Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.ca.1000 N 3rd St.0004.2008.ASLU
41 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0014.2008.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 273512029008 PROJECTS ADDRESS 1000 N. THIRD ST PLANNER CHRIS BENDON CASE DESCRIPTION APPEAL OF CODE INTERPRETATION REPRESENTATIVE JIM CURTIS DATE OF FINAL ACTION 4.1.10 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 4.1.10 p.,25-1‘,„3/-3‘ co t t+ 2cos-,A5Lut p a A r c a t D - 2,9 —00g File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help a .0 ar, 2, Clear ak Main Routing Status Fee Summary Actions Routing History = idermit Type naslu---JA—s-p—e■-71:Wribse Permit d[0614.2008.ASLU Address .1000 N THIRD ST 2l Apt/Suite City ASPEN State!CO .1 Zip '..81611 21 Permit Information r. Master Permit! 2! Routing Queue raslu07 Applied 103/04/2008 7%- z Project 2' Status !pending Approved r Description IAPPEAL OF CODE INTERPRETATION Issued Final j Submitted!JIM CURTIS 920.1395 Clock!Running Days flU Expires 02/27,2009 I .—.1 a inner Last Name[ASPEN INSTITUTE INC j2 First Name iPO BOX 222 IQUEENTOWN MD 21658 Phone i lk..9 Owner Is Applicant? Applicant Last Name ASPEN INSTITUTE INC zi First Name! PO BOX 222 QUEENTOWN MD 21658 Phone oust 25646 .2] Lender Last Name/ 21 First Name Phone AspenGold(b) Edit Record:4 ol 78 140441 Amy Guthrie � ra � N 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. 1 On point#2—We understand your desire to present to the HP TF and we don't have'an 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:icurtis©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 1st proceed to City P & Z to discuss the merits of the application & thereafter proceed to City 2 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 3 Amy L. Margerum 970-544-7905 (w) 970-404-4269 (c) 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council 1/ THRU: Chris Hendon, Community Development Director 11p,�(1/ 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. 1 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 I 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 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 #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.<i , Series of 2008, [affirming or reversing] the Community Development Director's inte etation of Land Use Code Section 26.415.025." 3 ATTACHMENTS�.f� RESOLUTION it... OF 2008(AFFIRMING,OR REVERSING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI CTOR'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 29th, 2008 Exhibit D- Interpretation dated February 20`h, 2008 Exhibit E- Email from Jim Curtis (basis for second interpretation), dated March 5th, 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 J- Council minutes of November 12, 2007 4 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 of Adjustment. 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 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 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: 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 20th 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 22"d day of October,2007. ��� !�// Yom. /2_11 _0 ? Michael C. Ireland,Ma or ATTEST: Kathryn^K ,City Clerk FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this tiftflay of 1 ,, 2007. cha C. Ireland,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Ko ,City Clerk Jim True,Special Counsel Ordinance#48,Series 2007 Page 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE#48,SERIES OF 2007 114 E.Sleeker 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 2521"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 64TH 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-I & 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 Lisl: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& 0 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-I. 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 ytqLj- 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 lA & Lot 1B, Aspen Meadows. The total property is approximately 40 ac. & Exhibit A further describes Lots 1A & 1B as follows: • Lot 1A 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 lA & 1B, 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 1A is further described as "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr-Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture & Gardens" and Lot 1B 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 AspC ityCounci IMemoOrd in ance#48 1 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 1B —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 1A, 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: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2008 WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer APPROVED BY: /d Vim/ Chris Bendon, Date: February 20, 2008 Community Development Director COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff 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 1A. 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 1B 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 recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with 1 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 1A, the note states "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens" and for Lot 1B 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 IA 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 12th 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 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 kilns 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 3 i 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 #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 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 c©, aspeninst.erg] Sent: `Friday, September 28, 2007 1:37 PM To: Amy Guthrie Cc: Chris Bender); 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 pad 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 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 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 coneept 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 ryAtikL tk E 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: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 2008 WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon, Date: r rch 24, 2008 Community Development Director COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff 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 13PC. Community Development Staff disagree with this perspective and believe that work may only proceed if found by 11PC to be in conformance with the