms. Margerum told Council the Institute has gone through
reviews with the HPC and the end result was a better project. Ms
Margerum said if the city is going to add properties to the historic list
Council has to ask management to look into the time and money it takes to
go through the HPC process it is onerous and costly especially for a non-
profit organization. Ms. Guthrie said the grounds of the Institute are not
protected. Ms. Margerum stated she is vehemently opposed to designating
the grounds of the Institute
While City Council made amendments to Exhibit Aat the hearings that led to the final
adoption of. Ordinance #48, they did not make any amendment relative to the Aspen
Institute. The Institute is apparently opposed to designation of the property as a whole,
2
0 •
however the topic of a code interpretation is not what should the code state, but what
does it state.
The interpretation request raises side issues, such as the level of review that might result
from landmark designation. Ordinance #48 is not landmark designation. For properties
that do achieve that status, the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance explains which
actions require review and which are exempt. Areas of apparent concern to this property
owner include signs, which are a type of work that generally needs a staff sign off. Staff
and HPC do not review reseeding of grass or similar forms of basic maintenance.
The applicant also inquires why the MAA parcel was not included in Ordinance #48. In
terms of structures, this site does not contain any that have been identified as historically
significant yet (both the tent and Harris Hall are recent construction). To fully address
the historic qualities of the entire Meadows area, the MAA parcel should be discussed for
designation as the Task Force effort moves forward.
Staff's opinion, as reflected in the writing of Ordinance 448, Series of 2007, is that a
great deal of the historic and architectural significance of the Aspen Institute property is
the integrity of the campus as a whole. While it is a large parcel, there is precedence for
regulating the preservation of an area of this size; for instance the downtown historic
district is approximately 31 acres. It is very important to provide formal Historic
Preservation Commission review for work that affects the landmark structures at the
Institute, as well as proposed new construction, which, if not thoughtfully evaluated,
could disrupt or destroy historic value.
INTERPRETATION
Staffs interpretation is that the entirety of the properties listed below are affected
by Ordinance #48. The parenthetical comment is provided for reference only.
Comments shown in parentheses are generally understood to be amplifying words,
independent of the surrounding grammatical structure.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal
Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id:
273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
APPEAL OF DECISION
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed. with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
3
Message Page 1 of 2
Amy Guthrie -
From: Margerum, Amy [amy.margerum@aspeninst.org]
Sent: `Friday, September 28, 2007 1:37 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Cc: Chris Bendon; Sara Adams; Perry, Allison; Jim Curtis
Subject: RE: Changes to historic designations
Amy: Thank you for sending me this information. I will ask Allison to put the two
dates on my calendar so we can be part of the process. Can you let her know the
times? (October 2nd is awfully close... hope I can make it!) .
As you mention, we do give HPC a courtesy review of many of the projects,
however, we are not keen on having our landscaping and grounds under the
purview of HPC. It is costly and cumbersome for us and I do not think it is
appropriate for HPC to get into this area. We are running a major conference
center and it is not public land ... we need the flexibility to use our grounds in ways
that work for our business, which often changes on a daily basis.
We have a Master Plan which dictates the flavor and the uses "on the site and I
believe we have been quite sensitive to the historic nature of the property and in
keeping with that Plan. It is the Plan which should dictate the feel of the overall
property. Right now at least I have no sense of any consistent guidelines or rules
for our property that various staff and commissioners might impose upon us.
I wouldalso ask that during this review you really explore ways of making the
process cheaper and easier on owners. The time it takes is very difficult given our
seasonal nature and, it seems the biggest incentive of all for us to be historically
designated would be for you to try and make decisions quickly and without a huge
financial burden on us. Scheduling for HPC is often months out and I always have
to hire consultants and planners to prepare the applications.
I look forward to working with you on this program
All the best,
Amy
-----Original Message -----
From: Amy Guthrie [mailto:amyg@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:29 PM
To: Margerum, Amy -
Cc: Chris Bendon; Sara Adams
Subject: Changes to historic designations
Hi Amy- I don't know how much you have been following the discussion about the City
2/19/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
preventing any alterations to buildings at least 30 years old until it has been determined
whether or not they have historic significance (Ordinance #30.) You may know that
Council has directed our office to narrow the scope of the Ordinance so that, instead of
applying to everything at least 30 years old, the law would only apply to a specific list of
properties that our staff feels are potentially eligible landmarks. We have created the list
and released it at the HPC meeting last night. It will be published in the paper shortly and
we are sending out letters to the affected property owners to let everyone know this is under
discussion. P&Z will look at this on Oct. 2nd and City Council will have a major
discussion on Oct. 22nd.
I wanted to give you notice that the list includes the concept of designating the whole
Institute Campus. Pretty much every landmark site we have in the City right now was
adopted based on the legal description of the entire property, so that HPC has purview over
the setting of the historic building. The Institute fought that concept 12 or so years ago and
Council agreed to just name specific structures (i.e. Townhomes, Health Club, Restaurant,
Marble Gardens and other Bayer landscapes.) Our concern with this is twofold. First, there
are a number of other important resources at the Institute (i.e. the Fuller dome, the
Kaleidoscreen, Paepcke Auditorium, Koch, and Boettcher) that have no formal protection.
Second, the setting, landscape, and campus nature of the property is part of the most
important aspect of its historic significance.
Again, you will get more info in the mail, but I want to be sure you know -what is going on
asap. Happy to discuss with you. Changing the designation to cover the campus as a whole
would mean HPC would have purview over any significant landscape changes as well as
any new structures. You have generally offered that as a courtesy in the past anyway.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
2/19/2008
Page 1 of 2
Amy Guthrie
From: Perry, Allison [Allison. Perry@aspeninst.org] on behalf of Margerum, Amy
[amy. margerum@aspeninst.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:26 PM
To: Chris Bendon; Jennifer Phelan; John Worcester; Amy Guthrie
Cc: 'Jim Curtis'; Margerum, Amy
Subject: Ordinance #48
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Director
John Worcester, Aspen City Attorney
FROM: Amy Margerum, Executive Vice -President Operations
The Aspen Institute
DATE: March 5, 2008
RE: Greenwald Pavilion Tent
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment Application
Dated December 20, 2007
The Aspen Institute voluntarily agrees to have the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) review the above application pursuant to Chapter 26.440 "Specially Planned
Areas" (SPAS) of the Code. Under Chapter 26.440 SPAS, it is my understanding the HPC
review of the application will be as a "referral and recommending" entity to Aspen City
Council in Council's SPA review of the application. Under the SPA review, the Aspen Institute looks
forward to the HPC discussion and would like to be scheduled before HPC as soon as possible.
3/6/2008
• 0 Page 2 of 2
Secondly, pursuant to my letter of March 3, the Aspen Institute has appealed the
Code Interpretation of Ordinance #48. Hopefully, the appeal can be scheduled and heard
before City Council before the HPC review of the above application. Even under Chapter 26.415
"Development Involving The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures ... " and
Section 26.415.025D of the Code, the Aspen Institute feels the HPC review of the above application is
as a "referral and recommending" entity to Aspen City Council, without any Code authority to approve
or deny the application, because as of this date none of the Aspen Institute property including the
Greenwald Pavilion Tent Site have been designated by City Council by ordinance to the "Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" pursuant to Section 26.415.030 and Section
26.415.040 of the Code. Section 26.415.070 of the Code is clear HPC only has Code authority to
approve, approve with conditions or deny development applications involving properties designated on
the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures."
The Aspen Institute looks forward to the HPC discussion on the above application and the
meeting with Aspen City Council to clarify Ordinance #48 and the procedures, rules and authority of
the entities involved in the review of the above application. Please feel free to contact me on any
questions concerning the above.
3/6/2008
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION:
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
Date: VNhhrch 24, 2008
COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff
City of Aspen
26.415.025,
Resources
March 24, 2008
Potential Historic
Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
SUMMARY:
This Land Use Code interpretation clarifies the meaning of Aspen Municipal Code
Section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. The interpretation was suggested by
Jim Curtis, representing the Aspen Institute, and the Community Development
Department agreed that the clarification should be pursued. The Institute is of the belief
that a property owner affected by Ordinance #48 can proceed with any planned work
after volunteering to allow the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to review the
work in an advisory capacity, regardless of the disposition of the HPC. Community
Development Staff disagree with this perspective and believe that work may only proceed
if found by HPC to be in conformance with the guidelines.
BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption
of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance created new regulations to address
Aspen properties that do not currently have historic landmark protection, but are believed
to be "Potential Historic Resources." Throughout the ordinance, the intention to provide
"protection" and to "prevent the loss (and) limit the detrimental effect of development,"
is stated.
Ordinance #48 is expected to terminate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy
recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with
alterations unless the work is approved by Staff or HPC, or the owner enters into a
negotiation process with City Council to discuss preservation options.
The Aspen Institute currently proposes alterations to Paepcke Auditorium and
construction of a new tent known as the Greenwald Pavilion. It is staff s understanding
that the Institute believes that these projects are not subject to Ordinance #48, which staff
•
disputed in a previous Code Interpretation, and the Institute believes that, to the extent
Ordinance #48 is applicable, I IPC's role in reviewing the appropriateness of the project is
advisory only. "Phis is the focus of the current code interpretation.
DISCUSSION
Section 26.415.025.D states:
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of
Potential Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property
owner and no building permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition
or other similar development activities that substantially alters the Potential
I listoric Resource may be accepted by the Community Development Department
except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.415.025.E.
The section goes on to state exceptions from this prohibition. The first exception is that
interior work, painting, and routine maintenance is allowed to proceed. In addition, the
Community Development Director has the opportunity to determine that any proposed
work is so minimally intrusive or reversible as to not require further review under
Ordinance #48. Emergency repairs can also be undertaken.
Property owners proposing work that is not exempt as described have another option,
which is to volunteer to allow HPC to review their project. The language states
An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter
26.415 of the Municipal Code and if the work is found by HPC to be in
conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines," an
application for building permit shall be issued. (emphasis added)
This language indicates that the owner may pursue their project by volunteering to
participate in a review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The referenced code
section is the City's entire historic preservation program, which describes the kinds of
development over which I iPC has purview, the review criteria, and the procedures for
review. In no case is HPC's decision in these matters advisory. The language of
Ordinance #48 states that an owner choosing to work with HPC must present a project
that the board finds is in conformance with their guidelines, and when that is the case, a
building permit will be issued. Therefore, if I-IPC does not find that a project is in
conformance with their guidelines, a building permit will not be issued and the project
cannot proceed.
INTERPRETATION
Staff s interpretation is that an owner who elects to proceed with planned work after a
review by the Historic Preservation Commission may only do so if the HPC approves the
subject project.
2
APPEAL OF DECISION
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
3
•
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Margerum, Executive Vice -President Operations
The Aspen Institute
DATE: March 3, 2008
RE: Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation
Code Section 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
The Aspen Institute wishes to appeal the code interpretation of the above
dated February 20, 2008 written by Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer.
As set forth in the Aspen Institute's prior memorandum dated .lanuary
29, 2008, the Institute feels the Community Development Offce's
interpretation of Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A being "all inclusive" and
encompassing all buildings and grounds on the total 40 acres (Lots I & 1 B)
owned by the Institute is overreaching, not consistent with the written language
of Exhibit A, creates an operating hardship for the Institute and is not
consistently applied to certain adjacent properties. The Aspen Institute wishes
to clarify these items and interpretation before Aspen City Council as quickly as
possible to the benefit of all parties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please inform me when
our appeal will be scheduled.
1000 North Third Street
Aspen, CO 81611
PH 970.925.7010
FX 970.925.4188
www.aspeninstitute.org
■
Ben Lion MemoAppeallnstitute
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ay—fi , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: l olyp!q�-1 !�tr- Z� " 'SC _"f, 2000'
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, Atli 4 &Z 1 S�o L'I'f (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
JzPublication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
0
s
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
S i gn aftfre
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this fzA- day
of 4eQ-1 L , 200 b, by Ile
nes Weeki
lPUBLIC NOTICE i RE: APPEA OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF ORDI-
NANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007n APPEAL TO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday, April 28, 2008. at a meet-
ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City
Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to hear an appeal of the
Community Development Director's Interpretation
of elements of Ordinance #48. Series of 2007 by
the Aspen Institute, 1000 N. Third Street. Aspen,
CO 81611, represented by Jim Curtis.
For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the
S. GaflenaeSt., Aspen, CO (97Develo0) 429-ment 2758 1(3or
amyg O ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on April 13,
2008.(1397307)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: (2 /I L / 110 1 b
�f_t \LID 0 �
Notary Public `j —
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICA TION
i
LAURA
MEYER ,Q
I umr.)is�ix "--oirps 0811012010
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SI M
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
C
Amy Guthrie
From: Jim Curtis Ocurtis@sopris.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:42 AM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: Re: notice
The Institute is happy to waive the 15 day mail Notice. No problem.
On Apr 14, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Amy Guthrie wrote:
> Hi Jim- I've just realized that I neglected to send the Institute
> notice of the April 28th Council appeal. Section 26.316.030.D, Appeal
> procedures, requires notice to be published in the newspaper
> (done) and mailed to the applicant 15 days before the meeting. We are
> at 14 days now.
> John Worcester has indicated that the Institute can waive this mailing
> so we can go forward. Is that acceptable or would you like me to
> reschedule the meeting to May 12th and re -do the notice?
