HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.1000 N 3rd St.0009.2008.ASLU THE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER 0009.2008.ASLU
PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 121 29 809
PROJECTS ADDRESS 1000 N. THIRD ST
PLANNER JENNIFER PHELAN
CASE DESCRIPTION CODE INTERPRETATION
REPRESENTATIVE JIM CURTIS
DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3.24.08
CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 3/09/10
:,I Permits t. I
File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help
'iTri i s2 _ . c 1 3J ._7 L d' 11 A 7 =j `J°% Jump 1 t, eA v) e/
69 do . ._' Clear
o. Main;Routing Status ';Fee Summary '-Actions Routing History
c Permit Type Permit It 10009.2008.A5LU
ti Address 11000 N THIRD ST _ Apt/Suite!
o City ASPEN Stale CO - Zip 181611
Permit Information
__
Master Permit j LI Routing Queue laslu07 Applied 02/04/2008 J
F
z Project _ Status 'pending Approved J
m
Description CODE INTERPRETATION Issued I
Final ( J
Submitted pH CURTIS 9201395 w Clock,Running Days F------6 Expires 101/29/2009 _
Owner_.......
Last Name ASPEN INSTITUTE INC J First Name PO BOX 222
OUEENTOWN MD 21650
Phone 1
i✓ Owner Is Applicant?
Applicant
Last Marne[ASPEN INSTITUTE INC 2 First Name r PO BOX 222
OUEENTOWN MD 21650
Phone I Curl It 125696 J
Lender _ _. _..... _...
Last Name! J First Name!
Phone
Enter the submitted by information Aspen6old(b) Record 2 of
l
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: March 24, 2008
WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
APPROVED BY: _ Chris Bendon,
Date: N .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 HPC. Community
Development Staff disagree with this perspective and believe that work may only proceed
if found by HPC to be in conformance with the guidelines.
BACKGROUND: City Council held numerous public hearings to discuss the adoption
of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007. This Ordinance created new regulations to address
Aspen properties that do not currently have historic landmark protection, but are believed
to be "Potential Historic Resources." Throughout the ordinance, the intention to provide
"protection" and to "prevent the loss (and) limit the detrimental effect of development,"
is stated.
Ordinance #48 is expected to terminate once an appointed Task Force makes new policy
recommendations to City Council. Meanwhile, affected properties may not proceed with
alterations unless the work is approved by Staff or HPC, or the owner enters into a
negotiation process with City Council to discuss preservation options.
The Aspen Institute currently proposes alterations to Paepcke Auditorium and
construction of a new tent known as the Greenwald Pavilion. It is staff's understanding
that the Institute believes that these projects are not subject to Ordinance #48, which staff
1
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
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
Executive Vice-President O
FROM: Amy Margerum, E Operations
p
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: February 20, 2008
WRITTEN BY: Amy Guthrie,
Historic Preservation Officer
APPROVED BY: 0;149---1 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 IA.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of seminar buildings): Parcel Id:
273512129809, Legal Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 1 B.
The Institute objects to Community Development Staff's interpretation that the entirety
of Lots IA and lB 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 IA, 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 forms of basic maintenance.
The applicant also inquires why the MAA parcel was not included in Ordinance #48. In
terms of structures, this site does not contain any that have been identified as historically
significant yet (both the tent and Harris Hall are recent construction). To fully address
the historic qualities of the entire Meadows area, the MAA parcel should be discussed for
designation as the Task Force effort moves forward.
Staff's opinion, as reflected in the writing of Ordinance #48, Series of 2007, is that a
great deal of the historic and architectural significance of the Aspen Institute property is
the integrity of the campus as a whole. While it is a large parcel, there is precedence for
regulating the preservation of an area of this size; for instance the downtown historic
district is approximately 31 acres. It is very important to provide formal Historic
Preservation Commission review for work that affects the landmark structures at the
Institute, as well as proposed new construction, which, if not thoughtfully evaluated,
could disrupt or destroy historic value.
INTERPRETATION
Staffs interpretation is that the entirety of the properties listed below are affected
by Ordinance #48. The parenthetical comment is provided for reference only.
Comments shown in parentheses are generally understood to be amplifying words,
independent of the surrounding grammatical structure.
1000 N. Third St., Aspen Institute (area of Trustee Townhomes, Health Club, Doerr
Hosier, Restaurant, Sculpture and Gardens: Parcel Id: 273512129008, Legal
Description: ASPEN MEADOWS, LOT 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 lamy.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 Bender; Sara Adams
Subject: Changes to historic designations
Hi Amy- I don't know how much you have been following the discussion about the City
•
2/19/2008
Message Page 2 of 2
preventing any alterations to buildings at least 30 years old until it has been determined
whether or not they have historic significance (Ordinance #30.) You may know that
Council has directed our office to narrow the scope of the Ordinance so that, instead of
applying to everything at least 30 years old, the law would only apply to a specific list of
properties that our staff feels afe potentially eligible landmarks. We have created the list
and released it at the HPC meeting last night. It will be published in the paper shortly and
we are sending out letters to the affected property owners to let everyone know this is under
discussion. P&Z will look at this on Oct. 2nd and City Council will have a major
discussion on Oct. 22nd.
I wanted to give you notice that the list includes the concept of designating the whole
Institute Campus. Pretty much every landmark site we have in the City right now was
adopted based on the legal description of the entire property, so that HPC has purview over
the setting of the historic building. The Institute fought that concept 12 or so years ago and
Council agreed to just name specific structures (i.e. Townhomes, Health Club, Restaurant,
Marble Gardens and other Bayer landscapes.) Our concern with this is twofold. First, there
are a number of other important resources at the Institute (i.e. the Fuller dome, the
Kaleidoscreen,Paepcke Auditorium, Koch, and Boettcher) that have no formal protection.
Second, the setting, landscape, and campus nature of the property is part of the most
important aspect of its historic significance.
Again, you will get more info in the mail, but I want to be sure you know what is going on
asap. Happy to discuss with you. Changing the designation to cover the campus as a whole
would mean HPC would have purview over any significant landscape changes as well as
any new structures. You have generally offered that as a courtesy in the past anyway.
Amy Guthrie
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Officer
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(p) 970-429-2758 (f) 970-920-5439
www.aspenpitkin.com
2/19/2008
a. .
MEMORAN
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 lA & 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
AspCityCouncilMemoOrdin ance#48 1
dW
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 fords 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
4
` THE CITY OF ASPEN
Land Use Application
Determination of Completeness
Date: February 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 0009.2008.ASLU (Aspen Institute/Interpretation). 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.
XIYour Land Use Application is complete:
f there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete
to begin the land use review process. An interpretation shall be rendered by February 20,
2008.
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.
Thank You,
- ifer Phew, Deputy Director
City of Aspen, Community Development Department
C:\Documents and Settings\jennifep\Desktop\organized\G Drive\Templates\Completeness Letter Land Use.doc