guidelines. BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption of Ordinance 448, 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 staffs understanding that the Institute believes that these projects are not subject to Ordinance#48, which staff 1 disputed in a previous Code Interpretation, and the Institute believes that, to the extent Ordinance 1148 is applicable. FIPC'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 Iistoric 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 IIPC 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 IIPC 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 Iistoric Preservation Commission. The referenced code section is the City's entire historic preservation program, which describes the kinds of development over which IIPC has purview, the review criteria, and the procedures for review. In no case is 11PC's decision in these matters advisory. The language of Ordinance it/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 IIPC 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 Hendon. 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 26.415.023 Potential Historic Resources The Aspen Institute wishes to appeal the code interpretation of the above dated February 20. 2008 written by Amy Guthrie_ I listoric Preservation Officer. As set forth in the Aspen Institutes prior memorandum dated January 29. 2008. the Institute feels the Community Development Offices interpretation of Ordinance #48 & Exhibit A being "all inclusive- and encompassing all buildings and grounds on the total 40 acres (I.ots IA & I l3) 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 clarity 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 P11 970.925.7010 EX 970.925.4188 www.aspeninstitote.org ■ 13endoniNl amo.A ppcullnstiune \ ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE r ' ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: it/7g ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I f6N04-f 49/2/L zEr.g—; 67ccy'r''f,200 STATE OF COLORADO ) Sc. County of Pitkin I, N ci Z H C-c> (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 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 S�--� The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 4,- day • of Pg-t L , 200 b, by 't c� Sc o tr Ez / a, 5 nes Weekl� I PUBLIC NOTICE WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL II RE: APPEA OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF ORDI- NANCE 448,SERIES OF 2007n APPEAL TO CRY 1 COUNCIL My commission expires: �) Ii o II o20 l b NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing n • will be held on Monday,April 28,2008,at a meet - �( \ ing to begin at 5:00 pm'.before the Aspen City \ (ILA \t`( Cil n Council,Council Chambers,Cty Hall,130 5. (ILA �! 0 l2 Galena St.,Aspen,to heer,on'appeal of the Notary Public 4 Community Development Director's Interpretation . L. of elements of Ordinance 448.Series of 2007 by the Aspen Institute,1000 N.Third Slreel,Aspen, CO 8161 t,represented by Jim Curtis. For further information,contact Amy Guthrie at the City f Galena Community Development Dept_130 �O,�Pi y PUS, S.GalenaeSt.,Aspen,CO(970)429.2758,(or amyg @ci.aspen co.us(, ,. 1 s/Michael C.Ireland,Mayor • '� Aspen City Council LAURA Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on April 13, • t`w Fes` •a• l 2008.(1397307) ATTACHMENTS: ,, MEYER °>L••....••c9p COPY OF THE PUBLICATION � .-0\- • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGumt i?&iN1 Hnnirpg 081101 2010 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL • L, . i Amy Guthrie From: Jim Curtis Ucurtis @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 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, #48. 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; 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" and 3id 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 Reaular Medina 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 Meeting 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. Margenun 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 modem 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 Hoist said he supports historic preservation which leads to a viable economic community. Historic preservation is about scale and massing. Hoist 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 Sleeker, to November 13th 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 To: Aspen City Council 11 From: Amy Margerum, The Aspen Institute THE ASPEN INSTITUTE CC: Community Development Office Amy Margerum City Attorney Office Date: April 21, 2008 Executive Vice President Operations Re: Aspen Institute—Ordinance#48 Appeal & Clarification Corporate Secretary 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& 1B). 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 1B (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 1000 North Third Street 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 Aspen,Colorado 81611 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 P11 970.544.7905 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" FX 970.544.7908 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 www.aspeninstitute.org 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. 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 x Lit k 11LO MEMORANDUM -k7) \r ( TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council 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#48, 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 #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. 1 frg 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. Staffs 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 28th 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 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. (4.04— In analyzing the code, it was clear to the Director that throughout the creation of Ordinance dz3 #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 {S( lengthy and heavily covered public meetings during which the concept of a list, and the `e/4 implications of being on the list, were discussed. The Aspen Institute participated in that Cu 6d 4 process and presented their objections to City Council, who did not elect to amend the ordinance in response. `/,yv,er. 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 Lit' ' that could have a negative result. GAS( ,, Two RESOLUTIONS: OU yU Lc ft 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 h}s LP authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses the interpretation. L� y� / RECOMMENDATION: 5U Staff believes the Director's interpretation was rendered ethically and that no abuse of) [ O0 ' 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." 