> Sorry for the oversight. The newspaper notice is attached.
> <Ord48Appeal.doc>
1
_ 1
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
increase in marking transportation funding which is a pass through from the 1 % lodging
tax, half goes to ACRA and half pays for in -town transportation through RFTA. Menter
pointed out there is an increase for the proposed city -employee housing of $140,000 and
construction fund of $950,000 of contributions from existing operating funds to finance
construction of 100 units of housing over the next 10 years.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue the public hearing and Resolution #94, Series of 2007,
for two weeks; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg said this week the EOTC is meeting and will discuss a possible pedestrian
bridge at Buttermilk as well as reinstating the free bus service between Aspen and
Snowmass. Council should note these expenditures. Ms. Kronberg said the number of
affordable housing unit at Burlingame should be expanded. Mike Maple suggested the
sales tax be increased. Maple said only 54% of the retail sales in the city are subject to
sales tax. Only 17% of fur sales pay city sales tax; only 14% of galleries and 26% of
jewelry pay city sales tax. Maple told council only 50% of liquor sales are subject to city
sales tax. Maple said people who shop in city stores are being under taxed in sales tax
and this should be corrected. Maple said collecting half of this would garner the city $2
million/year.
Mayor Ireland reminded Council items shipped out of state are not subject to city sales
tax because they are not used within the jurisdiction. Maple encouraged Council to
investigate changing the definition so that the city can charge sales tax on services.
Maple said there appears to be abuse of shipping items out of Aspen and Colorado.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE. #48, SERIES OF 2007 — Code Amendments Historic Preservation
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council Ordinance #30
addressing historic designation of houses 30 years and older was adopted as an
emergency ordinance, which provided protocol around review of properties for historic
designation. Bendon reminded Council amendments were requested to Ordinance #30 as
well as a process to analyze the entire historic preservation program. Staff came back
with a new ordinance #45. After first reading, staff made significant amendments and
created a new ordinance, 448.
Bendon said in first reading of #48, Council was presented with options and gave
direction on all options except the provision for economic considerations for designation.
Bendon said staff has been working with the citizens group to make changes to the
ordinance and this is a much improved ordinance.
Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted the definition section was
amended to define new terms or define review processes that have not existed before.
9
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
Potential historic resources is how the list is described, the purpose of the list, how
properties get off the list. One of the purposes of Ordinance #48 was that Council wanted
to move away from the idea every property 30 years or older is subject to regulation. The
list contains staff s recommendation for properties that are worth discussing. Ms.
Guthrie told Council staff looked at integrity, how many alterations to a property, was
there a specific architect, how refined of an architectural example was the building is how
the list was built.
Ms. Guthrie noted this list will not be expanded for 10 years; it can be amended as
properties go through the designation process and are not approved for designation, they
will be taken off the list. Interior remodel, basic maintenance work and minimally
intrusive work is exempt from this ordinance. Ms. Guthrie said if a property owner wants
to know whether their property should be on or off the list, the community development
director will use the existing landmark criteria to develop a preliminary conclusion
whether the property has significance. If the community development director
determines a property does not have historic significance, HPC and Council have a few
days to object; if they do not object, the property is off the list. If the community
development director determines there is historic significance, the ordinance outlines the
next step in the review process.
Ms. Guthrie noted the ordinance outlines how a property owner can confirm their
property is not on the list. Ms. Guthrie pointed out there has been an effort, in writing the
ordinance, to put the property owner in control of the pace of the process. The ordinance
contains penalty provisions if someone does work without an approval. Ms. Guthrie said
the actual designation is similar to the existing process with amendments on dealing with
post WWII properties. The criteria for historic designation have not been changed and
these should be addressed by the citizens' task force. Ms. Guthrie pointed out in the
existing ordinance a property has to meet one out of three criteria for designation; this
states a property has to meet two criteria.
Ms. Guthrie said the notion that if a property owner could not prove a property was built
less than 30 years ago, it would be assumed that to be the case. This ordinance is more
flexible on that issue. The ordinance requires staff submit their memorandum to the
property owner 30 days in advance of the HPC hearing on designation. The ordinance
outlines the landmark process; IIPC makes a recommendation to Council. If there is an
involuntary designation, HPC has to approve that by super majority. If super majority is
not received, the matter will die and not go to Council. If the property proceeds to
Council, they will hear a recommendation from HPC as well as getting an economic
impact report, if requested by the property owner. If Council denies a landmark
designation, the property cannot be brought up for designation again for 10 years.
Bendon told Council there are 3 options for economic impact. The first asks Council to
consider whether there has been a taking as a result of designation, the removal of all use
of a property. The 2"d and P options rely on an economic impact examination panel; the
ordinance outlines how the panel will be constituted and what they go through. The
panel will be a volunteer board whose members have expertise in the industry. The
10
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
economic impact panel will make a determination and report to Council. In option 2,
Council is asked to provide mitigation to the property owner if the economic impact is
unreasonable. In option 3, Council is asked to provide mitigation to the property owner
in any circumstance. Mitigation would be financial compensation and could also be
benefits.
Bendon presented language to modify option 2; one is to allow Council to pay the
economic impact and to provide them with staff assistance. The amended language states
it is at Council's sole discretion to mitigate a property owner.
Ms. Guthrie noted if this ordinance is adopted, property owners on the list will be notified
by registered mail. Some property owners already received a determination through
Ordinance #30; this can be extended to 10 years. Ms. Guthrie said there is a provision in
this ordinance that HPC begin to narrow the list and they are designing a process by
which they can accomplish that.
Bendon noted at first reading, the idea of a "public defender" was brought up. The
ordinance allows the city to retain an expert. Bendon suggested a top set number for
mitigation per property. Ms. Guthrie asked that Council give staff direction on the policy
task force, the application process and that while the policy task force is completing its
work, the city will not undertake any designations without owner consent.
Mayor Ireland asked if staff had comments on the ordinance suggested by the citizens.
Bendon said he has not seen it and pointed out any code amendments must go through
review by P&Z before coming to Council. Councilman DeVilbiss asked for a definition
of "takings". Jim True, special counsel, said the phrase referred to in takings is
"reasonable investment backed expectations" and there are Supreme Court cases finding
a taking is when there is no real economic value retained on the property after whatever
government action.
Mayor Ireland noted Council has discussed repealing this and starting over. Councilman
Romero said he would be willing to drop Ordinance #48 and to repeal Ordinance #30
with some conditions putting the process back to commissioning a task force to look at
updating the overall historic preservation code, trying to get community consensus and
appeal to the public. Councilman DeVilbiss said there may be some peril in repealing
Ordinance #30 and there would have to be conditions or adjustments.
Councilman Skadron stated he does not support Ordinance #48. Councilman Skadron
said he does not support the notion of the city writing a check to property owners. The
10 year window may have unintended consequences. Councilman Skadron said he is
uneasy with the precedent of codifying a super majority. Councilman Skadron said he
will support a repeal of Ordinance #30 and ask for a suspension by the city of designation
of properties for a certain period of time. Councilman Skadron said he would like
historic preservation be improved by an objective group of citizens in order to get
improved criteria, and the process which leaves a historic preservation code that is
credible and fosters a valid basis for designating properties.
11
Regular Meetin¢ Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
Mayor Ireland said Council has agreed there are 2,000 properties that should not be
dragged on and these should be out from under a cloud. Mayor Ireland said he is inclined
to adopt this ordinance with a 6 month sunset clause so that new standards could be
adopted during that time. An alternative would be that a property the city may think is
historic cannot be demolished for 6 or 12 months while the city negotiates a package of
benefits to leave the property as it is with the property owner.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Amy Margerum, representing the Aspen Institute, noted the Aspen Institute is under an
approved master plan, which provides for historic review. Ms. Margerum asked if the
grounds, as well as the buildings, are under this ordinance. Ms. Margerum told Council
the Institute has gone through reviews with the HPC and the end result was a better
project. Ms. Margerum said if the city is going to add properties to the historic list,
Council has to ask management to look into the time and money it takes to go through the
HPC process; it is onerous and costly, especially for a non-profit organization. Ms.
Guthrie said the grounds of the Institute are not protected. Ms. Margerum stated she is
vehemently opposed to designating the grounds of the Institute.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion tamed.
Pam Cunningham, Aspen Alps, submitted a letter opposing the inclusion of the Aspen
Alps on the list of historic properties. Terry Hale said Council has a chance to revisit the
entire concept of historic preservation, not just Ordinance #30. Hale said this has not
been a waste of the past 4 months but is an opportunity to rewrite the historic
preservation code with input from builders and architects and other community members
so that it is something the community is proud of.
Chip Freeman submitted a letter on this issue with all his thoughts. Helen Klanderud
asked what rationale has been used to have the properties on the list, on the list. Ms.
Klanderud said all properties should be taken off the list until there is a historic
preservation code that the community can accept and support. Ms. Klanderud said there
are no criteria as to who are notable architects, what in modern buildings is truly
extraordinary and ought to be preserved. Ms. Klanderud said one needs to be able to look
back and see what stands the test of time, more than 30 or 40 years.
Les Holst said he supports historic preservation which leads to a viable economic
community. Historic preservation is about scale and massing. Holst suggested
designating the entire town, which would preserve property values for everyone.
Connie Harvey said the city has discretion on whether property owners receive
compensation which will set up resentments and entanglements which does not make a
lot of sense and is a dangerous and unpleasant approach. Toni Kronberg said she
supports historic preservation and passage of this ordinance. Mark Friedberg said he has
looked at the majority of properties on this list. Friedberg said the city should be looking
12
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
for a sense of reasonableness in trying to approach the goal of what the buildings are that
are meaningful in contributing to the welfare of Aspen. Friedberg said without the
community input and review of criteria for post WWII buildings, there will not be
resolution. Friedberg said the time that has been put into this will help the community
think more clearly about what they want as the end result.
Marilyn Marks said much of input has been citizens saying the community ought to be
involved in this process. Council needs to find out what the community wants. Ms.
Marks said major changes have been made to Ordinance #48; however, it is still overly
complex and expensive to property owners. Ms. Marks said the ordinance leads to a lack
of support and goodwill for a historic preservation program. Ms. Marks said the list of
historic potential properties feels flawed and arbitrary. Ms. Marks said this is not
consistent with the AACP, such as buildings should not take precedence over people who
live in them.
Mike Maple aid his proposed ordinance would repeal Ordinance #30 and revert back to
the 2002 code. The task force could go forward and update historic codes. Maple
suggested Ordinance #48 could be amended by deletions throughout the ordinance
leaving only 100 year old structures protected. Christina Crandall said protecting
structures in Aspen may be too late. Aspen is going from generally small in mass and
scale buildings to an upscale community. Ms. Crandall said the option to seek historic
designation through creative uses of incentives is a more desirable approach. Ms.
Crandall said the proposal seems overly complicated.
Jack Wilkey said he has only received one letter and has no idea why his building is on
the list of potential historic structures. Scott Hicks asked the process to exercise one's
right to do future development on the property. Hicks said in his experience there is a lot
of subjectivity to historic preservation and review and it took him two years to get
through a historic approval process. Henry Hite said some of the post WWII buildings
are not energy efficient and need to be torn down. Pierre Wille, Tyrolean Lodge, told
Council this property is already in the Main street historic district. Wille said they have
been holding the building together with band aids for the last 20 years. Wille noted some
buildings are historic and some are just old.
Jesse Boyce said finding ways to remodel potential historic structures in a tasteful way
and help with the canary initiative would be a good thing. Boyce suggested coming up
with an incentive or funding source and let people come to the city to see what benefits
there are in historic preservation. Susan Capiel Collin stated she supports the majority of
the comments. The city needs to start over and scrap the list. Roine St. Andre said this
community is about the people, not the buildings. Ms. St. Andre said this ordinance has
been divisive.
Bill Wiener said governments do things that increase or decrease property values; things
that are good for neighborhoods or bad for neighborhoods. Wiener noted when
properties are upzoned and people's values go up, they do not offer to pay the city for the
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
difference in property values. Wiener said one reason Aspen's property values are so
high is that previous governments had values and protected this community.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Romero, All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Johnson said there is fear and distrust in the community over this issue.
Councilman Johnson said there has been misinformation throughout the community.
Councilman Johnson noted he has stated a list is an easy way to treat people unfairly
rather than treating everyone the same. Councilman Johnson said he feels the past 4
months could have been better spent with a large community discussion on historic
preservation. Councilman Johnson said the city was to draft an interim ordinance and got
off track. Councilman Johnson said other issues are values that Aspen has endorsed
through the AACP and the core beliefs of 2006. Council needs to consider all view
points, to gather a diverse group of citizens to make a recommendation to Council on this
issue. Councilman Johnson stated he supports creating a task force to represent all
citizens of Aspen and to be charged with making recommendations to Council.
Councilman Johnson suggested hiring an independent facilitator to insure all viewpoints
are heard.
Councilman Romero reiterated he would like to drop Ordinance #48 and repeal
Ordinance #30 and start over. Councilman Romero agreed there are core principles over
preservation; however, there are many different definitions surrounding preservation.
Councilman Romero said if the two ordinances are repealed, he would like the city to
suspend all designations and let the process go through its steps.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see written legislation to accomplish what
other Council has discussed so it can be voted on. Councilman Skadron said he feels it is
appropriate to repeal Ordinance #48. Councilman Johnson said he would be willing to
work with staff to draft an ordinance outlining the duties of a task force. Councilman
Johnson stated he does not support any action that would provide no protection for
historic properties. Councilman Johnson said he would like the task force to make
recommendations to Council first. Councilman Johnson stated what is needed is a
balance between economic fairness and historic preservation.
Councilman Romero said he feels repealing Ordinance #48 is not as much of a
component of historic preservation but as a restoration of community relations.
Councilman Johnson stated new legislation to replace Ordinance #30 is needed before
anything is repealed. A task force ought to be charged with protection of the structures
that have been discussed over the past 4 months. Councilman Johnson agreed Ordinance
#48 should be dropped and Ordinance #30 should be repealed when there is some other
legislation in place.
14
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
Mayor Ireland said he would like the potential historic properties protected until they can
be reviewed, released or designated. Mayor Ireland said he would like to know what the
community at large wants, not just what the affected property owners want. Mayor
Ireland said he does not want this process to go on for another year or two. Councilman
Romero noted there is consensus to have a task force; however, this will take time
resulting in uncertainty for anyone whose property is on the list. Councilman Romero
said the process should go forward without encumbrance of these two ordinances.
Mayor Ireland asked who would limit the process to the current exhibit A list of potential
historic properties; this would be demolition review while the task force is doing their
job. Councilman Johnson agreed with that. Councilman Johnson said he supports the
notion of certainty for a period of time when a property knows they will not be
considered for historic designation. Councilman Johnson said he does not think Council
ought to tie the hands of the task force on any issue.
Councilman Skadron agreed with a suspension of the city involuntary designations,
which means no list. Councilman Skadron stated his intention is to repeal Ordinance
#30 and to return to procedures before that.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, to 11/26 with the
direction to strike all language other than demolition review of the list on exhibit A, put a
time limit of 6 months at which time the ordinance sunsets and to create a task force to
consider all the issues raised by this and to allow in the interim with the existing
standards that the HPC further narrow the properties while the citizen committee is
operating; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor with the exception of
Councilmembers Skadron and Romero. Motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #28, Series of 2008, 508 East Cooper
and Resolution #95, Series of 2007, Extension of Vested Rights 110 East Bleeker, to
November 131h at 3 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2007 — Extension of CC Business Mix and Historic
Interiors
Chris Bendon, community development department, recommended Council adopt this
ordinance and extend the moratorium to June 12, 2008, so staff and Council can continue
to work on code amendments.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland
closed the public hearing.
15
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
Amy Margerum
Executive Vice President
Operations
Corporate Secretary
1000 North Third Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
P11 970.544.7905
FX 970,544.7908
www.aspeninstitute.org
■
To: Aspen City Council
From: Amy Margerum, The Aspen Institute
CC: Community Development Office
City Attorney Office
Date: April 21, 2008
Re: Aspen Institute — Ordinance #48 Appeal & Clarification
The Aspen Institute is scheduled before City Council on Mon. April 28th seeking clarification on
two Ord. #48 questions. I & Jim Curtis, our planner, felt it would be helpful to outline our
questions & thinking to you beforehand to facilitate the discussion on the 28th. The two questions
are:
1. What Aspen Institute "facilities" are encumbered under Exhibit A of Ord. #48? The
Planning Office takes the position that Exh. A is "all inclusive" meaning all buildings & grounds
on the 40 ac. Aspen Institute property are encumbered under Exh. A. (all of Lot 1A & 1 B). The
Institute feels this interpretation is overreaching & imposes a hardship on the day to day
operations of the Institute. The Institute feels Exh. A is more limiting as set forth by the areas in
( ) of Exh. A, i.e. Lot 1A (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant,
Sculpture & Gardens) & Lot 1 B (Area of the Seminar Buildings).
The "all inclusive" interpretation creates a hardship on the day to day operations of the Institute.
For example, over the past 2 years, the Institute has been replacing & upgrading its signage for
buildings & grounds to make the signage more uniform & attractive. The "all inclusive"
interpretation of the Planning Office means every new sign must now be approved by the
Planning Office even when a sign permit is not required by the Municipal Code. Moreover, a
"very strict" interpretation of the Planning Office position would say any & all physical changes
to the 40 ac. campus, i.e. planting new trees or grass, would need Planning Office approval. The
Institute feels it was neither the intent nor goal of Ord. #48 to delegate this much discretionary
oversight & authority to the Community Development Office or the Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. What is the role & authority of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) under the
Municipal Code & Ordinance #48? The Aspen Institute has two SPA Amendment applications
pending before the City, i.e. Greenwald Pavilion Tent & Paepcke Auditorium Renovation. The
Institute's reading of the Municipal Code & Ord. #48 is that the HPC is a "referral &
recommending" body & not a "decision -making & approval" body for the two SPA Amendment
applications. The Institute welcomes & appreciates (& voluntary agrees) to the HPC review of
the two applications as a "referral & recommending" body consistent with the Institute's reading
of the Code. The Institute's 2 basic points are:
A. None of the Aspen Institute's "facilities" are officially designated by City Council by ordinance
to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites & Structures" as of this time even under Ord.
#48. Specifically, under Ord. #48, Code Section 26.415.025(G) Voluntary Designation states"
The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development
Director may not initiate an application for designation unless the property owner consents to
designation for the effective period of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007". The Aspen Institute has
not consented to voluntary designation to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites & Structures" at this time. Like City Council, the Aspen Institute is awaiting the
recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission Task Force.
B. Under Municipal Code, Section 26.220.010 HPC Powers & Duties states" The Historic
Preservation Commission (.... ) shall have the following powers & duties: B. Review & approval,
approval with conditions, suspension or disapproval of development within the H, Historic
Overlay District or development involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites &
Structures pursuant to Chapter 26.415.
•
0
Since none of the Aspen Institute "facilities" are officially designated to the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites & Structures, at this time, the HPC must be a "referral &
recommending" body to the two pending SPA Amendment applications because HPC only has
"decision -making & approval" authority once a property has been officially designated to the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites & Structures. The Institute fully understands both
applications have to be reviewed under the SPA (Specially Plan Area) provisions of the
Municipal Code & that Council would reasonably expect HPC referral comments under the City's
SPA review procedures.
Please feel free to email or call on any questions on the above. As always, thank you for your
time & attention to this matter.
Amy Margerum
Executive Vice President, Operations
The Aspen Institute
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council V
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer`��
RE: Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretations — Section 26.415.025
(Ordinance 448, Series of 2007)
DATE: April 28, 2008
SUMMARY:
One of the jobs assigned to the Community Development Director is to provide
interpretations of the text of the City's Land Use Code. This is a formal process in which an
applicant requests a written interpretation and, if they don't agree with the interpretation,
affords the applicant the right to appeal the decision to the City Council.
There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of a code
interpretation. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the City
Council shall consider whether:
1) There was a denial of due process;
2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or,
3) The administrative body abused its discretion.
These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that
the decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or
modified unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria. (Please see Exhibit A for
the entire code section.)
In this case, the Community Development Director rendered interpretations to address two
distinct issues raised by the Aspen Institute related to the applicability and operation of
Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 (Please see Exhibit B for the full ordinance.)
First, The Institute asked whether Ordinance 948 was applicable to their entire property.
Ordinance #48 applies to a specific list of properties, identified in the document. The Aspen
Institute property is described as follows:
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description:
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
f
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
Staffs interpretation, issued on February 20, 2008, was that Ordinance #48 does indeed
apply to development on the entirety of Lots IA and Lot 1 B. We explained that the
parenthetical comments, noting buildings in the vicinity, were simply meant to provide a
reference point. In addition, we named at least two instances during the development of
Ordinance #48 when it was clarified to the Institute that the regulations being established for
potential historic resources were intended to apply to their entire site. (Please refer to Exhibit
C for the interpretation request, and Exhibit D for the full interpretation prepared by
Community Development.)
During discussions of the interpretation described above, the Institute indicated their belief
that, to the extent Ordinance #48 would be applicable to their property, they expected to
proceed with planned work after volunteering to participate in a non -binding review by the
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff disagreed that a non -binding HPC review is a channel to proceed with work subject to
Ordinance #48, and felt that the best way to address the difference of opinion would be to
create a second code interpretation, issued on March 24, 2008. Staff s interpretation was that
an owner who elects to proceed with planned work after a review by the Historic
Preservation Commission may only do so if the HPC approves the subject project. The
specific language of the code section in question reads:
"An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter
26.415 of the Municipal Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance
with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines," an application for building
permit shall be issued." (emphasis added)
Please refer to Exhibit E for the interpretation request, and Exhibit F for the full
interpretation prepared by Community Development. The Aspen Institute's request to appeal
the code interpretations is attached as Exhibit G.
CODE INTERPRETATIONS VS. CODE AMENDMENTS:
The question in a code interpretation is what does the code say? On occasion, applicants
seek a code interpretation because they believe the code should say something else. The
code amendment process is the proper venue for the question what should the code say?
STANDARDS OF REVIEW:
1. Due Process — With respect to due process, as required by the Land Use Code, a notice of
tonight's meeting was published in the newspaper. (Please see Exhibit H.) Staff was late in
providing the applicant with a copy of the notice by registered mail. The applicant waived
the mailed notice, preferring to proceed on April 281h as planned, rather than asking staff to
re -notice. (Please see Exhibit I.) Staff believes therefore that proper due process has been
provided to the appellant.
2
0 .
2. Jurisdiction — The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in
Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction,
authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One of the
Director's duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the
boundaries of the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26.306. " Staff believes
this language is clear and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of
the code.
3. Discretion — With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to
use his discretion in rendering the interpretation. The question is whether the Director
abused that discretion or acted unethically.
In analyzing the code, it was clear to the Director that throughout the creation of Ordinance d
#48, there was an intention to provide "protection" and to "prevent the loss (and) limit the
detrimental effect of development," on potential historic resources. There were several
lengthy and heavily covered public meetings during which the concept of a list, and the
implications of being on the list, were discussed. The Aspen Institute participated in that W L"
process and presented their objections to City Council, who did not elect to amend the o4 ,,,",
ordinance in response. 'jam 6"`"'
The Director concluded that, with regard to the questions raised by The Aspen Institute, the��
resources were clearly named, and mandatory processes were established to screen any work
that could have a negative result. -�6
TWO RESOLUTIONS: DuamsY
Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the
interpretation. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his
authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses the interpretation. 11 ote /
U5 J6 .
RECOMMENDATION: L4 1
Staff believes the Director's interpretation was rendered ethically and that no abuse of �tQya�
Vd
authority or exceeding of jurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold
the Director's interpretation by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the
interpretation. If the City Council finds the Director did not act correctly, City Council will
need to render an interpretation of the land Use Code. This may be more or less restrictive
that the interpretation rendered by the Director.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive)
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2008, [affirming or reversing] the
Community Development Director's interpretation of Land Use Code Section 26.415.025."
K
9
ATTACHMENTS:
RESOLUTION #_, SERIES OF 2008 (AFFIRMING, OR REVERSING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION)
Exhibit A — Land Use Code Section Regarding Appeals
Exhibit B — Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 (contains Section 26.415.025)
Exhibit C — Interpretation request from Jim Curtis, dated January 29`h, 2008
Exhibit D- Interpretation dated February 20`h, 2008
Exhibit E- Email from Jim Curtis (basis for second interpretation), dated March 5`h, 2008
Exhibit F- Interpretation dated March 24th, 2008
Exhibit G- Appeal letter from Jim Curtis, dated March P 2008
Exhibit H — Affidavit of notice
Exhibit I- Applicant's waiver of mailed notice requirement
Exhibit X Council minutes of November 12, 2007
2
1J
•
RESOLUTION NO. _ (Affirming Decision)
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAND USE CODE MADE BY THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ON FEBRUARY 20, 2008 AND
MARCH 24, 2008, REGARDING SECTION 26.415.025
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received from The Aspen
Institute a request for a interpretation of the Land Use Code regarding Section
26.415.025; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.306 — Interpretations of Title, the Director
rendered a decision and the applicant sought an appeal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the
Interpretation of the Director or modify or reverse the Interpretation upon a finding that
there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in
rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal
testimony from The Aspen Institute and/or representatives and the Community
Development Director and has found that the Director provided due process and neither
exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the Interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the
Community Development Director's Interpretations of the Land Use Code made on
February 20, 2008 and March 24, 2008, regarding Section 26.415.025.
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Resolution No. , Series of 2008. Page 1
• 9
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council on , 2008.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Resolution No. , Series of 2008. Page 2
RESOLUTION N0. , (Reversing Decision)
(SERIES OF 2008)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN
APPEAL AND REVERSING THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ON FEBRUARY 20, 2008 AND MARCH 24, 2008,
REGARDING SECTION 26.415.025
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received from The Aspen
Institute a request for a interpretation of the Land Use Code regarding the content of
Section 26.415.025; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.306 — Interpretations of Title, the Director
rendered a decision and the applicant sought an appeal; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the
Interpretation of the Director or modify or reverse the Interpretation upon a finding that
there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in
rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal
testimony from The Aspen Institute and/or representatives and the Community
Development Director and has found that the Director either exceeded his jurisdiction,
abused his authority, or did not provide due process in rendering the interpretation; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and
is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves the appeal of
the Community Development Director's interpretations of Section 26.415.025 and
reverses the decision as follows:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for
Resolution No. , Series of 2008. Page 1
•
0
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on 32008.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Resolution No. _, Series of 2008. Page 2
C�
Chapter 26.316
APPEALS
Sections:
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
26.316.020 Authority.
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement.