3 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 20th, 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 3rd, 2008 Exhibit H—Affidavit of notice Exhibit I- Applicant's waiver of mailed notice requirement Exhibit J- Council minutes of November 12, 2007 4 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 Directof 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 ook APPROVED by the Aspen City Council on , 2008. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland,Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2008. Page 2 RESOLUTION NO._, (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 fmds 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 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 , 2008. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2008. Page 2 till 1 71C 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 of Adjustment. 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 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 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: 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`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 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 22'd day of October, 2007. // 'C Michael C.Ireland,Ma or ATTEST: Kathryn'K ,City Clerk FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this Iiiglay of 1)&4.,, 2007. zaVeri chae C. Ireland,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Kos' City Clerk 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.Sleeker 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 18151"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 0911"W 288.99 FT TO THE NW COR OF BLK 64TH 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-I & 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:I2-10-85, TRACT OF LAND IN SW4 (ALSO SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOT 9) SEC 12-10-85 DESC BY M/B BK 385 PG 357 & 1RACT 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 Lisl: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: 27371 82 1 2003, 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 & 0 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-I. 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 1A. 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 IA & Lot 1B, Aspen Meadows. The total property is approximately 40 ac. & Exhibit A further describes Lots 1A & 1B as follows: • Lot lA 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 & 1B, 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 lA is further described as "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr-Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture & Gardens" and Lot 1B 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 AspC ityCounci lMemo Ordin ance#48 1 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 lA —Reception Center/ Restaurant, Health Center, and Marble Garden Grounds and Sculptures. Lot 1B —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 1A, 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 I CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources EFFECTIVE DATE: February 20, 2008 WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon, Date: February 20, 2008 Community Development Director COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff 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 1A. 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 1B 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 teinrinate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with 1 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 1A, the note states "area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doer Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens" and for Lot lB 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 IA 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 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 12th 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 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. Staffs 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 #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 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 I 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 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 Bendbn; Sara Adams Subject: Changes to historic designations Hi Amy-I don't know how much you have been following the discussion about the City �nninnno 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 rl rt o/nnno • Page 1 of 2 1 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: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: 26.415.025, Potential Historic Resources EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 2008 WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie, IHistoric Preservation Officer APPROVED BY: _a' I Chris Bendon, Date: r 4rch 24, 2008 Community Development Director COPIES TO: City Attorney, City Planning staff 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 staffs understanding that the Institute believes that these projects are not subject to Ordinance #48, which staff 1 - 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 #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 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 #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 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 Staffs 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 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 I A & I 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.aspenin stitute.org ■ Ben donMemoAppealln stitute 4 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /1t7fi ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: lGN4)A-/ i2/L 2g— cl0/2 "i,200g- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin I IfiN f1 S a elf (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 Depaitu,ent, 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. • Sie The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowledged before me this /4- day of 11-Pgi L , 200 5, by ,¢yam cc-to, Sc o eE7 I AmAi nes Weeky I PUBLIC NOTICE 'WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE: APPEA OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF ORDI- NANCE ' I ao r^ #48,SERIES OF 2007n APPEAL TO CITY My commission expires: 02 a ( ao ) b COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing /i • will be held i on Monday,April 2r,2008,al a meey \ 1(Y ing to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen 0ity ` J , `/\W,., Galena, t. Asp n.to hear an a Hall,130 S. I Go Community,Aspen.Development Director's an appeal Interpretation the Notary PUbIIC of elemens of Ordinance#48,Serie of 00]by the Aspen Institute,1000 N.Third Street,Aspen, CO 81611,represented by Jim Curtis. For further information,contact Amy Guthne at the . City of Aspen Community Development Dept 130 OK:1•• SI p^)�� S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO(970)429-2]58,(or r amyg@cLaspen.co.us)• ..o......