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth
Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide
certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002)
26.316.020 Authority.
A. Board ofAdjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the
following appeals:
1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission
or Historic Preservation Commission.
B. City Council. The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals:
1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the
Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature
shall be a public meeting.
.2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions,
or disapproving a development application for development in an "H,", Historic Overlay
District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter
26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission
pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as
established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting.
C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the
authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development
Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in
accordance with Section 26.470.060(D).
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007.
Part 300, Page 35
0 0
D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority
to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless
otherwise specifically stated in this title.
(Ord. No. 17-2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12-2007; 2002)
26.316.030 Appeal procedures.
A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The
notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or
department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision
or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall
constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination.
B. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in
furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in
writing to the chairperson of the decision -making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses
an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The
chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such
certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings.
C. Timing of appeal. The decision -making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the
appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is
practical under the circumstances.
D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by
publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26.304.060(E)).
E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision -making body
authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the
body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified
unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded
its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
F. Action by the decision -making body hearing the appeal. The decision -making body hearing the
appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision
is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the
appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the
appellant. The decision -making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally
heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if
any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals
shall be public meetings.
(Ord. No. 55-2000, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27-2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12-2007, 2002)
City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007
Part 300, Page 36
ORDINANCE NO. 48
(Series of 2007)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 26.415 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL
CODE, DEVELOPMENT INVOLVING THE ASPEN INVENTORY OF
HISTORIC LANDMARK SITES AND STRUCTURES OR DEVELOPMENT IN
AN "H," HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, in light of the on -going demolition of buildings, structures or objects that
may have historical significance for the City of Aspen, the City Council adopted an Emergency
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007, on July 10, 2007. The Ordinance amended Title
26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 26.415 Development Involving the
Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an "H"
Historic Overlay District and established a new process for the identification and protection of
potential historic resources. The Ordinance was adopted to address the negative impacts that
the loss of landmark eligible buildings would have on the health, peace, safety, and general
well-being of the residents and visitors of Aspen, and the diminishment of Aspen's unique
architectural character, livability and attractiveness as a destination; and
WHEREAS, City Council subsequently directed the Community Development De-
partment to prepare further amendments to the historic preservation ordinance, including limit-
ing the protection of potential historic resources to a list of properties which are at least 30
years old and which, in staff s opinion are associated with architectural styles and historical
trends which represent Aspen's first one hundred years of history, most particularly Aspen's
development since World War II. Said list is attached to this Ordinance as "Exhibit A;" and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends approval of the pro-
posed additions and amendments to Section 26.415 of the Municipal Code, as described
herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider
the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter and Section on October 2, 2007, took
and considered public testimony and the recommendation of the Community Development Di-
rector and recommended, by a 3-1 vote, City Council adopt proposed amendments to the land
use code by amending the text of the above noted Chapters and Sections of the Land Use
Code; and,
WHEREAS, the geographical area of the City of Aspen east of Castle Creek and
south of the Roaring Fork River substantially defines the perceived character of Aspen's built
environment and the buildings in this area are visibly accessible and can be appreciated by the
general public; and,
WHEREAS, multi -family buildings are typically owned by multiple parties and are
subject to heightened development exactions upon demolition and are, therefore, less likely
than other types of buildings to be demolished in the near future; and,
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 1
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby de-
letes in its entirety Section 26.415.035, Designation of Historic Properties. (Note to codifier
— this Section has been amended and recodified as Section 26.415..025.)
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the City Council hereby
amends Chapter 26.415 by adding Section 26.415.025, Identification of Potential Historic
Resources, which section describes the process and criteria for the Identification of Potential
Historic Resources to read as follows:
26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section and identifying a List of Potential Historic Re-
sources (alternatively, the "List") is to prevent the loss of buildings, sites, structures or objects,
or collections of buildings, sites, structures or objects that may have historical, architectural,
archaeological, engineering and cultural importance, and to limit the detrimental effect of de-
velopment or demolition of these potential resources on the character of the town during the
time period that the City is undertaking revisions to the Historic Preservation Program. Pre-
serving and protecting historic resources promotes the public welfare by making Aspen a more
attractive and desirable place in which to live, work, or visit.
B. List of Potential Historic Resources. There is hereby identified a List of Potential His-
toric Resources. The properties identified in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007,
shall constitute this List. The List shall be maintained and made available to the general pub-
lic by the Community Development Department.
C. Amendments to the List of Potential Historic Resources. No properties shall be added
to the List of Potential Historic Resources by the City of Aspen for the effective period of Or-
dinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evaluation of the historic
preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making recommendations is in
operation. Properties maybe removed from the List pursuant to Section 26.415.025.E. If the
primary structure(s) on any property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources have
been destroyed by an act of God or are otherwise declared unsafe and ordered demolished by
the Chief Building Official, the property shall be removed from the List.
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property owner and no building
permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition or other similar development activ-
ity that substantially alters the Potential Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community
Development Department except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section
26.415.025.E.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 2
Exempt from this restriction shall be alterations, land use applications, and building permits
limited to interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar
to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, or re-
pair of window glazing. The Community Development Director may exempt other such exte-
rior alterations which are determined by the Community Development Director to be mini-
mally intrusive or reversible work that does not diminish the historic character of the property.
Alterations, land use applications, and building permit applications which exclusively impact
the interior of a building shall be exempt from this Section.
An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic Preservation
Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter 26.415 of the Municipal
Code, and if the work is found by HPC to be in conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic
Preservation Guidelines," an application for building permit shall be issued. Work undertaken
in conformance with the International Building Code provisions for emergency repairs, assum-
ing that the repair matches the surrounding exterior materials and character to the extent prac-
ticable, shall be exempt from this Section.
E. Ninety -Day Negotiation Period. For those properties identified on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, building permits and land use applications for alterations, demolition, re-
development, or other similar development activity that substantially alters the Potential His-
toric Resource shall be accepted by the Community Development Department. Only complete
Land Use applications, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be ac-
cepted. A letter from the property owner indicating an understanding of this ninety -day nego-
tiation period shall accompany the building permit or land use application. Upon acceptance,
the building permit or land use application may be reviewed, but shall not be issued, for a pe-
riod of ninety days to allow for a period of negotiation regarding the preservation of the Re-
source. This period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days upon a resolution adopted
by a majority of the Council.
Within the ninety -day negotiation period, the following shall occur:
1. The Community Development Director shall offer to meet with the property owner to
discuss the City's Historic Preservation Program and development and other benefits
that the property may be eligible to receive upon designation as a Historic Landmark.
2. The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the
nature of the Potential Historic Resource. The property owner shall be provided no-
tice of this meeting with the Historic Preservation Commission.
3. The Community Development Director shall confer with the City Council regarding
the proposed building permit, the nature of the Potential Historic Resource, and the
staff and Historic Preservation Commission's assessment of the Resource and the ef-
fects of the building permit upon the Resource. The property owner shall be provided
notice of this meeting with the City Council.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 3
4. The City Council may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to di-
rect the Community Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negoti-
ate with the property owner to reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the preserva-
tion of the Resource. The City Council may choose to provide this direction in Execu-
tive Session, pursuant to State Statute. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement,
the City Council shall require that the property be designated as a Historic Landmark,
pursuant to the standards and limitations of Section 26.415.030, Designation of His-
toric Properties. As part of the mutually acceptable agreement, the City Council may
choose to require the affected building permit or land use application be withdrawn by
the property owner.
5. If, upon the passage of 90 days or any extension thereof, the City and the property
owner have failed to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, affected building permits
shall be reviewed and shall be issued upon compliance with all applicable building
codes. Affected land use applications shall be reviewed and shall be issued a Devel-
opment Order upon compliance with all applicable provisions of the City of Aspen
Land Use Code. The City Council, at its sole discretion, may choose to terminate ne-
gotiations at any time and allow the permit or land use application to be reviewed.
Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reviewing building permits or land use applications
during the ninety -day period.
If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director after completion of a building per-
mit issued pursuant to this Section, the Potential Historic Resource has been demolished or so
altered as to render the property no longer a Potential Historic Resource, the Community De-
velopment Director shall remove the property from the List of Potential Historic Resources.
F. Procedure to Confirm a Property is not included on the List of Potential Historic
Resources. To request confirmation that a property is not included on the List of Potential
Historic Resources, a property owner may submit a request to the Community Development
Department. The request shall include the name and address of the property owner and any
authorized agent acting on behalf of the owner. The confirmation letter shall be in a record-
able format and indicate whether the subject property is on the List of Potential Historic Re-
sources, shall include a current copy of the List of Potential Historic Resources, and shall con-
firm that the property is exempt from the procedures and limitations of this Chapter for the
effective period of Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2007, while the City is undertaking an evalua-
tion of the historic preservation program and a Citizen Task Force charged with making rec-
ommendations is in operation. For structures between thirty (30) and forty (40) old, the con-
firmation letter shall also exempt the property from the procedures and limitations of this
Chapter for a period of one (1) year after the date of amendments to Chapter 26.415 adopted in
response to the Citizen Task Force recommendations. The confirmation letter shall not create
or constitute a vested right. Confirmation requests may be assessed an administrative review
fee. An owner of the subject property aggrieved by the Community Development Director's
determination may appeal the decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 26.316, Ap-
peals.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 4
G. Voluntary Designation. The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission
and the Community Development Director may not initiate an application for designation
unless the property owner consents to designation for the effective period of Ordinance 48,
Series of 2007. An owner of a property identified on the List of Potential Historic Resources
who consents to Historic Designation may request the Community Development Director ini-
tiate an application for designation pursuant to Section 26.415.030, Designation of Historic
Properties. An owner of the subject property who consents to designation may concurrently
submit any proposed redevelopment plans to be reviewed according to Chapter 26.415.
H. Penalties. Any owner who takes action to alter or demolish a property identified
on the List of Potential Historic Resources, including purposeful removal, change or damage
to any exterior materials, features, portions of a building, or structural members of a building
shall be subject to the penalties established in Section 26.415.140, Penalties. The Community
Development Department must demonstrate to City Council, using date stamped photographs,
that the exterior of the building has been altered after the adoption date of this ordinance in
order to apply penalties.
In addition, properties on the List of Potential Historic Resources are required to receive rea-
sonable care, maintenance and upkeep as described in Section 26.415.100, Demolition by Ne-
glect.
Repairs or minimally intrusive work permitted under Section 26.415.025.D or completed ac-
cording to a Development Order or Building Permit issued by the Community Development
Department, as may be required, shall not be subject to penalties.
Section 3. Notice to Property Owners.
All owners of properties identified on the List of Potentially Historic Resources, as provided in
Exhibit A to this Ordinance, shall be mailed a copy of this Ordinance by registered mail, within 10
days of the final City Council approval of this Ordinance. Property owners may submit to the
Community Development Department alternate or additional addresses for this information to be
mailed. (As opposed to or in addition to the address on file with the Pitkin County Assessor's
Office.)
Section 4. Effect on Existing Ordinance No. 30 Determinations.
This Ordinance shall not affect any Determination of No Historic Significance approved by the
Community Development Director pursuant to Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2007. These
determinations issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 30 shall continue to be valid for a five-year
period from their issuance date.
Section 5. Policy Task Force.
A Historic Preservation Policy Task Force shall be established in order to provide guidance on
additional changes to the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program. Membership of the Task
Force shall be by appointment by City Council. Duties of the Task Force shall be determined by
City Council, but shall include a review of the following as a minimum:
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 5
• The criteria upon which designation applications are judged, including whether additional
or different criteria should apply when the property owner objects to the designation and
for 20`h century properties.
• Changes to the Integrity Scoring System used to evaluate properties, including to the
process by which the Scoring System is adopted.
• Existing and additional benefits for owners of historic properties.
• Strategic policy level review of the historic preservation program objectives and benefits
and congruence with community goals as outlined in the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The City shall not proceed with property designations without owner consent until the Policy
Task Force has made their recommendations and the City Council has considered proposed code
changes.
Section 6. Availability of Documents.
The Community Development Department shall make available to the public all documents
related to the List of Potential Historic Resources, criteria upon which properties shall be
evaluated, research papers, scoring sheets, development and other benefits, and copies of this
ordinance and shall diligently pursue timely inclusion of this information on the City of Aspen
website.
Section 7. Effect on Existing Applications.
This Ordinance shall not affect any active Land Use Application, existing Development Order, or
Building Permit, as such terms are used in the Land Use Code, submitted and determined
complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
Pre -Application Conferences, Pre -Application Conference Summary reports, or formal or informal
discussions with Community Development staff or review Boards shall not constitute a complete
application or any other official status. Applications submitted after the effective date of this
ordinance shall comply with the terms of this ordinance and of the Land Use Code, as amended.
Section 8. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
Section 9. Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
Section 10. Notice
A public hearing on the ordinance was held on November 12, 2007, continued to November 26,
2007, and continued to December 10, 2007, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 6
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 22nd day of October, 2007.
Michael C. Ireland, Ma or
ATTEST:
Kathryn KqA, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 1/ii¢ay of Ate, , 2007.
chae C. Ireland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn KO , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r----=_.
Jim True, Special Counsel
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007
114 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437010; 273512437009. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
114 EAST BLEEKER CONDOMINIUMS -
118 E. Bleeker St: Parcel Id: 273512437012; 273512437011. Legal Description: BLOCK 65,
HOGUET CONDOMINIUMS.
408 E. Cooper Ave: Aspen Sports Parcel Id: 2737-182-16-009, Legal Description: BLOCK
89, LOT PART OF L&M.
Cooper Avenue, Hyman Avenue and Mill Street Pedestrian Malls
333 E. Durant Ave., Mountain Chalet: Parcel Id: 273718245002, Legal Description:
BLOCK 84, MOUNTAIN CHALET PUD SUBDIVISION.
100 E. Francis St., Given Institute: Parcel Id: 273512419851, Legal Description: BLOCK
63, LOT A - LOT F, DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND BEING ALL OF BLK 63
PART OF FRANCIS ST PART OF CENTER ST & PART OF THE NW4 OF THE SW4 OF
SEC 7-10-84 & PART OF THE NE4 OF THE SE4 OF SEC 12-10-85 SAID PARCELS
DESC AS BGNNG AT A PT OF THE N LINE OF FRANCIS ST & 24.00 FT ELY OF THE
W LINE OF CENTER ST TH N 14 DEG 50'49" E 121.59 FT TH N 33 DEG 03'19"E 42.21
FT TH N 7 DEG 19'05"E 112.35 FT TH S 70 DEG 18' 15"E 286.57 FT TH S 6 DEG 18'51 "W
103.11 FT TH 18 DEG 12'00"W 108.73 FT TH 9 DEG 25'21 "E 52.10 FT TH S 23 DEG
21'00"E 83.49 FT TO THE STHLY LINE OF FRANCIS ST EXTENDED ELY TH N 75
DEG 09' 11 "W 288.99 FT TO THE NW COR OF BLK 64 TH N 31 DEG 00'50"W 107.29 FT
TO THE POB.
210 W. Francis Ave: Parcel Id: 273512417005, Legal Description: BLOCK 48, LOT P & Q.
621 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 2735142426011; 2735142426012, Legal Description: BLOCK
22, REEDS HOUSE CONDOMINIUM.
624 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409012, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT B.
626 W. Francis St: Parcel Id: 273512409011, Legal Description: BLOCK 21, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, UNIT A.
215 N. Garmisch St., Yellow Brick: Parcel Id: 273512436850, Legal Description:
BLOCK57, LOT A - LOT S, PLUS VACATED ALLEY.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 8
233 Gilbert St., Skier Chalet Lodge: Parcel Id: 273513119002, Legal Description: BLOCK
9, LOTS 5 - LOT 10 AND LOTS 4 & 11 LESS THE W 22' EAMES ADDITION
SUBDIVISION.
700 W. Gillespie St., Aspen Center for Physics: Parcel Id: 273512129803, Legal Descrip-
tion: LOT 3, ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION.
110 E. Hallam St., Red Brick: Parcel Id: 273707313801, Legal Description: BLOCK 71,
LOTS K,L,M & FRACTIONAL LOTS A, B, & C, BLOCK 64, LOTS A-1 & LOTS K-S
AND A STRIP OF LAND.
327 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512434001, Legal Description: BLOCK 43, LOTS A - C.
928 W. Hallam St: Parcel Id: 273512300015, Legal Description: BLOCK 4, LOTS PART K,
L & M SECT,TWN,RNG:12-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO SOMETIMES
KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY MB BK 385 PG 357 & TRACT
FORMERLY KNOWN AS PARCEL C OF HERNDON SUB FIRST AMENDMENT.
122 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512455004, Legal Description: BLOCK 59, LOTS M &
N.
129 E. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512458004, Legal Description: BLOCK 68, LOTS G - I.
211 W. Hopkins Ave: Parcel Id: 273512463003, Legal Description: BLOCK 53, LOTS F &
G.
100 E. Hyman Ave., Chalet Lis]: Parcel Id: 273512458005, Legal Description: BLOCK 68,
LOTS K - M.
322 W. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273512464005, Legal Description: BLOCK 46, LOTS N &
O.
334 W. Hyman Ave., St. Moritz: Parcel Id: 273512464004, Legal Description: STMORITZ
LODGE MINOR PUD SUBDIVISION.
606 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212003, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT K & L.
610 E. Hyman Ave: Parcel Id: 273718212004, Legal Description: BLOCK 99, LOT M.
630 E. Hyman Ave., Patio Building: Parcel Id: 273718212007, Legal Description: BLOCK
99, LOTS R & S.
720 E. Hyman Ave., Aspen Athletic Club: Parcel Id: 273718211008 THROUGH
273718211019; 273718211021 THROUGH 273718211031, Legal Description: BLOCK 104,
ALL UNITS, ASPEN ATHLETIC CLUB CONDOMINIUMS.
301 Lake Ave., Parcel Id: 273512416003, Legal Description: HALLAM ADDITION
SUBDIVISION BLOCK 40, EAST 1/2 OF LOT 5 - LOT 7.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 9
120 E. Main St., Design Workshop: Parcel Id: 273512438002, Legal Description: ELY 20
FT OF LOT M, ALL OF LOTS N & O BLOCK 66 & SLY 10 FT OF VACATED ALLEY
ADJACENT ALSO LOT 2 OF US WEST SUBDIVISION.
200 W. Main St., Tyrolean Lodge: Parcel Id: 273 5124400 10, Legal Description: BLOCK 51,
LOTS R & S.
220 E. Main St., Cortina Lodge: Parcel Id: 273707320707, Legal Description: BLOCK 73,
LOTS P&Q.
420 E. Main St: Parcel Id: 273707322801; 273707322014; 273707322015, Legal Description:
BLOCK 86, ALL UNITS, GALENA PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS.
435 East Main St., Gas Station/local's corner: Parcel Id: 273707330005, Legal Description:
BLOCK 87, LOTS E -1.
630 W. Main St., Mountain Rescue: Parcel Id: 273512444805, Legal Description: BLOCK
24, LOT M.
730 W. Main St., Hickory House: Parcel Id: 273512445004, Legal Description: BLOCK 18,
LOTS M - P.
745 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201003, Legal Description: BLOCK 1, LOT 3,
SNOBBLE SUBDIVISION.
765 Meadows Rd: Parcel Id: 273512201002, Legal Description: LOT 2, SNOBBLE
SUBDIVISION.
119 S. Mill St., Wells Fargo Bank: Parcel Id: 273707329009, Legal Description: BLOCK
80, LOTS P - S.
307 S. Mill St., D-19 Restaurant: Parcel Id: 273718217004, Legal Description: ASPEN
COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM, UNIT:B.
536 W. North St., Christ Episcopal Church: Parcel Id: 273512111808, Legal Description:
BLOCK 99, LOTS 11 - 15 HALLAM ADDITION.
411 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512110002, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 7 & 8 & A
STRIP OF LAND SITUATED IN BLK 101 HALLAMS ADDITION BEING ONE HALF OF
THE ALLEY WIDTH ADJ TO THE SLY BORDER OF LOT 7 & 8 HALLAM ADDITION.
434 Pearl Ct: Parcel Id: 273512109002, Legal Description: BLOCK 100, SOUTH 1/2 OF
LOT 2 AND LOT 3, HALLAM ADDITION.
850 Roaring Fork Rd: Parcel Id: 273512126001, Legal Description: LOT 1, MERRIAM
SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 10
500 West Smuggler St: Parcel Id: 273512404006, Legal Description: LOTS Q, R &S,
BLOCK 26.
949 W. Smuggler Ave: Parcel Id: 273512212001, Legal Description: BLOCK 3, LOT A — I.
300 S. Spring St., Hannah Dustin: Parcel Id: 273718227800; 273718227101, Legal Descrip-
tion: BLOCK 105, LOTS A - D, ALL UNITS, HANNAH DUSTIN CONDOMINIUMS.
219 S. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512465005, Legal Description: BLOCK 39, LOTS 0 — S.
407 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512413006, Legal Description: BLOCK 34, LOTS P — S.
615 N. Third St: Parcel Id: 273512110001, Legal Description: BLOCK 101, LOTS 9 & 10.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Ho-
sier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal Description:
ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id: 273512129809,
Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT l B.
1280 Ute Ave., Benedict Building: Parcel Id: 273718156001 thru-003; 273718156005 thru-
020; 273718156023 thru -034; 273718156036; 273718156129; 273718156131;
273718156804; 273718156821; 273718156822; 273718156835, Legal Description: ALL
UNITS, POWDERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS.
1005 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718282001, Legal Description: BLOCK 41, LOTS A-C,
EAST ASPEN ADDITION.
1102 Waters Ave: Parcel Id: 273718266001, Legal Description: LOT 14, CALDERWOOD
SUBDIVISION.
Ordinance #48, Series 2007
Page 11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Margerum, Executive Vice -President, Operations, The Aspen Institute
DATE: January 29, 2008
RE: Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A Interpretation
The Aspen Institute Property
The Aspen Institute requests an interpretation/clarification of the recently adopted
Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A as it pertains to the Aspen Institute property. This request for
interpretation is made under Municipal Code Section 26.306.
Exhibit A of Ordinance #48 lists the Aspen Institute property as Lot IA & Lot 113,
Aspen Meadows. The total property is approximately 40 ac. & Exhibit A further
describes Lots IA & 1B as follows:
• Lot IA as "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant,
Sculpture & Gardens."
• Lot 1B as "area of seminar buildings."
The Community Development Office is interpreting Exhibit A of Ordinance #48
to be "all inclusive" encompassing the total 40 acres of Lots 1A & 113, including all
buildings and grounds. As we have stated verbally and in writing prior to this, the Aspen
Institute feels this interpretation is overreaching and is not consistent with the written
language of Exhibit A, i.e. Lot IA is further described as "area of Trustee Townhomes,
Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture & Gardens" and Lot 1 B is further
described as "area of seminar buildings."
The Aspen Institute further feels that having Ordinance #48 apply to the total 40
acres and all buildings and grounds creates an hardship on the Institute's operations and
maintenance of the property. For example, over the past 2 years, the Institute has been
upgrading the grounds and buildings signage on the property to make it more attractive,
readable and uniform. The "all inclusive" interpretation of Ordinance 448 would require
that each new sign be approved by the Community Development Office. An even more
burdensome example is each spring the Institute typically reseeds areas that have been
damaged by winter plowing. Again, under the "all inclusive" and a strict interpretation of
AspCityCouncilMemoOrdinance#48
0
•
Ordinance #48 would require all reseeding be approved by the Community Development
Office.
The Aspen Institute is NOT OPPOSED to specific meritorious buildings and
grounds being designated Historic, but is strongly opposed to designating buildings and
grounds which are clearly not historic and which the City is not consistently applying to
other properties in town. Designating the total 40 acres Historic creates unnecessary
hardships on the operations and maintenance of the property. The Aspen Institute is
supportive of the following Historic designations:
Lot 1A — Reception Center/ Restaurant, Health Center, and Marble Garden
Grounds and Sculptures.
Lot I — Paepcke Building, Koch Building, Boettcher Building, and Anderson
Park Grounds.
Secondarily, the Institute would like to point -out the following additional
deficiencies/inaccuracies in Exhibit A, Ordinance #48.
1. Neither the Benedict Music Tent nor the Harris Concert Hall nor the MAA
property is designated in Exhibit A. This would be Lot 2, Aspen Meadows
Subdivision, while both the Aspen Institute and Aspen Center for Physics
properties are designated in Exhibit A. The Aspen Institute finds this to be
extremely inconsistent and in -explainable.
2. The Aspen Meadows Townhomes are described as being on Lot IA, Aspen
Meadows Subdivision, in Exhibit A. This is incorrect. The Aspen Meadows
Townhomes are located on Lot 5, Aspen Meadows Subdivision, and consists of 11
townhomes of which only 2 are owned by the Aspen Institute. The others are
owned by private individuals.
The lodging rooms were completely torn down and re -built and thus should not be
designated historic. This is also true with the brand new Doerr -Hosier Center.
Again, we fail to understand why you would designate these new building and not
the Music Tent facilities or Harris Hall.
In advance, the Aspen Institute looks forward to the City Council discussion on
this matter.
cc: Jim Curtis, Owner Representative — The Aspen Institute
AspCityCouncilMemoOrdinance#48 2
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION:
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
W&-
Date: February 20, 2008
COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff
City of Aspen
26.415.025, Potential Historic
Resources
February 20, 2008
Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
SUMMARY:
.This Land Use Code interpretation clarifies the meaning of Aspen Municipal Code
Section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. The interpretation request was filed by
Amy Margerum, Executive Vice President, Operations, The Aspen Institute. Ms.
Margerum references Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, which established the subject code
section, and included an exhibit identifying affected property by address and legal
description. Property owned by the Institute is identified in Ordinance #48 as follows:
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal
Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id:
273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
The Institute objects to Community Development Staffs interpretation that the entirety
of Lots lA and ID are subject to Section 26.415.025.
BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption
of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This. Ordinance created new regulations to address
Aspen properties that do not currently have historic landmark protection, but are believed
to be "Potential Historic Resources." A list of affected properties, by address and legal
description, was made available to the public starting on September 26, 2007.