^,�/• s/Michael C.Ireland.Mayor �'^ Aspen City Council • LAURA 2008.(¢x73071 epannmesWeekly anAprnl3, ATTACHMENTS: MEYER j Publsh din the ". COPY OF THE PUBLICATION `3F cat- PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SKIN umr issixl expires 08110f2010 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL Amy Guthrie From: Jim Curtis Ucurtis @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 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 gamer 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, #48. 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; 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. Hendon 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 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 Meeting 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 modem 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 Hoist said he supports historic preservation which leads to a viable economic community. Historic preservation is about scale and massing. Hoist 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. Wile 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. Rothe 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 defmitions 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 aoc- 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 I-IPC 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 13th 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 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: /1/7 �./ ,Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I tONDi4'-/ AVIL 2&(C+' C'C,p0-i,200g STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin 11yt) A Sc-o 72-e if (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 Depattruent, 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. cS) Signs re The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice"was acknowled ed before me this /4- day of Magi/- , 2008", by • i'��e_e �COeL nes Weekrr'i PUBLIC NOTICE 'WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE'. APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS INTERPRETATION OF ORDI- NANCE#48,SERIES OF 20070 APPEAL TO CITY P (1 a 'aO 000NCIL My commission expires: (� !/ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing . will be held on Monday.April 20,2008,at a meet- ing to begin at 5:00 p.m.before the Aspen City '(\(^ Council,Council Chambers,City Hall,130 S. A a ( R D ('�/i Galena St.,Aspen,to hear an appeal of the Notary Public lJ Community elements of Ordinance#48,series Interpretation 200 by Institute, the Aspen CO Si 11,represeted by Jim Curtis.1000 0 Street,Aspen. For further f mation,contact Amy Guthrie at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept.,130 S.Galena St. Aspen,CO(970)429-2758.(or �O`P V pU'if,, amyg@cLaspen.co.us). ` 5/Michael C.Ireland,Mayor • •�'n h Aspen City Council I Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on April 13, LAURA ,r. 2008.(1391307) ATTACHMENTS: * MEYER 'a• COPY OF THE PUBLICATION - 3FGpt • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGl� i3u ' cz�ires 08/10/2010 LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL dik 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.i Your Land Use Application is complete: I f 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, C f 1 \ ennifer Ph IIMI Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\Desktop\organized\G Drive\Templates\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc 0 01 i - 200S. I—LA ATTACHMENT 2—LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: ✓�,,� jf,�//�� Name: lib . "i1 4 � m !131/ t Gf/✓vC:t�Ur Location: leI ill fr � ( Wf✓ • (Indi ate s eet address, IX&bldck number, legal desc lotion wher- ap.ropriate) Parcel ID#(REQUIRED) ^M SZwT/�EF arallIFYIIMELENZAMVAITIM REPRESENTATIVE: , Name: Mg 1S Address: , ,r if .WAti 'w (f / . Phone#: . ( ' PROJECT: Name: rr/.�.�rg 1'�l�iEW,,l -/ TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD(&PUB 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 ', "1 i 61(.. 10 Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use er: , .(��,I�( -1 A ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment '- 1 , ` "'r + EXISTING�CCONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings,uses,previous approvals,etc.) PROPOS : (descrippption.fprop..edbuildings,uses,�mod,ific. ions,etc.) ' 0 n ) 1 i J 0-1 9 e � 1 , �/ II• i A6 CO Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: S I ❑ Pr -Application Conference Summary I0/61 #1, Signed Fee Agreement ❑ Response to Attachment#3,Dimensional Requirements Form OA I� ❑ Response to Attachment#4, Submittal Requirements-Including Written Responses to Review Standards '/ 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. CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A t reement for Pa ment ,of,Ci of As.^en Devel. . e A A. I lication Fees CITY OF ASPEN(hereinafter CITY) and V A O f e 14 '( ir& (hereinafter APPLICANT)AGREE AS FOLLOW : i 7� _ 1,I AST r� s .mitt dtEFATY 'diQrh r 1 I T �'�1/ Wr'tC I-T ` 7 n (he after,T PROJECT). ,'. ft to,ii 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 recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review 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: By: LW1 &' , 9t l gl it Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Mailing Address: rre4, "feNli 69, 1916( 1 g:\support\forms\agrp ayas.doc 1/10/01 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 camyg@ci.aspen.co.us> Cc: Jennifer Phelan <jenniferp @ci.aspen.co.us> (" 2 Attachments, 160 KB i Save a ` 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. Bap 1.doc(133 KB)Edge 2.doc(27.0 KB) RECEIVED APR 2 2 £uuo 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 Re: Aspen Institute—Ordinance#48 Appeal &Clarification Corporate Secretary 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 1 A (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr-Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture & Gardens) & Lot 1B (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.aspenittstitute.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 Aspen 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