Ordinance #48 is expected,to terminate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy
recornmendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with
alterations unless the work is approved by Staff or HPC, or the owner enters into a
negotiation process with City Council to discuss preservation options. The Aspen
Institute currently proposes alterations to Paepcke Auditorium and will volunteer for
designation and HPC review. They have expressed unwillingness to have HPC review an
adjacent project, installation of a permanent tent next to the Koch Seminar building. This
appears to be the impetus for the code interpretation request.
DISCUSSION
On Exhibit A to Ordinance 448, the property description provided for each Institute
parcel includes a parenthetical note. For Lot 1A, the note states "area of Trustee
Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens" and for Lot
1 B it reads "area of seminar buildings." This additional information was meant to serve
as a reference point, since few people would understand the distinction between Lot lA
and Lot 1 B. It was not intended to narrow the affected area.
In all cases on Exhibit A (and in fact almost without exception in Aspen's historic
preservation program) the entire boundary of a property is used when applying
regulations. Staff was clear in stating this intention with regard to the Aspen Institute
property. Immediately after the research to develop "Exhibit A" was completed' and the
document was distributed to the public, staff sent letters to all affected property owners.
Staff contacted Amy iviargerum of the Aspen Institute on this topic via email on
September 27, 2007, because of the high historic value of the campus. Staff was clear
that the goal was to protect the entire campus, not just isolated areas of the property.
(Email attached.)
Ms. Margerum attended the November 12`h City Council hearing on Ordinance #48.
During comment, she asked staff directly if the intention was to designate the whole site.
The meeting minutes state:
Amy Margerum representing the Aspen Institute noted the Aspen Institute
is under an approved master plan which provides for historic review. Ms.
Margerum asked if the grounds as well as the buildings are under this
ordinance. (Note that this was confirmed at the hearing, acknowledged by
both Ms. Margerum and Mayor Ireland. Tape available from the City
Clerk's office.) 'Ms. Margerum told Council the Institute has gone through
reviews with the HPC and the end result was a better project. Ms
Margerum said if the city is going to add properties to the historic list
Council has to ask management to look into the time and money it takes to
go through the HPC process it is onerous and costly especially for a non-
profit organization. Ms. Guthrie said the grounds of the Institute are not
protected. Ms. Margerum stated she is vehemently opposed to designating
the grounds of the Institute
While City Council made amendments to Exhibit A' at the hearings that led to the final
adoption of Ordinance #48, they did not make any amendment relative to the Aspen
Institute. The Institute is apparently opposed to designation of the property as a whole,
2
0 0
however the topic of a code interpretation is not what should the code state, but what
does it state.
The interpretation request raises side issues, such as the level of review that might result
from landmark designation. Ordinance #48 is not landmark designation. For properties
that do achieve that status, the existing Historic Preservation Ordinance explains which
actions require review and which are exempt. Areas of apparent concern to this property
owner include signs, which are a type of work that generally needs a staff sign off. Staff
and HPC do not review reseeding of grass or similar forms of basic maintenance.
The applicant also inquires why the MAA parcel was not included in Ordinance #48. In
terms of structures, this site does not contain any that have been identified as historically
significant yet (both the tent and Harris Hall are recent construction). To fully address
the historic qualities of the entire Meadows area, the MAA parcel should be discussed for
designation as the Task Force effort moves forward.
Staff s opinion, as reflected in the writing of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, is that a
great deal of the historic and architectural significance of the Aspen Institute property is
the integrity of the campus as a whole. While it is a large parcel, there is precedence for
regulating the preservation of an area of this size; for instance the downtown historic
district is approximately 31 acres. It is very important to provide formal Historic
Preservation Commission review for work that affects the landmark structures at the
Institute, as well as proposed new construction, which, if not thoughtfully evaluated,
could disrupt or destroy historic value.
INTERPRETATION
Staff s interpretation is that the entirety of the properties listed below are affected
by Ordinance 948. The parenthetical comment is provided for reference only.
Comments shown in parentheses are generally understood to be amplifying words,
independent of the surrounding grammatical structure.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal
Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1A.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id:
273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
APPEAL OF DECISION
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
3
Message
. Page 1 of 2
Amy Guthrie -
From: Margerum, Amy [amy.margerum@aspeninst.org]
Sent: `Friday, September 28, 2007 1:37 PM
To: Amy Guthrie
Cc: Chris Bendon; Sara Adams; Perry, Allison; Jim Curtis
Subject: RE: Changes to historic designations
Amy: Thank you for sending me this information. I will ask Allison to put the two
dates on my calendar so we can be part of the process. Can you let her know the
times? (October 2nd is awfully close... hope I can make it!) .
As you mention, we do give HPC a courtesy review of many of the projects,
however, we are not keen on having our landscaping and grounds under the
purview of HPC. It is costly and cumbersome for us and I do not think it is
appropriate for HPC- to get into this area. We are running a major conference
center and it is not public land ... we need the flexibility to use our grounds in ways
that work for our business, which often changes on a daily basis.
We have a Master Plan which dictates the flavor and the uses"on the site and I
believe we have been quite sensitive to the historic nature of the property and in
keeping with that Plan. It is the Plan which should dictate the feel of the overall
property. Right now at least I have no sense of any consistent guidelines or rules
for our property that various staff and commissioners might impose upon us.
I would also ask that during this review you really explore ways of making the
process cheaper and easier on owners. The time it takes is very difficult given our
seasonal nature and, it seems the biggest incentive of all for us to be historically
designated would be fo.r you to try and make decisions quickly and without a huge
financial burden.on us. Scheduling for HPC is often months out and I always have
to hire consultants and planners to prepare the applications.
look forward to working with you on this program.
All the best,
Amy
-----Original Message -----
From: Amy Guthrie [mailto:amyg@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 4:29 PM
To: Margerum, Amy -
Cc: Chris Bendon; Sara Adams
Subject: Changes to historic designations
Hi Amy I don't know how much you have been following the discussion about the City
Message . 40 Page 2 of 2
preventing any alterations to buildings at least 30 years old until it has been determined
whether or not they have historic significance (Ordinance 430.) You may know that
Council has directed our office to narrow the scope of the Ordinance so that, instead of
applying to everything at least 30 years old, the law would only apply to a specific list of
proferties that our staff feels are potentially eligible landmarks. We have created the list
and released it at the HPC meeting last night. It will be published in the paper shortly and
we are sending out letters to the affected property owners to let everyone know this is under
discussion. P&Z will look at this on Oct. 2nd and City Council will have a major
discussion on Oct. 22nd.
I wanted to give you notice that the list includes the concept of designating the whole
Institute Campus. Pretty much every landmark site we have in the City right now was
adopted based on the legal description of the entire property, so that HPC has purview over
the setting of the historic building. The Institute fought that concept 12 or so years ago and
Council agreed to just name specific structures (i.e. Townhomes, Health Club, Restaurant,
Marble Gardens and other Bayer landscapes.) Our cbncern with this is twofold. First, there
are a number of other important resources at the Institute (i.e. the Fuller dome, the
Kaleidoscreen, Paepcke Auditorium, Koch, and Boettcher) that have no formal protection.
Second, the setting, landscape, and campus nature of the property is part of the most
important aspect of its historic significance.
Again, you will get more info in the mail, but I want to be sure you know what is going on
asap. Happy to discuss with you. Changing the designation to cover the campus as a whole
would mean HPC would have purview over any significant landscape changes as well as
any new structures. You have generally offered that as a courtesy in the past anyway.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
1)ii onnnQ
• • Page 1 of 2
tFl�_ �1�L A t,�
Amy Guthrie
From: Perry, Allison [Allison. Perry@aspeninst.org] on behalf of Margerum, Amy
[amy. margerum@aspeninst.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:26 PM
To: Chris Bendon; Jennifer Phelan; John Worcester; Amy Guthrie
Cc: 'Jim Curtis'; Margerum, Amy
Subject: Ordinance #48
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Aspen Community Development Director
John Worcester, Aspen City Attorney
FROM: Amy Margerum, Executive Vice -President Operations
The Aspen Institute
DATE: March 5, 2008
RE: Greenwald Pavilion Tent
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment Application
Dated December 20, 2007
The Aspen Institute voluntarily agrees to have the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) review the above application pursuant to Chapter 26.440 "Specially Planned
Areas" (SPAs) of the Code. Under Chapter 26.440 SPAS, it is my understanding the HPC
review of the application will be as a "referral and recommending" entity to Aspen City
Council in Council's SPA review of the application. Under the SPA review, the Aspen Institute looks
forward to the HPC discussion and would like to be scheduled before HPC as soon as possible.
3/6/2008
. • Page 2 of 2
Secondly, pursuant to my letter of March 3, the Aspen Institute has appealed the
Code Interpretation of Ordinance #48. Hopefully, the appeal can be scheduled and heard
before City Council before the HPC review of the above application. Even under Chapter 26.415
"Development Involving The Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures ... " and
Section 26.415.025D of the Code, the Aspen Institute feels the HPC review of the above application is
as a "referral and recommending" entity to Aspen City Council, without any Code authority to approve
or deny the application, because as of this date none of the Aspen Institute property including the
Greenwald Pavilion Tent Site have been designated by City Council by ordinance to the "Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures" pursuant to Section 26.415.030 and Section
26.415.040 of the Code. Section 26.415.070 of the Code is clear HPC only has Code authority to
approve, approve with conditions or deny development applications involving properties designated on
the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures."
The Aspen Institute looks forward to the HPC discussion on the above application and the
meeting with Aspen City Council to clarify Ordinance #48 and the procedures, rules and authority of
the entities involved in the review of the above application. Please feel free to contact me on any
questions concerning the above.
3/6/2008
•
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION
JURISDICTION:
APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
WRITTEN BY:
APPROVED BY:
Date: Rrc24, 2008
COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff
City of Aspen
26.415.025,
Resources
March 24, 2008
Potential Historic
Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
Chris Bendon,
Community Development Director
SUMMARY:
This Land Use Code interpretation clarifies the meaning of Aspen Municipal Code
Section 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources. The interpretation was suggested by
Jim Curtis, representing the Aspen Institute, and the Community Development
Department agreed that the clarification should be pursued. The Institute is of the belief
that a property owner affected by Ordinance 448 can proceed with any planned work
after volunteering to allow the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission to review the
work in an advisory capacity, regardless of the disposition of the HPC. Community
Development Staff disagree with this perspective and believe that work may only proceed
if found by HPC to be in conformance with the guidelines.
BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption
of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance created new regulations to address
Aspen properties that do not currently have historic landmark protection, but are believed
to be "Potential Historic Resources." Throughout the ordinance, the intention to provide
"protection" and to "prevent the loss (and) limit the detrimental effect of development,"
is stated.
Ordinance 448 is expected to terminate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy
recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with
alterations unless the work is approved by Staff or HPC, or the owner enters into a
negotiation process with City Council to discuss preservation options.
The Aspen Institute currently proposes alterations to Paepcke Auditorium and
construction of a new tent known as the Greenwald Pavilion. It is staff s understanding
that the Institute believes that these projects are not subject to Ordinance #48, which staff
• 0
disputed in a previous Code Interpretation, and the Institute believes that, to the extent
Ordinance #48 is applicable, HPC's role in reviewing the appropriateness of the project is
advisory only. This is the focus of the current code interpretation.
DISCUSSION
Section 26.415.025.D states:
D. Applicability and Exemptions. For those properties identified on the List of
Potential Historic Resources no alterations shall be undertaken by the property
owner and no building permits or land use applications for alterations, demolition
or other similar development activities that substantially alters the Potential
Historic Resource may be accepted by the Community Development Department
except as permitted pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.415.025.E.
The section goes on to state exceptions from this prohibition. The first exception is that
interior work, painting, and routine maintenance is allowed to proceed. In addition, the
Community Development Director has the opportunity to determine that any proposed
work is so minimally intrusive or reversible as to not require further review under
Ordinance 448. Emergency repairs can also be undertaken.
Property owners proposing work that is not exempt as described have another option,
which is to volunteer to allow HPC to review their project. The language states
An owner may volunteer to have any proposed work be reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Commission pursuant to the procedures and limitations of Chapter
26.415 of the Municipal Code and if the work is found by HPC to be in
conformance with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines," an
application for building permit shall be issued. (emphasis added)
This language indicates that the owner may pursue their project by volunteering to
participate in a review by the Historic Preservation Commission. The referenced code
section is the City's entire historic preservation program, which describes the kinds of
development over which HPC has purview, the review criteria, and the procedures for
review. In no case is HPC's decision in these matters advisory. The language of
Ordinance 448 states that an owner choosing to work with HPC must present a project
that the board finds is in conformance with their guidelines, and when that is the case, a
building permit will be issued. Therefore, if HPC does not find that a project is in
conformance with their guidelines, a building permit will not be issued and the project
cannot proceed.
INTERPRETATION
Staff s interpretation is that an owner who elects to proceed with planned work after a
review by the Historic Preservation Commission may only do so if the HPC approves the
subject project.
K
0 i
APPEAL OF DECISION
Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an
appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development
Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director
and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to
file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any
rights under this Title to appeal any decision or determination.
• � �1�� to i-� �"
THE ASPENINSTITUTE
1000 North Third Street
Aspen, CO 81611
PH 970.925.7010
Fx 970.925.4188
www.aspeninstitute.org
■
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon,
FROM: Amy Margerum,
DATE: March 3, 2008
Aspen Community Development Director
Executive Vice -President Operations
The Aspen Institute
RE: Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation
Code Section 26.415.025 Potential Historic Resources
The Aspen Institute wishes to appeal the code interpretation of the above
dated February 20, 2008 written by Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer.
As set forth in the Aspen Institute's prior memorandum dated January
29, 2008, the Institute feels the Community Development Office's
interpretation of Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A being "all inclusive" and
encompassing all buildings and grounds on the total 40 acres (Lots 1 A & 1 B)
owned by the Institute is overreaching, not consistent with the written language
of Exhibit A, creates an operating hardship for the Institute and is not
consistently applied to certain adjacent properties. The Aspen Institute wishes
to clarify these items and interpretation before Aspen City Council as quickly as
possible to the benefit of all parties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please inform me when
our appeal will be scheduled.
BendonMemoAppeal I nstitute
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /�/ , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1%,p-p� J P1L 2E—if 6 Gk'-4 200,_F'
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, A xi ri (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
• •
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new Iand use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
S i gnaftfrt
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this //- day
of APP-1 L , 200 b, by _ '1
nes Weekly
��.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF ORDI-
NANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007n APPEAL TO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday, April 28. 2008. at a meet-
ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City
Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to hear an appeal of the
Community Development Director's Interpretation
of elements of Ordinance #48, Aspen,
Series of 2007 by
the Aspen Institute, 1000 N. Third Street,
CO 81611, represented by Jim Curtis.
For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the
City of Aspen 30
S. Galena St., Aspen,, CO (970 429--22758,ommunity Development Dept.,1(orr
amyg@ci.aspen.co.us).
s/Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on April 13.
2008.(1397307)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: o'2 11 L I a0 l b
02e ,.c S P � 7t
Notary Public `J
LAURA
ATTACHMENTS: v. i MEYER
L
COPY OF THE PUBLICA TION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SI1lUiil$JiI y r,ires 081101,2010
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
•
Amy Guthrie
From: Jim Curtis Dcurtis@sopris.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:42 AM
To: Amy Guthrie
Subject: Re: notice
The Institute is happy to waive the 15 day mail Notice. No problem.
On Apr 14, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Amy Guthrie wrote:
> Hi Jim- I've just realized that I neglected to send the Institute
> notice of the April 28th Council appeal. Section 26.316.030.1), Appeal
> procedures, requires notice to be published in the newspaper
> (done) and mailed to the applicant 15 days before the meeting. We are
> at 14 days now.
> John Worcester has indicated that the Institute can waive this mailing
> so we can go forward. Is that acceptable or would you like me to
> reschedule the meeting to May 12th and re -do the notice?
> Sorry for the oversight. The newspaper notice is attached.
> <Ord48Appeal.doc>
i
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
increase in marking transportation funding which is a pass through from the 1 % lodging
tax, half goes to ACRA and half pays for in -town transportation through RFTA. Menter
pointed out there is an increase for the proposed city -employee housing of $140,000 and
construction fund of $950,000 of contributions from existing operating funds to finance
construction of 100 units of housing over the next 10 years.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue the public hearing and Resolution #94, Series of 2007,
for two weeks; seconded by Councilman Johnson.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Toni Kronberg said this week the EOTC is meeting and will discuss a possible pedestrian
bridge at Buttermilk as well as reinstating the free bus service between Aspen and
Snowmass. Council should note these expenditures. Ms. Kronberg said the number of
affordable housing unit at Burlingame should be expanded. Mike Maple suggested the
sales tax be increased. Maple said only 54% of the retail sales in the city are subject to
sales tax. Only 17% of fur sales pay city sales tax; only 14% of galleries and 26% of
jewelry pay city sales tax. Maple told council only 50% of liquor sales are subject to city
sales tax. Maple said people who shop in city stores are being under taxed in sales tax
and this should be corrected. Maple said collecting half of this would garner the city $2
million/year.
Mayor Ireland reminded Council items shipped out of state are not subject to city sales
tax because they are not used within the jurisdiction. Maple encouraged Council to
investigate changing the definition so that the city can charge sales tax on services.
Maple said there appears to be abuse of shipping items out of Aspen and Colorado.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007 — Code Amendments Historic Preservation
Chris Bendon, community development department, reminded Council Ordinance #30
addressing historic designation of houses 30 years and older was adopted as an
emergency ordinance, which provided protocol around review of properties for historic
designation. Bendon reminded Council amendments were requested to Ordinance #30 as
well as a process to analyze the entire historic preservation program. Staff came back
with a new ordinance #45. After first reading, staff made significant amendments and
created a new ordinance, 448.
Bendon said in first reading of #48, Council was presented with options and gave
direction on all options except the provision for economic considerations for designation.
Bendon said staff has been working with the citizens group to make changes to the
ordinance and this is a much improved ordinance.
Amy Guthrie, community development department, noted the definition section was
amended to define new terms or define review processes that have not existed before.
6
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
Potential historic resources is how the list is described, the purpose of the list, how
properties get off the list. One of the purposes of Ordinance #48 was that Council wanted
to move away from the idea every property 30 years or older is subject to regulation. The
list contains staffs recommendation for properties that are worth discussing. Ms.
Guthrie told Council staff looked at integrity, how many alterations to a property, was
there a specific architect, how refined of an architectural example was the building is how
the list was built.
Ms. Guthrie noted this list will not be expanded for 10 years; it can be amended as
properties go through the designation process and are not approved for designation, they
will be taken off the list. Interior remodel, basic maintenance work and minimally
intrusive work is exempt from this ordinance. Ms. Guthrie said if a property owner wants
to know whether their property should be on or off the list, the community development
director will use the existing landmark criteria to develop a preliminary conclusion
whether the property has significance. If the community development director
determines a property does not have historic significance, HPC and Council have a few
days to object; if they do not object, the property is off the list. If the community
development director determines there is historic significance, the ordinance outlines the
next step in the review process.
Ms. Guthrie noted the ordinance outlines how a property owner can confirm their
property is not on the list. Ms. Guthrie pointed out there has been an effort, in writing the
ordinance, to put the property owner in control of the pace of the process. The ordinance
contains penalty provisions if someone does work without an approval. Ms. Guthrie said
the actual designation is similar to the existing process with amendments on dealing with
post WWII properties. The criteria for historic designation have not been changed and
these should be addressed by the citizens' task force. Ms. Guthrie pointed out in the
existing ordinance a property has to meet one out of three criteria for designation; this
states a property has to meet two criteria.
Ms. Guthrie said the notion that if a property owner could not prove a property was built
less than 30 years ago, it would be assumed that to be the case. This ordinance is more
flexible on that issue. The ordinance requires staff submit their memorandum to the
property owner 30 days in advance of the HPC hearing on designation. The ordinance
outlines the landmark process; HPC makes a recommendation to Council. If there is an
involuntary designation, HPC has to approve that by super majority. If super majority is
not received, the matter will die and not go to Council. If the property proceeds to
Council, they will hear a recommendation from HPC as well as getting an economic
impact report, if requested by the property owner. If Council denies a landmark
designation, the property cannot be brought up for designation again for 10 years.
Bendon told Council there are 3 options for economic impact. The first asks Council to
consider whether there has been a taking as a result of designation, the removal of all use
of a property. The 2"d and 3rd options rely on an economic impact examination panel; the
ordinance outlines how the panel will be constituted and what they go through. The
panel will be a volunteer board whose members have expertise in the industry. The
10
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
economic impact panel will make a determination and report to Council. In option 2,
Council is asked to provide mitigation to the property owner if the economic impact is
unreasonable. In option 3, Council is asked to provide mitigation to the property owner
in any circumstance. Mitigation would be financial compensation and could also be
benefits.
Bendon presented language to modify option 2; one is to allow Council to pay the
economic impact and to provide them with staff assistance. The amended language states
it is at Council's sole discretion to mitigate a property owner.
Ms. Guthrie noted if this ordinance is adopted, property owners on the list will be notified
by registered mail. Some property owners already received a determination through
Ordinance #30; this can be extended to 10 years. Ms. Guthrie said there is a provision in
this ordinance that HPC begin to narrow the list and they are designing a process by
which they can accomplish that.
Bendon noted at first reading, the idea of a "public defender" was brought up. The
ordinance allows the city to retain an expert. Bendon suggested a top set number for
mitigation per property. Ms. Guthrie asked that Council give staff direction on the policy
task force, the application process and that while the policy task force is completing its
work, the city will not undertake any designations without owner consent.
Mayor Ireland asked if staff had comments on the ordinance suggested by the citizens.
Bendon said he has not seen it and pointed out any code amendments must go through
review by P&Z before coming to Council. Councilman DeVilbiss asked for a definition
of "takings". Jim True, special counsel, said the phrase referred to in takings is
"reasonable investment backed expectations" and there are Supreme Court cases finding
a taking is when there is no real economic value retained on the property after whatever
government action.
Mayor Ireland noted Council has discussed repealing this and starting over. Councilman
Romero said he would be willing to drop Ordinance #48 and to repeal Ordinance #30
with some conditions putting the process back to commissioning a task force to look at
updating the overall historic preservation code, trying to get community consensus and
appeal to the public. Councilman DeVilbiss said there may be some peril in repealing
Ordinance #30 and there would have to be conditions or adjustments.
Councilman Skadron stated he does not support Ordinance #48. Councilman Skadron
said he does not support the notion of the city writing a check to property owners. The
10 year window may have unintended consequences. Councilman Skadron said he is
uneasy with the precedent of codifying a super majority. Councilman Skadron said he
will support a repeal of Ordinance #30 and ask for a suspension by the city of designation
of properties for a certain period of time. Councilman Skadron said he would like
historic preservation be improved by an objective group of citizens in order to get
improved criteria, and the process which leaves a historic preservation code that is
credible and fosters a valid basis for designating properties.
11
Regular Meetine Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
Mayor Ireland said Council has agreed there are 2,000 properties that should not be
dragged on and these should be out from under a cloud. Mayor Ireland said he is inclined
to adopt this ordinance with a 6 month sunset clause so that new standards could be
adopted during that time. An alternative would be that a property the city may think is
historic cannot be demolished for 6 or 12 months while the city negotiates a package of
benefits to leave the property as it is with the property owner.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing.
Amy Margerum, representing the Aspen Institute, noted the Aspen Institute is under an
approved master plan, which provides for historic review. Ms. Margerum asked if the
grounds, as well as the buildings, are under this ordinance. Ms. Margerum told Council
the Institute has gone through reviews with the HPC and the end result was a better
project. Ms. Margerum said if the city is going to add properties to the historic list,
Council has to ask management to look into the time and money it takes to go through the
HPC process; it is onerous and costly, especially for a non-profit organization. Ms.
Guthrie said the grounds of the Institute are not protected. Ms. Margerum stated she is
vehemently opposed to designating the grounds of the Institute.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 10 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried.
Pam Cunningham, Aspen Alps, submitted a letter opposing the inclusion of the Aspen
Alps on the list of historic properties. Terry Hale said Council has a chance to revisit the
entire concept of historic preservation, not just Ordinance #30. Hale said this has not
been a waste of the past 4 months but is an opportunity to rewrite the historic
preservation code with input from builders and architects and other community members
so that it is something the community is proud of.
Chip Freeman submitted a letter on this issue with all his thoughts. Helen Klanderud
asked what rationale has been used to have the properties on the list, on the list. Ms.
Klanderud said all properties should be taken off the list until there is a historic
preservation code that the community can accept and support. Ms. Klanderud said there
are no criteria as to who are notable architects, what in modern buildings is truly
extraordinary and ought to be preserved. Ms. Klanderud said one needs to be able to look
back and see what stands the test of time, more than 30 or 40 years.
Les Holst said he supports historic preservation which leads to a viable economic
community. Historic preservation is about scale and massing. Holst suggested
designating the entire town, which would preserve property values for everyone.
Connie Harvey said the city has discretion on whether property owners receive
compensation which will set up resentments and entanglements which does not make a
lot of sense and is a dangerous and unpleasant approach. Toni Kronberg said she
supports historic preservation and passage of this ordinance. Mark Friedberg said he has
looked at the majority of properties on this list. Friedberg said the city should be looking
12
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
for a sense of reasonableness in trying to approach the goal of what the buildings are that
are meaningful in contributing to the welfare of Aspen. Friedberg said without the
community input and review of criteria for post WWII buildings, there will not be
resolution. Friedberg said the time that has been put into this will help the community
think more clearly about what they want as the end result.
Marilyn Marks said much of input has been citizens saying the community ought to be
involved in this process. Council needs to find out what the community wants. Ms.
Marks said major changes have been made to Ordinance #48; however, it is still overly
complex and expensive to property owners. Ms. Marks said the ordinance leads to a lack
of support and goodwill for a historic preservation program. Ms. Marks said the list of
historic potential properties feels flawed and arbitrary. Ms. Marks said this is not
consistent with the AACP, such as buildings should not take precedence over people who
live in them.
Mike Maple aid his proposed ordinance would repeal Ordinance #30 and revert back to
the 2002 code. The task force could go forward and update historic codes. Maple
suggested Ordinance #48 could be amended by deletions throughout the ordinance
leaving only 100 year old structures protected. Christina Crandall said protecting
structures in Aspen may be too late. Aspen is going from generally small in mass and
scale buildings to an upscale community. Ms. Crandall said the option to seek historic
designation through creative uses of incentives is a more desirable approach. Ms.
Crandall said the proposal seems overly complicated.
Jack Wilkey said he has only received one letter and has no idea why his building is on
the list of potential historic structures. Scott Hicks asked the process to exercise one's
right to do future development on the property. Hicks said in his experience there is a lot
of subjectivity to historic preservation and review and it took him two years to get
through a historic approval process. Henry Hite said some of the post WWII buildings
are not energy efficient and need to be torn down. Pierre Wille, Tyrolean Lodge, told
Council this property is already in the Main street historic district. Wille said they have
been holding the building together with band aids for the last 20 years. Wille noted some
buildings are historic and some are just old.
Jesse Boyce said finding ways to remodel potential historic structures in a tasteful way
and help with the canary initiative would be a good thing. Boyce suggested coming up
with an incentive or funding source and let people come to the city to see what benefits
there are in historic preservation. Susan Capiel Collin stated she supports the majority of
the comments. The city needs to start over and scrap the list. Rome St. Andre said this
community is about the people, not the buildings. Ms. St. Andre said this ordinance has
been divisive.
Bill Wiener said governments do things that increase or decrease property values; things
that are good for neighborhoods or bad for neighborhoods. Wiener noted when
properties are upzoned and people's values go up, they do not offer to pay the city for the
13
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 12, 2007
difference in property values. Wiener said one reason Aspen's property values are so
high is that previous governments had values and protected this community.
Mayor Ireland closed the public hearing.
Councilman Johnson moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Romero, All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Johnson said there is fear and distrust in the community over this issue.
Councilman Johnson said there has been misinformation throughout the community.
Councilman Johnson noted he has stated a list is an easy way to treat people unfairly
rather than treating everyone the same. Councilman Johnson said he feels the past 4
months could have been better spent with a large community discussion on historic
preservation. Councilman Johnson said the city was to draft an interim ordinance and got
off track. Councilman Johnson said other issues are values that Aspen has endorsed
through the AACP and the core beliefs of 2006. Council needs to consider all view
points, to gather a diverse group of citizens to make a recommendation to Council on this
issue. Councilman Johnson stated he supports creating a task force to represent all
citizens of Aspen and to be charged with making recommendations to Council.
Councilman Johnson suggested hiring an independent facilitator to insure all viewpoints
are heard.
Councilman Romero reiterated he would like to drop Ordinance #48 and repeal
Ordinance #30 and start over. Councilman Romero agreed there are core principles over
preservation; however, there are many different definitions surrounding preservation.
Councilman Romero said if the two ordinances are repealed, he would like the city to
suspend all designations and let the process go through its steps.
Councilman DeVilbiss said he would like to see written legislation to accomplish what
other Council has discussed so it can be voted on. Councilman Skadron said he feels it is
appropriate to repeal Ordinance #48. Councilman Johnson said he would be willing to
work with staff to draft an ordinance outlining the duties of a task force. Councilman
Johnson stated he does not support any action that would provide no protection for
historic properties. Councilman Johnson said he would like the task force to make
recommendations to Council first. Councilman Johnson stated what is needed is a
balance between economic fairness and historic preservation.
Councilman Romero said he feels repealing Ordinance #48 is not as much of a
component of historic preservation but as a restoration of community relations.
Councilman Johnson stated new legislation to replace Ordinance #30 is needed before
anything is repealed. A task force ought to be charged with protection of the structures
that have been discussed over the past 4 months. Councilman Johnson agreed Ordinance
#48 should be dropped and Ordinance #30 should be repealed when there is some other
legislation in place.
14
Reeular Meetine Aspen City Council November 12,200
Mayor Ireland said he would like the potential historic properties protected until they can
be reviewed, released or designated. Mayor Ireland said he would like to know what the
community at large wants, not just what the affected property owners want. Mayor
Ireland said he does not want this process to go on for another year or two. Councilman
Romero noted there is consensus to have a task force; however, this will take time
resulting in uncertainty for anyone whose property is on the list. Councilman Romero
said the process should go forward without encumbrance of these two ordinances.
Mayor Ireland asked who would limit the process to the current exhibit A list of potential
historic properties; this would be demolition review while the task force is doing their
job. Councilman Johnson agreed with that. Councilman Johnson said he supports the
notion of certainty for a period of time when a property knows they will not be
considered for historic designation. Councilman Johnson said he does not think Council
ought to tie the hands of the task force on any issue.
Councilman Skadron agreed with a suspension of the city involuntary designations,
which means no list. Councilman Skadron stated his intention is to repeal Ordinance
#30 and to return to procedures before that.
Councilman DeVilbiss moved to suspend the rules and extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
Mayor Ireland moved to continue Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, to 11/26 with the
direction to strike all language other than demolition review of the list on exhibit A, put a
time limit of 6 months at which time the ordinance sunsets and to create a task force to
consider all the issues raised by this and to allow in the interim with the existing
standards that the HPC further narrow the properties while the citizen committee is
operating; seconded by Councilman Johnson. All in favor with the exception of
Councilmembers Skadron and Romero. Motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved to continue Ordinance #28, Series of 2008, 508 East Cooper
and Resolution #95, Series of 2007, Extension of Vested Rights 110 East Bleeker, to
November 13`h at 3 p.m.; seconded by Councilman DeVilbiss. All in favor, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #46, SERIES OF 2007 — Extension of CC Business Mix and Historic
Interiors
Chris Bendon, community development department, recommended Council adopt this
ordinance and extend the moratorium to June 12, 2008, so staff and Council can continue
to work on code amendments.
Mayor Ireland opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Ireland
closed the public hearing.
15
0 •
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /�//� , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ' IONp!13�1 IL Z9_� S�, 2000'
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, Ay � Ez f1 Sc 012- (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the Ciiy of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
_tz�_Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of
, 200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage
prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the
property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of
property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they
appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A
copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto.
(continued on next page)
Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public
inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
=� S
Signafdre
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowled ed before me this 4- day
of f � gl 1-, 200 iS, by i'1 f:2 5� o eFiJ
nes Weekly Aifo�j y.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF ORDI-
NANCE #48, SERIES OF 2007n APPEAL TO CITY
COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Monday. April 28, 2008. at a meet.
ing to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City
Council, Council Chambers, City Hell, 130 S.
Galena St., Aspen, to hear an appeal of the
Community Development Director's Interpretation
of elements of Ordinance 448. Series of 2007 by
the Aspen Institute, 1000 N. Third Street, Aspen,
CO 81611, represented by Jim Curtis.
For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the
City of Aspen Community Development Dept., 130
S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429,2758. (or
amyg ® ci. aspen.co. us).
s/Michael C. Ireland Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times weekly on April 13.
2008.(1397307)
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: D-2 h b I a0 1 b
Notary Public
LAURA
ATTACHMENTS: MEYER
kn.-
•• •i
COPY OF THE PUBLICA TIONF Cok-
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SINissiart Expires W1012010
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
C�
THE CITY oF: ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: March 5, 2008
Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant,
We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number
and name assigned to this property is 00014.2008.ASLU (Aspen Institute — Appeal) The planner
assigned to this case is Amy Guthrie.
❑ Your Land Use Application is incomplete:
We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed
complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission
contents for you application:
1.
2.
3.
Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing
your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed
above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the
land use application.
"Alf
Land Use Application is complete:
/ _If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process.
Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by
the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any
questions.
Tha You,
ennifer Ph an eputy Director
City of Aspen, Community Development Department
C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\Desktop\organized\G Drive\Templates\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc
1
001 L. • 2-1003 . 76<5 L lit
ATTACHMENT 2--LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt.
❑
GMQS Allotment
❑
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
❑
GMQS Exemption
❑
Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
❑
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
❑
Text/Map Amendment
1
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
V1
]DUl nl1QAi (riner•rintinn nFnrnn rl hnilAilaq ncPc mndifiratinns Ptr. 1 I 1 1
OEM
E
Have you attached the following? ' I FEES DUE: S V) v
❑ Pr -Application Conference Summary
chment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Y)116�
❑ Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards 901-4
All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application.
0
C�
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
of
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS F1
10
.. •zo,. �i • • •awl
•• •. • • 40 fi �� / `•
1
rk
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000)
establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent
to a determination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it
is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application.
APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an
initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis.
APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he
will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the
CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty
of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning
Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings
are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect
full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the
amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual
APPLICANT recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, T shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse
the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $220.00
per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and
in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
By:
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
Mailing Address:
g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc
1/10/01
r
From: Jim Curtis <jcurtis@sopris.neb
Subject: Fwd: Aspen Institute --Ordinance #48 Appeal --City Council Letter
Date: April 22, 2008 10:18:56 AM MDT
To: Amy Guthrie <amyg@ci.aspen.co.us>
Cc: Jennifer Phelan <jenniferp@ci.aspen.co.us>
'� 2 Attachments, 160 KB save
Attached is a summary Cover Letter the Aspen Institute would like you to insert into the City
Council agenda package on the Ordinance #48 Appeal. The Cover Letter summarizes the
Institute's 2 questions on Ordinance #48 & should be easy for City Council to follow. I will drop
by a hard copy before lunch. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Page (133 KB) Page 2.doc(27 0 KB
RECEIVED
APR 22 Luvu
CITY OF ASPEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
To: Aspen City Council
From: Amy Margerum, The Aspen Institute
THE ASPEN INSTITUTE
CC: Community Development Office
Amy Margerum City Attorney Office
Executive Vice President Date: April 21, 2008
Operations
Corporate Secretary Re: Aspen Institute — Ordinance #48 Appeal & Clarification
The Aspen Institute is scheduled before City Council on Mon. April 281h seeking clarification on
two Ord. #48 questions. I & Jim Curtis, our planner, felt it would be helpful to outline our
questions & thinking to you beforehand to facilitate the discussion on the 281h. The two questions
are:
1. What Aspen Institute "facilities" are encumbered under Exhibit A of Ord. #48? The
Planning Office takes the position that Exh. A is "all inclusive" meaning all buildings & grounds
on the 40 ac. Aspen Institute property are encumbered under Exh. A. (all of Lot 1 A & 1 B). The
Institute feels this interpretation is overreaching & imposes a hardship on the day to day
operations of the Institute. The Institute feels Exh. A is more limiting as set forth by the areas in
( ) of Exh. A, i.e. Lot 1 A (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr -Hosier, Restaurant,
Sculpture & Gardens) & Lot 1 B (Area of the Seminar Buildings).
The "all inclusive" interpretation creates a hardship on the day to day operations of the Institute.
For example, over the past 2 years, the Institute has been replacing & upgrading its signage for
buildings & grounds to make the signage more uniform & attractive. The "all inclusive"
interpretation of the Planning Office means every new sign must now be approved by the
Planning Office even when a sign permit is not required by the Municipal Code. Moreover, a
,'very strict' interpretation of the Planning Office position would say any & all physical changes
to the 40 ac. campus, i.e. planting new trees or grass, would need Planning Office approval. The
Institute feels it was neither the intent nor goal of Ord. #48 to delegate this much discretionary
oversight & authority to the Community Development Office or the Historic Preservation
Commission.
1. What is the role & authority of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) under the
Municipal Code & Ordinance #48? The Aspen Institute has two SPA Amendment applications
pending before the City, i.e. Greenwald Pavilion Tent & Paepcke Auditorium Renovation. The
1000 North Third Street
Institute's reading of the Municipal Code & Ord. #48 is that the HPC is a "referral &
recommending" body & not a "decision -making & approval" body for the two SPA Amendment
Aspen, Colorado 81611
applications. The Institute welcomes & appreciates (& voluntary agrees) to the HPC review of
the two applications as a "referral & recommending" body consistent with the Institute's reading
of the Code. The Institute's 2 basic points are:
PH 970.544.7905
A. None of the Aspen Institute's "facilities" are officially designated by City Council by ordinance
FX 970.544.7908
to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites & Structures" as of this time even under Ord.
#48. Specifically, under Ord. #48, Code Section 26.415.025(G) Voluntary Designation states"
www.aspenitistitute.org
The City Council, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Community Development
Director may not initiate an application for designation unless the property owner consents to
designation for the effective period of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007". The Aspen Institute has
■
not consented to voluntary designation to the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites & Structures" at this time. Like City Council, the Aspen Institute is awaiting the
recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission Task Force.
B. Under Municipal Code, Section 26.220.010 HPC Powers & Duties states" The Historic
Preservation Commission (.... ) shall have the following powers & duties: B. Review & approval,
approval with conditions, suspension or disapproval of development within the H, Historic
Overlay District or development involving the Asoen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites &
Since none of the Aspen Institute "facilities" are officially designated to the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites & Structures, at this time, the HPC must be a "referral & recommending"
body to the two pending SPA Amendment applications because HPC only has "decision -making
& approval" authority once a property has been officially designated to the Aspen Inventory of
Historic Landmark Sites & Structures. The Institute fully understands both applications have to
be reviewed under the SPA (Specially Plan Area) provisions of the Municipal Code & that
Council would reasonably expect HPC referral comments under the City's SPA review
procedures.
Please feel free to email or call on any questions on the above. As always, thank you for your
time & attention to this matter.
Amy Margerum
Executive Vice President, Operations
The Aspen Institute